Born that way? (thought, legal, regular, death)

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by TwiloMike

In our society it is a matter of law. If there is a compelling reason to change the law, I'm all for it. Viewing things in terms of "right" and "wrong" is insufficient, imo. Viewing things in terms of "good" or "bad", in terms of effect, is far better because whether something is good or bad, advantageous or disadvantageous, can be at least qualified or quantified using fairly rational criteria. "Right" and "Wrong" are far more slippery.

A simpler explanation is "Might makes Right". A society that is built on that can commit any action it decides and be perfectly legit within its own realms.

I appreciate you explaining that this is what you hold to, but the fact that many say it is ok over the few is exactly what our founders warned us against. Might does not make right, it just makes a consensus and a consensus is based on agreement, not always right or truth.

[Roaddog]

Originally Posted by TwiloMike

You mean it hasn't been proven yet. Correct?

What makes you think that there is no way to prove it? Perhaps at this time we lack a way to prove but it doesn't mean that it won't be possible to do so in the future.

i'm not talking about the future, I'm talking about now but I doubt they will ever prove it unless they make a magical helmet that can read the mind of a baby and i doubt a baby is lying in it's crib with thoughts of being anything.

[fierce_flawless]

Originally Posted by Nomander

So say you. Who are you to decide that a child is not fit? I can show you children that would make your understanding look like you walked off the short bus, and yet you feel the need to proclaim all children "too dumb to know what they really want" because you decide? You do realize there are children out there that would make you look like a drooling fool in anything you attempted to contest them with? I am glad you have it all figured out and can decide for everyone what is acceptable and what is not. Seems like more of a double standard being proposed to me.

It has nothing to do with "dumb" and everything to do with emotional maturity, understanding the ramifications of sex (emotional and otherwise), and normal psychological development. The idea that children lack the ability, regardless of how smart they are, to consent to life-altering behaviors such as sex, drinking,drugs, going to war, etc., BECAUSE of emotional maturity and psych development is common knowledge based on decades of research. It's not something I pulled out of my azz.

I have a 10 year old that could probably run the freakin' country, so no need to lecture me about brilliant children. He's still a *child* and unable to truly consent to SEX.

You seem to have a vested interest in arguing FOR sex with children. Kinda creepy.

[Reads2MUCH]

Originally Posted by TwiloMike

You mean it hasn't been proven yet. Correct?

What makes you think that there is no way to prove it? Perhaps at this time we lack a way to prove but it doesn't mean that it won't be possible to do so in the future.

His assumption that it can't be proven is not that far off base seeing as how a large majority of supposedly proven science is still in large part theory. Just because many scientists have accepted such theories as facts does not change the fact they are unproven. Not to say all science is theory, only a rather large portion. And there are always scientists disproving supposedly proven theories and the beat goes on. I will provide our diagram of the earth as an example. We are all well acquainted with the scientific communities version of what the earth would look like if you cut it in half and looked inside. It is pretty much accepted by the scientific community to be fact. But the truth is none of us have ever seen the earth from this view point and therefore cannot just accept it as fact. Just an example!

[fishmonger]

Originally Posted by Nomander

Odd, because in many claims of recent issues (some political attempts), the younger generation is being claimed to be more and more resilient, more able to make decisions. Heck, California wanted to lower the age of voting to start at 14 because they thought they were so well adapted and able to decide on issues.

Here is the thing, there have been cases of some "youths" that would disagree with you. They claim they knew what they were doing and they accepted and appreciated the love they received from these individuals. So you are claiming they are wrong? Did they lose their rights? Are you infringing on their ability to choose what they want? They believe it to be natural and normal. They see it as merely love between two people, a love apparently you think you have the authority to condemn, to dictate. In their eyes, you are hateful, judgmental, and discriminatory.

Kid's brains aren't developed enough. Whether or not they enjoy it or willingly participate during their childhood, by performing the acts the adult is still risking that the youth in a later developmental stage will be scarred by and ashamed of the memories. The pedophile is taking advantage of their innocence and malleability.

Wait, you presume to speak for a youth on the subject (who is by far more intelligent and cognizant of reality and the situation than an animal), yet you have no problems accepting someones use of an animal even when the animal can't even tell you if they honestly like it or not?

Thats interesting. Almost sounds like a complete double standard, is it?

Almost, but not quite. Like I said, bestiality is weird and gross + disturbing and certainly evil in many or most of its forms. I'd say generally "doing something to" an animal would almost always be evil while "letting the animal do something to you" would just be creepy and gross. This paragraph that I'm typing right now is creepy and gross as well. I don't think animals have the same capacity for emotional scarring that children have.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by fishmonger

Kid's brains aren't developed enough. Whether or not they enjoy it or willingly participate during their childhood, by performing the acts the adult is still risking that the youth in a later developmental stage will be scarred by and ashamed of the memories. You're taking advantage of their innocence and malleability.

