Yes, but this was when homosexuality was as dull as ditch water.Originally Posted by SeriousCat
Now they have the Pride events and things have really perked up ... the recent Manchester Pride Festival was truly spectacular and one of the highlights of this year.
“Jazz, isn’t that just a series of mistakes disguised as musical composition?”
... I said 14 years to 20 years I'd have difficulty telling the difference. I think it's a little reckless of you to imply there is something wrong with my perception, when you've misquoted me.
HOWEVER (please read) I'm not in the habit of staring at either, clothed or otherwise in real life or pictures. Generally I like a sit-down and a talk, figure out if our friends get on etc, first so even if I wasn't married, the chances of this affecting me are really very small.
The objectification and sexualisation going on is inappropriate - not being able to discern the legal status of a human being based upon their looks isn't a crime.
Who was blaming them? I was saying there is a duality to their zeal to out paedophiles.
well you got there eventually, yes of course I was - keep trying to imagining the person typing these words is a thinking reasoning being and you'll arrive at a sensible interpretation much sooner and not risk offending anyone with inflamatory comments.
Try to ditch the "right" and "wrong", there's appropriate and inappropriate. There's a time and place for right and wrong - rarely in issues regarding society and morality.
I don't want to be right, no desire at all to see that - it's a perceptual defect. Being right only works in school and all it means is the answer the teacher wanted to hear.
Noone likes being wrong. Where you want to be proved wrong - what you mean is you'll proffer an extreme view (believing it to be false) and hope you're right. So really you're hoping to be proved right and exaggerating the question in order to achieve that correctness.
I hate catechism, it's blackmail.
I believe it is highly appropriate to ask questions, but not if your convictions compromise the range of answers you'll get. ie "do you agree questions need to allow for all manner of replies or are you a paedophile?"
That is an excellent sentiment, a rare one too.
Last edited by frankus; 3rd October 2012 at 03:36 PM.
because the responsible paedos are obeying the law
yeah pretty bad - not as life changing as being eaten by a shark
I have a vague recollection of Savile appearing on television at the time of Gary Glitters arrest saying the police only pulled him [Glitter] because he's a well known celebrity and that the photographs/videos on Glitter's PC were for his private viewing only and not circulated.
“Jazz, isn’t that just a series of mistakes disguised as musical composition?”
one would imagine it would fall under this heading:
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature
None of you seem to understand; I'm not locked in here with you, you'll all locked in here with me.
Indeed, what a wanker.
He apparently once said he didn't own a computer because "he didn't want people to think he might be looking at child porn"... what was that old saying "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"?
Sounds VERY suspicious saying something like that...
My name is Connor and I have a GAS problem.
I also have some videos of myself playing guitar. Here they are.
No, sorry, that was a hypothetical 'you', not you personally. I was referring to you saying that 14 to 20 year olds looking similar is different to not being able to tell the difference between a very young child and a 20yr old.
I still think this sex culture you're talking about isn't solely to blame for paedophilia and statutory rape (if that's what you're saying). I agree it exists to a certain extent but most of the contributing factors are down to the individual.
I think you're reading a little too much into it. I just didn't want to think I lived in a world where 'reasonable' people think paedophilia should be tolerated.
I wasn't intending on being inflammatory, I said what I saw and asked for a bit of clarity, nothing personal
Last edited by Bidley; 3rd October 2012 at 03:54 PM.
Me and my fiancée moved in together when she was 16, met online (on omegle, was totally random and wasn't looking for it!) when she was 15... Which I've never been comfortable with really, but it was the person I fell in love with, not the age. It's important to remember there are exceptions, and they may even be the majority, but feel ashamed about it.
It's complicated a complicated issue which is worth public discussion like this. It's biologically natural to be attracted to physically mature, but "underage" teenagers, but we know on a psychological level it would be damaging to act on that.
Ages of consent are pretty arbitrary, considering that individuals mature at different rates.
In America it's really weird, shag a girl a single day under the age of 18 and it's statutory rape, but the next day it's all "barely legal" and all that bollocks. Bit like that Sun joke.
With this and similar issues, there's a societally proscribed opinion you're supposed to hold, and there's often a backlash against anybody contrary. It's unhealthy and prevents any real, viable solution.
In Japan they have games where you do sordid sex acts on a variety of people/things, hentai which often depicts schoolgirls and rape. The sort of attitudes there are in this country stop these things becoming acceptable, when they harm absolutely nobody and offer an avenue of release for people with these fetishes and orientations, which could greatly reduce sex offences.
But no, it's better to get caught up in hysteria.
I think the most important thing is that they aren't exploited, but again you don't want people to be denied lifes pleasures. I know a few people who work with the mentally handicapped and they are often very highly sexualised.
No, for one thing SC is not claiming it's right.
For instance, most psychopaths aren't killers (in fact they're usually very driven successful people), what keeps them in check is observing social norms.
Everyone has the right to feel any emotion they want, they don't require judgement for that. These emotions might not be appropriate but that's for each person to decide.
It's not appropriate to act on all emotions, some people think one necesitates the other, but it doesn't - those people are at risk - be it self-harming, raging, voyeurism, whatever... they also put other people at risk.
So where we have people claiming that someone excited by kids needs locking up - what we're really seeing is another person who believes all emotions have to be acted on - perhaps a person who knows their feelings aren't appropriate and ignores them is a more mature and responsible member of humanity, by virtue of their restraint - that is they know not to act on their emotions.
Society's solution to inappropriate emotions is to deny their existence: "normal people don't think like that" - there's no book of what normal people do think, people only find out by making mistakes - each person... OR worse than that living their entire life not knowing who they are (warts and all) by conscienciously being as acceptable as they know how.
This doesn't work - witness the number of old farts on here, grumbling about political correctness gone mad or the decline of western civilisation. What they mean is the concensus of what is morally correct has shifted from where it was when they were younger. If you live well inside the borders of normality it must be as irritating as hell to have it betray you after decades of rigid subservience to it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote