Dear BluffTHIS, et al.

So I was reading the "locking threads" locked thread, and I really have to ask this: given the precept that anyone who would want to actively participate in an intellecual forum based on questions of politics actually wants to debate, discuss, and is reasonably educated (giving you the benefit of the doubt), why is it that so many people here seem to categorize anyone who disagrees with them as offensive, immoral, reprehensible and doomed to an eternity of fire and brimstone?

Let me first adress your post wherein you stated that all NAMBLA members will burn in "their appointed places in hell". This would denote you as a christian. How is it that you can read the bible, remember all the places where it says non christians will burn for eternity, and yet you skip the verse "Judge not, lest ye be judged first"? Jesus never judged, but yet many christians seem to be experts at it.

Let it be said that I am in no way condoning pedophilia, suicide bombings, or any other of the myriad morally bereft acts carried out by humans daily. I merely think that since you're here to debate, it is ridiculous that you won't.

This is a phenomenon which I first noticed during the 2004 election: Supposedly "intelligent" and "enlightened" people (on both sides, dont get me wrong), when engaging in political discussion, wouldnt use persuasive arguments to try and shift perceptions, or even listen to the other side's case, they resorted to statements like "you're ruining America!", and things of that nature.

So I ask you, why is it that you come here, if not to have your beliefs challenged and properly, intelligently defend them? I will supply you with an answer: this is your pulpit, and you take out your rage at the world, and at all others who dont think like you over the internet with phrases like "you're going to hell", etc.

BluffTHIS, this is not meant as a flaming post. This is a question. I would honestly like an answer as to why you don't discuss. And honestly, Im not picking on you, I dont hate you, you're just the latest in a long line of people, conservative and democrat, christian and atheist, in whom I have noticed this phenomenon.

So explain, please. Explain the above, and why the word pedophilia gave you such a kneejerk reaction that it blinded you to the nature of the discussion. I assume that any discussion of 2000 troops dying, or torture of Al-Qaeda troops, or anything else you wished to defend wouldn't have done so... and don't you think that those are morally reprehensible?

Would edit, but too late. I just noticed now that when Cola called you out, and asked you a question about Iran's government and its people, contrasting it with 9/11 to bring it into perspective, you saw "9/11" and "America compared to Iran" and immediately accused him of being unpatriotic.

So, I give up. You just shattered the precept I set forth in the beginning of my question. You are not here to debate at all, and indeed, it seems that you feel inferior to some people on here, and the need to get defensive when questioned. I'd ask you to prove me wrong, but... well, you won't try.

So I will instead ask of anyone else who has insight into why people act this way, to chime in.

[BluffTHIS!]

Pedophilia is not a topic fit for discussion, and trying to mask it in the guise of only talking about 17 year olds with 15 year olds just gives ammo for the real perverts to open the topic. And we don't need to have our beliefs regarding the protection of innocent children or emotionally immature teenagers "challenged". I am a christian and if anyone wants to deride or debate my beliefs in same that is fine and they do so all the time in the philosophy forum. But innocent children should be sacrosanct. And Jesus has already judged those who would harm children for He said it were better for them had they never been born.

And regarding my comments about truly political matters, I do tend toward sarcasm but I also try to point out what I see as the logical implications of certain statements, which is what I was doing with Cola's post. Also, although I do not mean this with regards to Cola, plenty of posters here have underlying beliefs and attitudes about various issues that they don't wish to just come out and state, so I think it appropriate to infer what those are.

And if someone doesn't like my views, then it is easy enough for them to "ignore this user".

I was almost charged with statutory rape when my girlfriend (who was 3 months younger than I) told her parents that we had sex. Does that in and of itself constitute me as a pervert? I guess I just don't like generalizatons.

Meanwhile, I must say Im very very impressed by the tone of your response, it was well thoughtout and not defensive in the least. Thanks for understanding my post was a question and not a flame.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Pedophilia is not a topic fit for discussion, and trying to mask it in the guise of only talking about 17 year olds with 15 year olds

Not to be a nit, but *pedophilia* is defined as sex between an adult and a pre-pubescent child. Technically, an adult who desires sex with 14 year olds, while morally reprehensible, is technically not a pedophile.

