# About The Whole Minors And Sex Issue



## Kane (Sep 3, 2006)

I apologize for not being able to continuously reply to the thread concerning minors and sex. I of course became really busy with other things and by the time I came back the thread was closed. I still think many of you are misunderstanding what I' was trying to say and as a result I received tons of negative rep. But I will try to explain the best I can to avoid confusion.

First off, being against government legislation doesn't mean you are for something nor does it make you something. In other words, being against the war on drugs doesn't make me a drug addict. Nor does it mean I advocate the use of something hard like heroin (although I'm for legalization, I think anyone that uses heroin is a fool that will destroy his or her own life). I'm also pro-choice up until birth, but I find the idea of partial birth abortion somewhat wrong. I am also strongly against any laws on nearly all weapons (except WMDs). That doesn't mean I advocate people getting into gun fights at every corner (nor does it mean that I myself get into gun fights at any corner). I think all laws concerning prostitution should be abolished as well. This doesn't mean I'm for people going around town having unprotected sex with a hooker all the time (as what the government thinks people will do if prostitution was legal).

No, wanting less government interference doesn't mean you advocate everything you think should be legal. If this were true then you might as well call our founding fathers the same thing you would like to call me (a "drug addict gun totting pedophile" or whatever) because their politics where very similar to my own.

Although I'm not an anarchist (I'm more of a minarchist) how do you view anarchists? I know the government paints them as people who want to destroy government so that they can rape, murder, and pillage everyone. This can be no further from the truth. Most anarchists are peaceful people that view the government as a coercive force that tries to take away our freedom. They believe that humans don't need government and that people should instead govern themselves. They also believe that voluntarism is far better than government coercion. Obviously with no government you would think murder, theft, fraud, and even the sacred evil cow 'pedophilia' would be legal. And the idea of that kicks the intolerance out of people. But to an anarchist murder, theft, ect. wouldn't be as high as many people think and may in fact be less. They too are against murder, theft, ect. as we are but they believe the goodness of man will prevent all these things as long as there is no government.

Because both modern conservatism and modern liberalism is so heavily based on the principles of statism, it seems that many people have forgotten freedom and liberty. In this country it has almost become "If you are against something, you HAVE TO be for its prohibition". Anarchists, minarchists, libertarians, and classical liberals (such as our founding fathers) don't look at the world this way. People that advocate liberty know that every individual has their own beliefs and that no one should force their beliefs upon others. Many of these liberty-oriented people also believe that initiation of force is the only moral sin in the world but that nearly all other issues of life can be debated upon but never illegal.

With that said, I should let you all know that I do think that it is wrong for someone under 15 to engage in sex. People younger than this usually don't have the experience needed to engage in safe sex and to use protection. However this is MY opinion! Since pedosexuality doesn't necessarily involve force if it is voluntary, I don't think it should be left in the government's hand because I don't believe this to be the function of government (I look at this as the function of parents). It doesn't mean I'm for inexperienced minors under 15 having sex, nor do I think people should consume heroin even though I am for its legalization.

I hope you all now understand where I coming from and if you have anymore questions just ask. I will try to reply to as many replies as I can but there is no guarantee I can reply to this thread forever .


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 3, 2006)

There is no such thing as anarchy. Leaving the laws to a family by family basis means that the children of any given family may not interact with the children of other families without a conflict arising; so, social standards are come to by sense of community. The parameters defining what is normal are enforced by that community. We call this process a government by the people for the people. If enough people get toguether and decide the age of consent for their daughters then so be it; you have been governed. As a Side not Heroine is no more dangerous than any other opiate in its purest form. The lack of regulation in its distribution is the problem.
Sean


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 3, 2006)

Kane

I do not want to get into this again, but if I have to I will. Anarchists, Heroin addiction and pedophilia are 3 entirely different things and the existence of one does not justify the other nor have anything to do with the other.

Also from your previous post your initial point seemed to be based on calling someone a sexual predator and that you did not believe that they were a predator because force was not involved.

Predator
1) An organism that lives by preying on other organisms. 
2) One that victimizes, plunders, or destroys, especially for one's own gain

Force is not even part of the definition.

Also and this is only my opinion but it is best to let sleeping dogs lye and move on because this already appears to me to be inflammatory and destine for a moderator lock. 

But it is a free country so whatever.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 3, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:


> But it is a free country so whatever.



Heh, hardly.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 3, 2006)

ANY way you slice it, say it, rationalize it, justify it, minimialize it ... sex between an adult and a minor is WRONG! Your own heart deep down inside should tell you this ... if you'd only knew how to listen to it.


----------



## Ceicei (Sep 3, 2006)

There is this paragraph from this article that kind of stood out to me:

"Every human being, no matter the age, should be allowed to have consenting mutual sexual relations with anyone they wish," wrote a man calling himself Venn. "All age of consent laws must, and forever, be abolished."

I do not see how anyone can morally agree with that premise, but I guess there are people who do believe in that.

The rest of the article is linked below:

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645195948,00.html

Much of the article deals with how people interact online.  The last half of the article talks about the mindset, how that view may be developed.

- Ceicei


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 3, 2006)

Ceicei said:


> There is this paragraph from this article that kind of stood out to me:
> 
> "Every human being, no matter the age, should be allowed to have consenting mutual sexual relations with anyone they wish," wrote a man calling himself Venn. "All age of consent laws must, and forever, be abolished."
> 
> ...


Kinda makes you want to train harder in the martial arts doesn't it? As a parent of a four year old girl, I find myself not wanting to finish that article.
Sean


----------



## Lisa (Sep 3, 2006)

*MODERATOR NOTE:*

The previous thread on this subject resulted in multiple RTM's to the moderating staff.  

That being said, we do not wish to censor any kind of thoughtful discussion on this subject.  However, consider this a prewarning that should we see the thread heading down the same direction as its predecessor and be the cause of multiple RTM's it will be shut down without any further warnings or explanations.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Lisa Deneka
MartialTalk Super Moderator


----------



## tshadowchaser (Sep 3, 2006)

IMHO

if this thread had been titled "Anarchists, minarchists, libertarians, and classical liberals"  it would have been a great discussion.

I think the child sex thread covered about all ideas that can be said so lets not just rehash old thoughts


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 3, 2006)

His obsession with the topic is disturbing.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 3, 2006)

Ceicei said:


> There is this paragraph from this article that kind of stood out to me:
> 
> "Every human being, no matter the age, should be allowed to have consenting mutual sexual relations with anyone they wish," wrote a man calling himself Venn. "All age of consent laws must, and forever, be abolished."
> 
> ...


