About The Whole Minors And Sex Issue

[Kane]

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]

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]

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]

But it is a free country so whatever.

Heh, hardly.

 

[MA-Caver]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

His obsession with the topic is disturbing.

 

[Xue Sheng]

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

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]

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]

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.

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.

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."

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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?