And what age is developed enough? Do all children develop at the same rate? Some would argue that you presume to much about these children's mental condition, that you assume to decide for them. As I said, there are children out there that would make our own reasoning seem fallible, infant, and immature. Do we speak for them entirely?

Originally Posted by fishmonger

Like I said, bestiality is weird and gross + disturbing and certainly evil in many or most of its forms. I'd say generally "doing something to" an animal would almost always be evil while "letting the animal do something to you" would just be creepy and gross. This paragraph that I'm typing right now is creepy and gross as well. I don't think animals have the same capacity for emotional scarring that children have.

Do you think all child violations occur from merely the adult persisting? There have been cases where the child has initiated a sexual advance, do you presume the animals to be true to intent? What makes them an acceptable advance and that of a human child who makes the advance different?

Seems like again, we are placing the line as we choose to. Speaking for others and defining standards of correctness. Is it not?

[TwiloMike]

Originally Posted by Nomander

A simpler explanation is "Might makes Right". A society that is built on that can commit any action it decides and be perfectly legit within its own realms.

Did you even read what I said? I said nothing about Might makes Right- heck, I fight against things which the majority desires on a daily basis.

I appreciate you explaining that this is what you hold to, but the fact that many say it is ok over the few is exactly what our founders warned us against.

Again, you misunderstood what I wrote. Clearly misunderstood it.

Might does not make right, it just makes a consensus and a consensus is based on agreement, not always right or truth.

Did you miss that my entire post was not about majority consensus or are you being intentionally obtuse?

[TwiloMike]

Originally Posted by Roaddog

i'm not talking about the future, I'm talking about now but I doubt they will ever prove it unless they make a magical helmet that can read the mind of a baby and i doubt a baby is lying in it's crib with thoughts of being anything.

No need to read babies' minds. If science can find a way to predictably manipulate outcome within the baby by varying factors in the uterus (and not all uteri have the same conditions), that will be ample proof that babies are born with specific predispositions. Scientists can already predictably influence sexual orientation in some of the subjects they had studied.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by fierce_flawless

It has nothing to do with "dumb" and everything to do with emotional maturity, understanding the ramifications of sex (emotional and otherwise), and normal psychological development. The idea that children lack the ability, regardless of how smart they are, to consent to life-altering behaviors such as sex, drinking,drugs, going to war, etc., BECAUSE of emotional maturity and psych development is common knowledge based on decades of research. It's not something I pulled out of my azz.

I have a 10 year old that could probably run the freakin' country, so no need to lecture me about brilliant children. He's still a *child* and unable to truly consent to SEX.

You seem to have a vested interest in arguing FOR sex with children. Kinda creepy.

Maturity? Have you not heard of cases where children took on the responsibilities their parents chose to ignore? There are numerous cases of children taking responsibility for the lack of the parent. Are you so sure?

Lastly, your attempt to personally discredit me is a devious one. You don't like the questions I pose, so you attempt to liken me as a villain so you can ignore the pressure I assert to your own rationalization.

Who I am, or what I believe matters not. What matters is the justification of your own claims. I merely show the problems with your rationalization and it confuses you because you can not answer to the flaws in your belief.

If you must know, and I am sure it will merely be ammunition for your evasion. I think ALL are wrong. I am merely displaying your own logic to you. Either ALL hold true to the same establishment of logic, or they are explained with proper reasoning to their deviation. I do not see proper reason, merely excuses to avoid the issue.

[fishmonger]

Originally Posted by Nomander

And what age is developed enough? Do all children develop at the same rate? Some would argue that you presume to much about these children's mental condition, that you assume to decide for them. As I said, there are children out there that would make our own reasoning seem fallible, infant, and immature. Do we speak for them entirely?

Why choose the number the government does for the "legally intoxicated" level? Some people are smarter and have better judgement drunk than other people when they're sober. This is a stupid argument.

Do you think all child violations occur from merely the adult persisting? There have been cases where the child has initiated a sexual advance, do you presume the animals to be true to intent? What makes them an acceptable advance and that of a human child who makes the advance different?

The kid'll remember it later.

Seems like again, we are placing the line as we choose to. Speaking for others and defining standards of correctness. Is it not?

It is, but that's what you have to do. It's just that personally I try to keep my standards from being arbitrary or based off of tomes written by ancient bearded men who thought that all the world's disease and death was caused by some dude and his girlfriend eating a bad apple on the advice of a talking snake.