 
Like I said it is inflammatory and I will add just plain wrong. If one is attempting to make an argument for anarchism might I suggest you not use pedophilia for that stance. I am a parent and I absolutely guarantee this thread will go bad and fast if you pursue this from that angle. If you want to talk anarchists then that could be interesting, but starting in with pedophilia again is just showing your looking to stir things up and start a fight. 

I am going to do my best to be entirely done with this tread because basically, as stated it is just wrong, but I make no promises.


----------



## Ceicei (Sep 3, 2006)

Ok, so what is Kane's argument from his title and opening post?  Was it to bring up a different issue to discuss?  I have nothing more to say.


----------



## Kane (Sep 3, 2006)

> There is no such thing as anarchy. Leaving the laws to a family by family basis means that the children of any given family may not interact with the children of other families without a conflict arising; so, social standards are come to by sense of community. The parameters defining what is normal are enforced by that community. We call this process a government by the people for the people. If enough people get toguether and decide the age of consent for their daughters then so be it; you have been governed. As a Side not Heroine is no more dangerous than any other opiate in its purest form. The lack of regulation in its distribution is the problem.
> Sean



  What gives the community the right to infringe on the rights of individuals? What you are talking about maybe what our current system is but our current system is far from perfect. With the war on drugs (especially on a drug more minor than weed and arguably even more so than alcohol), states ignoring the constitution (such as a 2nd Amendment right to have guns, swords, and other self defense tools), as well as prostitution (has no business in government hands); do you really think our government really knows what is right for all people? Thomas Jefferson would object.

   I cannot believe that our country is even moving to ban flag burning. I love this country, always have and always will. But it is our first amendment right to do what we want with our property. And yet government wants to take some of our rights away to our property. And now with insanities like eminent domain, the government can take your land away. What would happen if this so called "government by the people" came by and took your property away for the "common good"? How would you and your children get by?

   BTW, why is it legal to beat your child? It seems like beating your child is looked at with less disdain that the "evil sacred cow".





> Kane
> 
> I do not want to get into this again, but if I have to I will. Anarchists, Heroin addiction and pedophilia are 3 entirely different things and the existence of one does not justify the other nor have anything to do with the other.
> 
> ...





 By the definition you provided many people can be considered predators. Why aren't people who physically beat the living hell out of their kids called predators? Why is sex criminalized more than violence in our country? Before we criminalize pedosexuality we need to criminalize pedoviolence. Maybe that is why the laws aren't so severe in other Western nations and unions like Canada and the EU.

You know though, in the 19th century it was considered predatory for a non-white male to have sex with a white woman. Often times these white women were looked as victims and the non-white men as predators. What do you have to say about that? Homosexuality has been classified as a mental disease for most of our history until very recently.

Heroin addiction, anarchists, pedophilia being entirely different things has nothing to do with my point. Re-read my post carefully.

What do you mean by "I do not want to get into this again, but if I have to I will?" Are you going to lay the smack down on me for having a different opinion? I don't mean any offence, I just want you to know that I intend this topic to not become heated. If we can engage in a rational discussion no lock-ups would be needed .

Peace.



> Heh, hardly.



I totally agree 1000%!



> ANY way you slice it, say it, rationalize it, justify it, minimialize it ... sex between an adult and a minor is WRONG! Your own heart deep down inside should tell you this ... if you'd only knew how to listen to it.



Weren't you the one that said that all drugs should be banned except alcohol, even marijuana? Do you know how much worse alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine are compared to weed. Simply put, no one has ever died from marijuana use. On the contrary alcohol has destroyed many lives and families (and has even lead to pedophilia!). Alcohol makes some men come home and beat their wives! As for caffeine, well there have been a few human deaths from overdose. Where as with weed you can't get physically addicted and it's virtually impossible to overdose on it (you can only in insane amounts which has virtually never happened). Don't take my word on it, do the research yourself. And the War On Drugs is far worse than alcohol prohibition (single drug prohibition).

Don't mean to go off-topic, but I hope you see my point. It seems like you buy into government too much. Before we can ever even get into discussion on pedophilia, you need to conquer other insanities the government has produced (no offence intended there, all I'm saying is that you need to read more neutral sources and not ones with the government up their *** ).

As for pedosexuality, again I think that any young person engaging in sex is wrong because they are far too inexperienced to handle sex (I'm not saying all people under 15, but most). I don't need the evil big brother government telling me that, it's just simple common sense. But that is my opinion and I would never force my opinion on other people (unless it has to do with the initiation  force, a common universal moral sin).



> There is this paragraph from this article that kind of stood out to me:
> 
> "Every human being, no matter the age, should be allowed to have consenting mutual sexual relations with anyone they wish," wrote a man calling himself Venn. "All age of consent laws must, and forever, be abolished."
> 
> ...



Some people do, and they should have the right to morally agree with any premise they want. Imagine things from their world and you would understand (I'm not saying you don't, I'm saying in general people have to open their minds). I know people today that think homosexuality is wrong and that they should be put to death. Such people have probably never opened their minds. In fact this is the law in many muslim countries and if folks like Pat Robertson got into power they would do the same in this country. 

There generally seems to be more tolerance for death penality concerning pedosexuals, in some cases more than murderers! This IMHO is insane! Then again my mother a long time ago once told me "Pedophilia is more immoral than running over 10 people with your car!" WTF?



> Kinda makes you want to train harder in the martial arts doesn't it? As a parent of a four year old girl, I find myself not wanting to finish that article.
> Sean



You should finish the article, it has a lot of useful information in understanding the mindset of a pedosexual (please don't get angry at my tolerance ).


----------



## Kane (Sep 3, 2006)

> IMHO
> 
> if this thread had been titled "Anarchists, minarchists, libertarians, and classical liberals" it would have been a great discussion.
> 
> I think the child sex thread covered about all ideas that can be said so lets not just rehash old thoughts



Maybe we should. Perhaps this discussion might head that direction. I don't know.



> His obsession with the topic is disturbing.



Well I started an earlier thread on the topic, and nearly all of the MT members that visit The Study totally misunderstood my intention. So I had to make this thread to set the record straight if you know what I mean.



> Like I said it is inflammatory and I will add just plain wrong. If one is attempting to make an argument for anarchism might I suggest you not use pedophilia for that stance. I am a parent and I absolutely guarantee this thread will go bad and fast if you pursue this from that angle. If you want to talk anarchists then that could be interesting, but starting in with pedophilia again is just showing your looking to stir things up and start a fight.
> 
> I am going to do my best to be entirely done with this tread because basically, as stated it is just wrong, but I make no promises.



  I'm not anarchist but...........

   But don't you find something wrong with all this? If I was to start a thread on an argument for anarchism and stated that people can get along and won't kill each other, people would have gotten less pissed at me. Where as I bring up the sacred cow of pedophilia and the whole world turns somewhat fearful and bigoted. But honestly, is pedophilia really that much worse than murder? Maybe I was raised wrong, I don't know. Actually my parents were more of the sex is worse than violence bunch so I don't think that's the reason. But why is it easier to talk about people cooperating without murder than it is with people cooperating with no pedophilia? I just can't put my finger on it.




> Ok, so what is Kane's argument from his title and opening post? Was it to bring up a different issue to discuss? I have nothing more to say.



I've answered this question already .


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 3, 2006)

Kane said:


> But honestly, is pedophilia really that much worse than murder?


Yes, Kane.  It is.

The mind at that age just is not prepared for all that comes with the sexual act and tends to do odd, strange things as coping mechanisms.  This can subject the individual to a lifetime of sexual deviance, social disorders, misplaced loyalty, skewed personality, multiple personalities and leave the person with symptoms akin to ADHD, bipolar-type disorders, memory dysfunction, etcetera.

Some might consider murder as kinder - the end comes rather than the endless trauma/drama cyclical whirlwind of existence surrounding bad choices, confused sexuality and manipulation.  Others might be happy for the chance to rip their guts out and reclaim their lives.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Sep 3, 2006)

Kane said:


> But honestly, is pedophilia really that much worse than murder?


 
Tell you what Kane.  Do you have any kids? 
Two hopefully, but one and your SO will do if not.
We can sodomize one, and decapitate the other.
You can tell us then which is worse.

Dealing with the destroyed psyche, lost innocence, and ravaged body of the former, while trying to come to grips with the violated body and senseless destruction of the other.

Laws exist, and law enforcement officials exist, because humanity has not, as a whole, yet taken that evolutionary step needed, to remove the need for laws and law enforcers.  Behavior has been criminalized because, those at risk need the protection from those who would prey on them.

Those who would argue for a removal of age laws tend to be those who openly, or quietly, seek an excuse to prey upon those protected by those same laws. Or to justify and excuse finding that forbidden treat desirable.


----------



## Kane (Sep 4, 2006)

shesulsa said:


> Yes, Kane.  It is.
> 
> The mind at that age just is not prepared for all that comes with the sexual act and tends to do odd, strange things as coping mechanisms. This can subject the individual to a lifetime of sexual deviance, social disorders, misplaced loyalty, skewed personality, multiple personalities and leave the person with symptoms akin to ADHD, bipolar-type disorders, memory dysfunction, etcetera.
> 
> Some might consider murder as kinder - the end comes rather than the endless trauma/drama cyclical whirlwind of existence surrounding bad choices, confused sexuality and manipulation. Others might be happy for the chance to rip their guts out and reclaim their lives.


 

 But don't you think that it has to do with the fact that psychologists, family members, and others in the community try to indoctrinate the child that they were abused? What if there was none of this? You know many homosexuals have gone crazy and even have killed themselves. This isn't because they are homosexuals nor does it have anything to do with the fact that they may have a gay lover at school. It has to do with whatever religious bull they have to put up with from people who can't just accept who they are.

Just a question, I don't mean no harm or anything. You have kids, correct? Which do you think is worse for them; being murdered in a most brutal fashion by a killer or the victims of voluntary pedophiles in the most brutal fashion? I personally would prefer my kids alive than dead. 

Peace.


----------



## Kane (Sep 4, 2006)

Edmund BlackAdder said:


> Tell you what Kane.  Do you have any kids?
> Two hopefully, but one and your SO will do if not.
> We can sodomize one, and decapitate the other.
> You can tell us then which is worse.
> ...



Sorry, but I find decapitatation far far worse than the other. But oh well.

Why do you assume man is such a selfish evil creature that laws are needed? I guess we have a different view on the goodness of man.

But you definitley have a point that our world, especially in the US, hasn't reached evolutionary step needed to............accept.

But no, again you are wrong in your belief that people who want to remove laws are for something. People put their faith in such things like government and religion but there are only two things I put my faith on: Reason and Liberty. Perhaps that makes me narrowminded? NAH, I don't think so.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 4, 2006)

Kane said:


> But don't you think that it has to do with the fact that psychologists, family members, and others in the community try to indoctrinate the child that they were abused?


No.  I don't think that.  Because I didn't realize that those rotten feelings I had were the result of anything other than the fact that I was breathing.  When I found out how angry I was, I had to find out why, and guess what I found?  I realized how angry I was at the person who repeatedly molested me.  When I went to therapy, i found out I wasn't the only one like this.

You are essentially endorsing a reprehensible act because you think that ignorance = innocence = purity = wholesomeness.

There is something called the nature/nurture argument which is, I think, what you're trying to engage in your comment.  So ... tell me ... why is it that children the age of four who see nothing good, bad, wrong or otherwise about sexual contact become psychologically wounded permanently?  They have no awareness of the likes of Dr. Phil and what he's spouting off on Channel Six, nor Oprah Winfrey, nor Dr. Schlessinger, nor Dr. Robert Fuller, nor anybody shoving any dogma down their little throats about sex.  So how is it they become damaged?  And how is it that 12 year olds become damaged? and adults become damaged?

Your argument holds no water. 

If you are attempting to argue for libertarianistic society then find another way because this is old and you are treading in waters which you know nothing of.



> You know many homosexuals have gone crazy and even have killed themselves. This isn't because they are homosexuals nor does it have anything to do with the fact that they may have a gay lover at school. It has to do with whatever religious bull they have to put up with from people who can't just accept who they are.


Again, if your argument is against religious dogma, then start another thread regarding this specifically.  No, some gay people find a way to accept their differences and live life.  Some who commit suicide are unhappy being gay (sadly), sometimes inflicted upon their own pysche by themselves.  They may feel that others think less of them or persecute them, but it may or may not be the case.



> You have kids, correct? Which do you think is worse for them; being murdered in a most brutal fashion by a killer or the victims of voluntary pedophiles in the most brutal fashion? I personally would prefer my kids alive than dead.


I don't dare think that I have the right to make that choice.  I can't know what's going to happen next.  Their bodies are their own.  Some rape victims swear that they are only alive because they cooperated.  Others swear that if they had fully cooperated they would have been killed.  Who am I (and who are you) to try to make this decision for my children?  My preference?  To help my child any way I can.  If they die?  I pray it will be fast.  If they are molested? I will do everything I can to help them get past it having been there myself.

Now take your sandbucket to another thread and start one on religious dogma, or make a scientific argument for the raping of minors or shut up.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Sep 4, 2006)

Why do I assume???????

Lets see:
A local cop was murdered by a so called "good man".
A friend of mines mothers truck (which was clearly marked as a humanitarian vehicle used to feed the poor) was stolen.
People who visit poor and impoverished areas and nations must fear for their lives.
...etc etc etc.
I could go on. But I won't.  Humanity are a pack of animals, eating its young and shitting where it eats.

Your arguements however are the same crap that NAMBLA, Asian Sex Tours, and numerous sexual predators have used for decades to justify their hunger for young flesh. You're "let the child decide" argument misses the fact that few children have the capacity for reason, an understanding of the consequences, and an ability to see through the predators charm to make a rational, thought out decision.  Then again, your arguments were used at the turn of the century when child labor laws were put into action that stopped manufacturers and miners from using them for all sorts of dangerous jobs, jobs that left many dead and many others crippled.

So, argue all you want for a repeal of child protection laws. 
We see through that, and see you for what you are, or at least, appear to be.
The harder you "explain", the more we see you as protesting too much, the more we see you as a disruption, a tumor if you will.
And tumors, they get removed eventually.



My view on Man, is that Man is a cancer, and it's extinction would be a welcome relief for this poor planet which is raped daily by it. Where are Cylons when one wants them?


----------



## tradrockrat (Sep 4, 2006)

Kane, for the love of christ stop flapping your gums about a subject you have no practical knowledge in.  This pseudo intellectual debate is pointless.




> But honestly, is pedophilia really that much worse than murder?


  It is equally as bad at least.  It is a life sentence of pain, shame and anguish, not to mention the very real psychosis that Shesula told you about.



> But don't you think that it has to do with the fact that psychologists, family members, and others in the community try to indoctrinate the child that they were abused? What if there was none of this? You know many homosexuals have gone crazy and even have killed themselves. This isn't because they are homosexuals nor does it have anything to do with the fact that they may have a gay lover at school. It has to do with whatever religious bull they have to put up with from people who can't just accept who they are.


  Oh where to start.

1. many children are discovered to have been abused due to their resultant behavior.  The behavior doesn't start _*after*_ the crime is discovered.  This is well known and simple to understand.  Somehow you missed it.

2.All Homosexual suicides are due to religious intolerance????  Says who?  You?  Forgive me if I disagree. How about the ones who are victims of pedophilia that literally drive them into the lifestyle due to the massive trauma they've experienced and tend to reproduce and perpetuate throughout their lives through abusive homosexual relationships.  Could that be an occasional reason?  We see this all the time as young teens begin to try to experiment with sexual activities among peers after being victims of same sex pedophilia - which IS NOT HOMOSEXUALITY!  It is Pedophilia and you might just have your *** handed to ya (pun intended) if you were to imply differently around a gay man or woman.  They take this issue very seriously. Statments such as this prove to me beyond a doubt that you are hoplessly mired in an idylic, intellectual debate completely removed from reality.  Need more examples of this?



> Why do you assume man is such a selfish evil creature that laws are needed? I guess we have a different view on the goodness of man.


  DUDE! WTF? Your'e telling me that despite all historical evidence to the contrary, man never needed rules to help him live in harmony with his neighbors?  We just LET Hamurabi rule us despite that it was of no benefit?  It's a coincidence that one of the oldest writtings in the world is a list of rules to avoid problems? Figure it out, if everyone is free to do what they want - they will - this has happened all through out our history as a species and it is still happening now.  Historical fact. no matter what it may have become, origionally rules were WHY we were able to accomplish this thing called society and rise above the rest of the animals.




> If I was to start a thread on an argument for anarchism and stated that people can get along and won't kill each other, people would have gotten less pissed at me.


  Less pissed?  Maybe, but I'd still call you hoplessly misguided.  People kill each other all the time, rules or no, and you are advocating letting these people get away with it unless we wish to "kill them back".


One more thing, the "drugs = pedophilia thing"

Drugs kill the user, right?  That's your argument?  Even if this were true, it still shows how delusional you are about this.  *Pedophilia hurts an innocent who never asked for this!!!   *Why can't you accept this truth?


Again I finish my one and only post ont his subject with this - go work with the victims of pedophilia for one week - you will NEVER feel the way you do now again.
And I add - If we did live in a true anarchy I would dedicate my life to whacking pedophiles for a living and I would sleep well.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Sep 4, 2006)

tradrockrat said:


> And I add - If we did live in a true anarchy I would dedicate my life to whacking pedophiles for a living and I would sleep well.


 
Ditto.  Pity we don't.  My blade would make slow work of these scum, for a slow painful death is what they deserve.


----------



## Kane (Sep 4, 2006)

> Now take your sandbucket to another thread and start one on religious dogma, or make a scientific argument for the raping of minors or shut up.



You're getting to emotional in this post. 

Secondly I wasn't talking anything about raping minors as you put it. If you think I have never been in contact with people who have been molested think again. Someone who was very close to me was molested by a priest, and I rather not go too much into it because I promised her that I wouldn't tell anyone. I was very young when it happened, probably a baby. She didn't have any of the emotional support you may have had. She views it as abuse, and I agree with her. But don't start to get all emotional with me as if I don't know what I'm talking about.

In some ways I have been molested too. I was 14.........but I cherished it. Heck I know many rational people that have had sex this young too. No emotional scars. Maybe we went insane by it and that may be the reason I started this whole topic on MT in the first place. Well if I'm insane I guess Canada is as well considering the fact that their age of consent is 13 or 14. I wonder how many less abuse cases they have up there. I don't think it has to do with that they are nothing but "dirty socialist America-wanna be". There are many things we can learn from them in fact.

America is a great country and I would never leave it. But it has its flaws and I'm sure one day it will overcome it.



> My view on Man, is that Man is a cancer, and it's extinction would be a welcome relief for this poor planet which is raped daily by it. Where are Cylons when one wants them?



Unless you are joking, that really means a lot! I believe man is a blessing and can overcome the evil it may have within. Then I guess I'm not the only tumor in this world. If you think man is a tumor then your a tumor too, correct? Might as well be for murder over pedophilia then? I mean tumors and cancers shouldn't exist . If you think man the cancer would destroy each other if there was no government, then why not have no government? It would probably be quicker than Cylons eh?


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 4, 2006)

I would say that you wanted to stir up emotions on this thread. 

I would also say that just because YOU enjoyed your experiences at 14 doesn't mean everyone else does.  

Now ... what was that scientific argument you were going to make for legalizing underage sex again?  Where's that evidence again?


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Sep 4, 2006)

Kane, you are a sick individual.  Why don't you take your "opinion" to a NAMBLA site where it will be applauded.  Your fixation on legalizing child-sex is that of a sick individual. It disgusts me. 

I'm done here. Those that seek to justify or legalize child-sex in my opinion should be put to the sword, their filth surgically removed from the human race, one scum bag at a time.


----------



## Kane (Sep 4, 2006)

> Kane, for the love of christ stop flapping your gums about a subject you have no practical knowledge in. This pseudo intellectual debate is pointless.
> 
> It is equally as bad at least. It is a life sentence of pain, shame and anguish, not to mention the very real psychosis that Shesula told you about.



Heh heh, I know you spit this out before you even gave me a chance to explain. I know more about pedophilia than you can imagine (and considering that fact that many Americans think a 14 year old having sex with an adult is pedophilia, then I guess that makes me a victim of pedophilia).



> Oh where to start.
> 
> 1. many children are discovered to have been abused due to their resultant behavior.  The behavior doesn't start _*after*_ the crime is discovered.  This is well known and simple to understand.  Somehow you missed it.
> 
> 2.All Homosexual suicides are due to religious intolerance???? Says who? You? Forgive me if I disagree. How about the ones who are victims of pedophilia that literally drive them into the lifestyle due to the massive trauma they've experienced and tend to reproduce and perpetuate throughout their lives through abusive homosexual relationships. Could that be an occasional reason? We see this all the time as young teens begin to try to experiment with sexual activities among peers after being victims of same sex pedophilia - which IS NOT HOMOSEXUALITY! It is Pedophilia and you might just have your *** handed to ya (pun intended) if you were to imply differently around a gay man or woman. They take this issue very seriously. Statments such as this prove to me beyond a doubt that you are hoplessly mired in an idylic, intellectual debate completely removed from reality. Need more examples of this?



You are very pompous to suggest what you suggest. Maybe the fact that I have had sex when I was a teen and enjoyed is proof that not all people get emotionally down from it. Maybe that is why Canada as well as many European nations keep lowering the age, eh?

And I didn't say that all homosexuals are victims of abuse. You are trying to nitpick in order to prove something. It doesn't work.



> DUDE! WTF? Your'e telling me that despite all historical evidence to the contrary, man never needed rules to help him live in harmony with his neighbors? We just LET Hamurabi rule us despite that it was of no benefit? It's a coincidence that one of the oldest writtings in the world is a list of rules to avoid problems? Figure it out, if everyone is free to do what they want - they will - this has happened all through out our history as a species and it is still happening now. Historical fact. no matter what it may have become, origionally rules were WHY we were able to accomplish this thing called society and rise above the rest of the animals.



Except government itself has killed more people in the name of the "common good" than no government. Honestly do you really know what you are talking about. Statism rose more than ever the 20th century and look what it did;

Nazi Germany

Stalinst Russia

Kim Jong' Korea

Pol Pot's Caombodia

Imperial Japan

I CAN GO ON AND ON! Tell me who has more evidence?


> Less pissed? Maybe, but I'd still call you hoplessly misguided. People kill each other all the time, rules or no, and you are advocating letting these people get away with it unless we wish to "kill them back".
> 
> 
> One more thing, the "drugs = pedophilia thing"
> ...




If you read my post carefully I clearly stated I was against drug prohibition. Man you are so in the wrong here. The fact I may have been closer to pedophilia to you also says a lot.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Sep 4, 2006)

Ok, so you're admitting you are a pedophile?


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 4, 2006)

Kane said:


> Someone who was very close to me was molested by a priest, and I rather not go too much into it because I promised her that I wouldn't tell anyone.


 Someone who was very close to you?



> I was very young when it happened, probably a baby.


So you found out about this when?



> She didn't have any of the emotional support you may have had.


Emotional support.  Hm.  Is that what it is when people roll their eyes and say, "suuuure..." is supposed to be?  Also, "Well, you must put your faith in God that Jesus will save you from this and we can't always know the Lord's intent" and "Did you know that most sexual abusers were abused themselves?" .... Great emotional support.



> But don't start to get all emotional with me as if I don't know what I'm talking about.


Kane, you DON'T know what you're talking about.  And if you don't want people to get emotional about a very emotional topic ... then ... *don't bring it up.*



> In some ways I have been molested too. I was 14.........but I cherished it. Heck I know many rational people that have had sex this young too. No emotional scars. Maybe we went insane by it and that may be the reason I started this whole topic on MT in the first place. Well if I'm insane I guess Canada is as well considering the fact that their age of consent is 13 or 14. I wonder how many less abuse cases they have up there. I don't think it has to do with that they are nothing but "dirty socialist America-wanna be". There are many things we can learn from them in fact.


This whole statement demonstrates that you have no clue of the ramifications of all that you are spouting.  You are assuming that all consentual sex is healthy sex and that is not necessarily the case.  You are assuming that at your young age and inexperienced station in life that you know all there is to have to know about this.  Try this on for size:  the fact that you cannot absorb the full spectrum of experiences people have at all ages in life on the sexual scale and their feelings about all these things indicates that you HAVE been affected by your too-young experience.  You are accepting of acts which may or may not be healthy or appropriate for all persons 14.  Because you enjoyed your experience, you think everyone else who is not a victim of religious and psychological brainwashing should enjoy it too.


----------



## Kane (Sep 4, 2006)

shesulsa said:


> I would say that you wanted to stir up emotions on this thread.
> 
> I would also say that just because YOU enjoyed your experiences at 14 doesn't mean everyone else does.
> 
> Now ... what was that scientific argument you were going to make for legalizing underage sex again? Where's that evidence again?



Bingo! I enjoyed my experiance with sex when I was 14. You didn't. Just like some people don't enjoy doing something, other people don't enjoy something. So you want to ban it because you had a bad experiance. Do you even take in mind of people who had a good experiance with it? You are sounding very anti-liberty right now if you didn't notice. Some people have bad experiance with drugs. Does that mean all people will have a bad experiance with it? So ban it because some people don't like it. Sounds very statist to me.

Didn't you claim earlier that pedophilia is scientifically proven as damaging as murder? Well I can tell you that myself and many teens when I was a teen cherished the moment more than anything. I guess science has ignored that? Or maybe you ignored that?


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 4, 2006)

Kane said:


> Bingo! I enjoyed my experiance with sex when I was 14. You didn't. Just like some people don't enjoy doing something, other people don't enjoy something. So you want to ban it because you had a bad experiance. Do you even take in mind of people who had a good experiance with it? You are sounding very anti-liberty right now if you didn't notice. Some people have bad experiance with drugs. Does that mean all people will have a bad experiance with it? So ban it because some people don't like it. Sounds very statist to me.


You are trying to use the argument of the case for liberty in America as a crutch.  Again ... where is that scientific evidence you can point to for support in your argument?



> Didn't you claim earlier that pedophilia is scientifically proven as damaging as murder?


No, kiddo.  How can murder be psychologically damaging? Think about it.



> Well I can tell you that myself and many teens when I was a teen cherished the moment more than anything. I guess science has ignored that? Or maybe you ignored that?


Yah - why don't you go find out what else science has to say about sex at that age?

I'm as much for liberty as the next gal.  So ... support your argument.  C'mon, man, link me ... show me the scientific arguments that early sex isn't damaging to some degree.

How old are you, anyway? 14?


----------



## Kane (Sep 4, 2006)

I'm only 21 and am still in college. I don't claim to know everything. All I know, from my own experiance and my reading that sex, at least as a teen, isn't as bad as many of you think. And 14 your inexperianced but unless you were raped or caught an STD (and if you're a guy), abuse isn't likelly. That is why age of consent laws are getting lower in other countries.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Sep 4, 2006)

Ask the thousands in Asia who are sold into prostitution as young as 8 by their families. Wait, you can't because many are killed as soon as they are 'used up' by sick "child sex fans" who travel there for the "fun" of doing a doped up child.

Ask the altar boy who was duped into activity by that well respected community leader. Oh wait, he's too embarased to talk, and afraid if he does that he will be harmed.

Ask the newborn who was ripped open by her moms live in pig. Oh wait, she's not even old enough to crawl yet, much less talk.

But, lets roll back all those laws. Lets let 8 yr olds run combines and plant explosives again while were at it. So what if they get maimed, right?


Why are you still here? At what point, do you and your sickness get voted off this island, swept back into the gutter with the trash?


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Sep 4, 2006)

=============
Mod. Note. 
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Jonathan Randall
-MT Moderator-


----------



## Kane (Sep 4, 2006)

Edmund BlackAdder said:


> Ask the thousands in Asia who are sold into prostitution as young as 8 by their families. Wait, you can't because many are killed as soon as they are 'used up' by sick "child sex fans" who travel there for the "fun" of doing a doped up child.
> 
> Ask the altar boy who was duped into activity by that well respected community leader. Oh wait, he's too embarased to talk, and afraid if he does that he will be harmed.
> 
> ...



Other than the fact you are very bigoted to the extreme end, no where in my post did I advocate forced prostitution to ANYONE, NO MATTER WHAT THE AGE? And the fact that you equate to trash really says a lot about you when I'm trying to have a rational discussion on such a sensitive topic.

And if you notice, I nearly ever, if at all talk about pre-puburty sex. i'm not surprised you missed that.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 4, 2006)

Kane said:


> I'm only 21 and am still in college. I don't claim to know everything. All I know, from my own experiance and my reading that sex, at least as a teen, isn't as bad as many of you think. And 14 your inexperianced but unless you were raped or caught an STD (and if you're a guy), abuse isn't likelly. That is why age of consent laws are getting lower in other countries.


AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH I understand you now.

You're a young college student and you think you're arguing for something you're loving getting a lot more now than you ever did.

Wow. I am TRULY disappointed.

See, *I* thought that you were going to try to make a well-supported argument about the case for liberty in consentual sexual relations in late-aged minors.

*I* thought you were going to argue the case for liberty in comparison to other freedoms and how our liberties are degrading under the current regime and how it might be further affected by the possible future events in this country and with our current foreign policy issues.

*I* thought you would at least take responsibility for these sweeping statements of yours and make appropriate allowances for certain situations and certain people.

But, alas, you haven't.  And now even *I* am questioning why you are still here.

Look, I'm happy for you that you you're happy about your early ... err ... 'accomplishment.'  And for your sake, I hope this feeling remains sincere and pray it's genuine (of course, you'll figure that out later, more than likely).  I also pray for your continued ignorance because clearly, it is bliss.

Goodbye.


----------



## Kane (Sep 4, 2006)

> You are trying to use the argument of the case for liberty in America as a crutch. Again ... where is that scientific evidence you can point to for support in your argument?



I' sure you would dismiss whatever I say as pseudoscience. But perhaps you should send your scientific evidence to Canada and other Western countries that are trying to find the truth.

The truth is actually very similar to what you have even said. Some teens enjoy sex, some don't. Same applies to almost everything else that can be debated. There is evidence both ways. I am an example on where it "pedophilia" turned out be something I learned to live and even cherish when I was so called "molested" when I was 14. While in your experiance it was something completly different. I apologize that your experiance was as bad as it was, it doesn't mean the rest of society has to suffer. And many countries in the West are starting to figure this out.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Sep 4, 2006)

Kane said:


> Other than the fact you are very bigoted to the extreme end, no where in my post did I advocate forced prostitution to ANYONE, NO MATTER WHAT THE AGE? And the fact that you equate to trash really says a lot about you when I'm trying to have a rational discussion on such a sensitive topic.
> 
> And if you notice, I nearly ever, if at all talk about pre-puburty sex. i'm not surprised you missed that.


You are arguing for a removal of age restrictions.
If age restrictions are removed, what will stop someone from taking advantage of those preteens or younger?

I admit, I am a bigot. I hate everyone equally.
I just hate certain people more equally than others.

People who advocate legalizing sex with minors for one.
It's a personal subject, the details none of your business.
But those who take sexual advantage of others deserve to taste cold steel.
I don't care that you enjoyed it, or have convinced yourself that you enjoyed it, or whatever.
I care that others lack the ability to decide for themselves and are forced, enticed, etc into an act that they are not yet mentally ready for, and you, like so many scumbags that I have listened to before, are suggesting removing the limited legal protections and liability that do exist, simply so some horny 21 yr old can shag some clueless teener.

Sorry, doesn't work for me pal.  

So. Cite some scientific studies from Europe. Dig up some verifiable statistics from a reputable scientific journal. Bring up some solid facts. Because if you can't, you are just one more adult seeking an excuse to justify a desire for young flesh. 

So, I will shut up for a bit here. You dig up the facts to back your position.
Because if you can't, you're just another sexual predator, seeking justification for your sick appetites in my book.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 4, 2006)

Many countries in the west can't support the legal system bringing them cases of statutory rape, so they make it easier on the kids and harder on the parents.  It's a cost issue, not some grand enlightenment.

I have previously made the statement that many people, after at least a decade more of living than you've done, look back on those early experiences and find how very little they were ready for sex, even at 18, 19, 20.

Part of adulthood involves the ability to separate the lust for fulfulled fantasy and the results of shaping experiences.


----------



## Kane (Sep 4, 2006)

shesulsa said:


> AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH I understand you now.
> 
> You're a young college student and you think you're arguing for something you're loving getting a lot more now than you ever did.
> 
> ...



No it has nothing to do it that. I think you are merely trying to explain this to get out of a debate you clearly lost.

This has nothing to do with getting with teenage chicks. I prefer people my own age thank you. And no, I still think killing a minor is far far worse than having sex with them.

It's okay. As close friend once told me, this country isn't ready for rational discussion in this area. As time goes this "evil" sacred cow disappear.

So in a sense the hatred that folks like Edmund BlackAdder will die in the future along with silly sex taboos (which is what they are, silly).

Good day!


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Sep 4, 2006)

Kane,
  The Romans and Greeks tried it your way.

Interesting what happened to them.

So. Post your scientific information from these enlightened Western nations. I'll look for it in the morning.

Personally, I hope that the attitude of those who would victimize children will die out, and that those sick bastards who support child sex will suffer great anguish and suffering while dying a long, drawn out and painful death on their way to extinction. Oh, and that I get to watch. I'll bring popcorn.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 4, 2006)

Kane said:


> It's okay. As close friend once told me, this country isn't ready for rational discussion in this area. As time goes this "evil" sacred cow disappear.


Wow.  just .... wow ....

So ... you haven't really had a rational discussion because you have only presented one view and cite no studies supporting your view using the excuse that we would dismiss it as "pseudoscience" which is a piss-poor excuse for not having the evidence to support your stance.

You sound like a typical college student in love with an idea.

See ya.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 4, 2006)

Tell ya what, Kane.

Print this conversation out and put it in an envelope and seal it.  Put it in a memory box and open it in the future on your child's 21st birthday and re-read it.  I wonder how much your view will change.

I am done until you come back to the table with some linked information to support your ideas.


----------



## Kane (Sep 4, 2006)

Edmund BlackAdder said:


> People who advocate legalizing sex with minors for one.
> It's a personal subject, the details none of your business.
> But those who take sexual advantage of others deserve to taste cold steel.
> I don't care that you enjoyed it, or have convinced yourself that you enjoyed it, or whatever.
> I care that others lack the ability to decide for themselves and are forced, enticed, etc into an act that they are not yet mentally ready for, and you, like so many scumbags that I have listened to before, are suggesting removing the limited legal protections and liability that do exist, simply so some horny 21 yr old can shag some clueless teener.



There are many things in life people that people aren't mentally ready to handle. Some people sprout early while others sprout much later. The government can't just protect those some people that can't mentally handle something at cost to to those who can. Understand what I'm saying? This has nothing to with me being a "horny 21 year old". As I said, I'm far far more attracted to people my age.


----------



## Kane (Sep 4, 2006)

> So. Cite some scientific studies from Europe. Dig up some verifiable statistics from a reputable scientific journal. Bring up some solid facts. Because if you can't, you are just one more adult seeking an excuse to justify a desire for young flesh.


 
On what? About people you have enjoyed having sex about it and have never regreted it. Well you can find many such people on the street and elsewhere but if you want to examine something from a scientific journal then look no further than Frits Bernard, one of the biggest pedosexual activists as well as an activist for gays, lesbians, and other sexual minorities. A quote he said is very relevent to this discussion;

[SIZE=+2]"Human beings have the tendency not to make judgments based on facts, especially in sexual matters, but rather on simplified abstractions of reality. New facts, including scientific research, are generally not accepted or respected. This had long been the case with homosexuality. Misguided notions thrived, and there was active resistance to any revision of opinion." 

The [/SIZE]scientific journals I have aren't in computer form, so do the research yourself at google. I have steered you in the direction and I will look for others.


----------



## Kane (Sep 4, 2006)

Look at some of the works of Theo Sandfort and Frans Gieles as well.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frans_Gieles&action=edit


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 4, 2006)

Kane said:


> First off, being against government legislation doesn't mean you are for something nor does it make you something.



Ok, now you pissed me off.

I am one of the folks that loudly say that no one else has the right to tell me what to do or not if what I do has no impact on anyone else. As such, I tend to be classed as a conservative while I consider myself a radical for freedom.

But I am an adult. I have the experience to make choices based on knowledge and decades of experience. So I can make the choice to be seduced.

*Chidren can't make that choice.* I am not saying that they *may* not make that choice. I am saying that they are unable to make a reasoned choice at their age. Would you give a pistol to a six year old? Sounds silly. But the consequences for doing the nasty are sometimes far more hard hitting over the decades after the fact.

If I want to have kinky sex with someone else, then as long as what we do has no impact on anyone else then they have no say in what we do. But that is dependent on both parties being able to make a reasoned choice about the matter. Children can't make that choice anymore than they can make choices about a whole lot of other things. They do not have the reasoning power or experience.

So your comparisons to homosexuality are rather repugnant. Two adult males can make the choice to have sex because they have the abiltiy to make that choice. Children do not. That is as simple as it gets. Unless you want to say that children are responbsible enough to own pistols and/or adult homosexuals are not, your arguments have no merit.

And as a parent as well as someone that works with children as a teacher I am not going to let this thread go by without frequently adding my opinion. Just so you know- I am not going to go away and have no problem in letting you know just how low a human being I think you are.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 4, 2006)

If you take any philosophy to its practical extreme, it begins to fall apart.  This is why there are ALWAYS exceptions.  No one way of thinking can encompass all that we know.

I think you need to moderate this position, Kane.  It makes absolutely no practical sense.


----------



## Kacey (Sep 4, 2006)

Kane, you say you are a 21 year-old college student.  You say that 1/3 of your lifetime ago, you had a "Mrs. Robinson" type of experience, where you were seduced into a sexual relationship with an adult (at least, that's what it sounds like from what you've said).  And yes, women commit a significant number of child molestations.  You were chosen and groomed for this  purpose.  Regardless of what spin you put on it, you were abused by a person older than yourself, who broke the law to do it, and counted on you not to report her actions.  Your views on this topic have been skewed by your experience, and you are at an increased risk of becoming a pedophile yourself, or experiencing other psychological problems because of your experiences.  

Random quotes with names, but without links or citations, are not going to convince anyone that your position is right.  Nor is your somewhat disconnected statement that you had sex at 14 and weren't damaged by it.  Many teens are sexually active in the mid and even early teens - when it occurs with other teens, it is experimentation.  When it occurs with adults, it is, at the very least, exploitation.  Teens - especially younger teens - are often flattered to by courted by older adults, and will often do things they would not do without that flattery.  Despite your claim that having sex as an early to mid-teen age is not damaging, more than half the teens in the US avoid doing so.

You have fallen into a trap common for people your age - you decided your position and then went searching for facts to validate it; in your case, you are trying to validate something that was done to you.  When the victim of a crime begins to identify with criminal, it is called the Stockholm Syndrome; this was originally used to describe kidnappees who began to identify with their kidnappers, but was later expanded to include victims of many types of crimes, victims of pedophilia being a prime example.  Your behavior is a in keeping with this syndrome.  Read some of the articles I have linked here - if you dare - and then reread this entire thread.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 4, 2006)

Kacey. I think you may be onto something. Good post.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 4, 2006)

Minarchist

OK, all due respect for the moderators before I start, but I have had enough of this. I will do my best to keep it short and respectful as possible. 

First why bring anarchism into it when what you really want to discuss is pedophilia? Which by the way I find your obsession with this topic disturbing



Kane said:


> By the definition you provided many people can be considered predators. Why aren't people who physically beat the living hell out of their kids called predators? Why is sex criminalized more than violence in our country? Before we criminalize pedosexuality we need to criminalize pedoviolence. Maybe that is why the laws aren't so severe in other Western nations and unions like Canada and the EU.


 Um, I do not know where you live, but violence against minors in my state generally brings a felony charge. So your argument here is well.... baseless and yet another weak attempt to justify pedophilia. 



Kane said:


> You know though, in the 19th century it was considered predatory for a non-white male to have sex with a white woman. Often times these white women were looked as victims and the non-white men as predators. What do you have to say about that? Homosexuality has been classified as a mental disease for most of our history until very recently.


So now you are trying to justify pedophilia based on racism. Once again nope, baseless. The 1 does not justify the other. 



Kane said:


> Heroin addiction, anarchists, pedophilia being entirely different things has nothing to do with my point. Re-read my post carefully.


Nope, once again does not fly, YOU brought them in together in the SAME post therefore I am sorry to tell you this but they do have a lot to do with your original post



Kane said:


> What do you mean by "I do not want to get into this again, but if I have to I will?" Are you going to lay the smack down on me for having a different opinion? I don't mean any offence, I just want you to know that I intend this topic to not become heated. If we can engage in a rational discussion no lock-ups would be needed .


Nice try, but once again weak argument, you are now trying to claim I am stifling you opinion based on a difference. And no I am not going to lay a smack down on you for a difference of opinion. But if you are trying to justify pedophilia this is not a discussion about which is better MMA of TMA or whether or not the Government has too much authority over us or if our freedoms are being taken away this is a discussion where you are trying to JUSTIFY PEDOPHILIA.  



Kane said:


> You're getting to emotional in this post.


Gee there&#8217;s a surprise. A 21-year-old college guy that has no kids and had sex young is trying to tell ADULTS with KIDS that pedophilia is a good thing. What did you expect a cake a presents. HAVE YOU TAKEN CIVICS....or study HUMAN BEHAVIOR.... or possibly MOTVATION or any thing to do with children, parents and EMOTIONS... or possibly a CLASS on how VICTEMS feel and the emotional SCARS they have from things like PEDOPHILIA... HAVE YOU EVCER SEEN THE VICTEMS OF IT.... HAVE YOU EVER DELT WITH IT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM IN YOU INTIRE LIFE...????

So you had a good time when you were young, big deal. You are incredibly selfish and not capable of taking into account the emotions attached to this. For crying out loud man you 21 years old, I was 21 once. Greater than 21 year ago and I can tell you at 21 you have not got a clue. 

Now I am actually willing to give you a break on the fact you are a 21-year-old college guy with very little life experience. And I can tell you out in the real world the discussion you and your buddies have on campus that you think should be dealt with and you justify to each other for the most part just do not fly once reality hits you in the face.... and believe me if you continue this discussion outside of college in any place of employment it will. 



Kane said:


> I'm only 21 and am still in college. I don't claim to know everything.



 That is for sure, you do not know everything beyond, as Mark Twain put it. Book learnin&#8217; 



Kane said:


> I don't believe this to be the function of government (I look at this as the function of parents



OK I got a true story for you from South America where the parents did take responsibility for it and I have no problem with it. I would be interested to know how a 21-year-old Minarchist that is trying to justify pedophilia feels about it

I use to work with a guy that was from South America and he told me a story from when he was about 10 years old. He grew up in a little village and just outside of the village, near the jungle lived 1 guy. All he was ever told was not to ever go there. This guy came into the village every now and then to buy stuff. One day a child was missing and it was discovered that this guy had taken the child to his house and had sex with the child. (This child was around 10) All the guy I work with remembers was that his parents took him into the house, his father picked up his machete and meant the other men of the village and left town in the direction of the house outside of town. After that the guy I worked with went to bed woke up the next morning, his father was there the machete was there and the house outside of town was gone (burned down) and the guy was never seen again. Later in life the guy I worked with pretty much figured out what had happened but all that anyone that went off with a machete that night would say when he asked about it was &#8220;They had no idea what he was talking about&#8221; or &#8220; they were to old to remember such things&#8221;

Now I have no problem with dealing with a pedophile this way, what&#8217;s the Minarchist view on this?

And just as a side note you state,&#8221; you are more of a minarchist&#8221;, this means you are in favor of SOME government intervention. So why are you against government intervention in the case of Pedophilia? 

*Minarchism *
In civics, minarchism, sometimes called minimal statism or small government, is the view that the size, role and influence of government in a free society should be minimal - only large enough to protect the liberty of each and every individual, without violating the liberty of any individuals itself, thus maximizing individual liberty.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Sep 4, 2006)

Kane cannot defend his position. Instead, all he has is dramatics, hence the PM he sent me:


			
				Kane said:
			
		

> I will send you my address and if you feel so strongly on the issue I will let you kill me. Seriously, I won't even fight back. I'll die for liberty any day. It doesn't matter what it is. The only question is do you have the balls to pull the trigger if you where to find me? Better kill an evil pedophile activist now before my activism leads to the violation of the evil sacred cow .



This in my opinion shows the depths of his sickness. He is either really so disturbed that he sees this a a fight for freedom, or else he is simply here to troll and cause a major disturbance on a sensitive subject. Either way, this is pretty sick, IMHO.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 4, 2006)

Yikes!


----------



## tshadowchaser (Sep 4, 2006)

Folks this thread has run its course and has gone way over the line 
I am closeing it for review

sheldon bedell
mt mod


----------