[ QUOTE ]
Pedophilia is not a topic fit for discussion, and trying to mask it in the guise of only talking about 17 year olds with 15 year olds

Not to be a nit, but *pedophilia* is defined as sex between an adult and a pre-pubescent child. Technically, an adult who desires sex with 14 year olds, while morally reprehensible, is technically not a pedophile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kinda my point. Kneejerk reactions dont take things like that into consideration. And you know what? I was recently a teenager, and I have a teenage sister, and I know she dates older dudes, and I can only assume that if they had sex, it wouldn't be 100% fair to say that she didnt want it.

Note, however, that I would personally hunt down a dude who did that, but then again, I would do the same if the guy was her same age.

(btw, she's 17. if she was dating a 20 yr old at 15, WHICH MANY 15 YR OLDS DO!.. I would lock her up somewhere)

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pedophilia is not a topic fit for discussion, and trying to mask it in the guise of only talking about 17 year olds with 15 year olds

Not to be a nit, but *pedophilia* is defined as sex between an adult and a pre-pubescent child. Technically, an adult who desires sex with 14 year olds, while morally reprehensible, is technically not a pedophile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kinda my point. Kneejerk reactions dont take things like that into consideration. And you know what? I was recently a teenager, and I have a teenage sister, and I know she dates older dudes, and I can only assume that if they had sex, it wouldn't be 100% fair to say that she didnt want it.

Note, however, that I would personally hunt down a dude who did that, but then again, I would do the same if the guy was her same age.

(btw, she's 17. if she was dating a 20 yr old at 15, WHICH MANY 15 YR OLDS DO!.. I would lock her up somewhere)

[/ QUOTE ]

While this is grossly off-topic, don't you think there's a bit of a double-standard? I think it's a very bad thing for a girl to date a guy much older than her, but not so bad for a guy to dat ea girl much older. If my sixteen year old sister was dating a twenty four year old, I'd want to kill him, but if my sixteen year old brother was dating a twenty four year old, that's just cool ^_^

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pedophilia is not a topic fit for discussion, and trying to mask it in the guise of only talking about 17 year olds with 15 year olds

Not to be a nit, but *pedophilia* is defined as sex between an adult and a pre-pubescent child. Technically, an adult who desires sex with 14 year olds, while morally reprehensible, is technically not a pedophile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kinda my point. Kneejerk reactions dont take things like that into consideration. And you know what? I was recently a teenager, and I have a teenage sister, and I know she dates older dudes, and I can only assume that if they had sex, it wouldn't be 100% fair to say that she didnt want it.

Note, however, that I would personally hunt down a dude who did that, but then again, I would do the same if the guy was her same age.

(btw, she's 17. if she was dating a 20 yr old at 15, WHICH MANY 15 YR OLDS DO!.. I would lock her up somewhere)

[/ QUOTE ]

Note to self: Don't date 6'8" guy's little sister...bad things await. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[AngryCola]

Hey guys,

I would appreciate it if you took a look at this post of mine:
Link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=3945240)

For the time being, I must ask that you not post about the issue in question. I'm not going to lock this thread, because the original point wasn't specifically about the controversial topic.

If, when I come back, I find that people have ignored this post, I won't be a happy guy.

Thanks.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I can appreciate the goal of protecting 2+2 from legal action.

On the other hand, if nobody is either advocating X, or obviously trolling for people who advocate X, what's the problem?

Is having a thread concerning "Are the legal penalties for X strong enough?" reasonable, or is the mere mention of "X" sufficient for deletion/banning?

I would think that the moderators should be able to screen individual posts well enough to not stifle debate regarding how society addresses/should address what is a very serious problem.

In other words, what is the range of "X" that makes the mere mention of a topic verboten?

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
___________ is not a topic fit for discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can insert any word you want in the blank, and this sentence will still be very wrong.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a christian and if anyone wants to deride or debate my beliefs in same that is fine

[/ QUOTE ]

Open season!!! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[hmkpoker]

Agreed. For the most part, this forum's members are sensible, intelligent people.

[Mat Sklansky]

Here's some more interesting terms: http://www.religioustolerance.org/sex_devia.htm

It does seem to me that most adult men suffer from Hebephilia. I think much fewer suffer from Ephebophila.

So how 'bout it, how many of you have Pederasty?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
So how 'bout it, how many of you have Pederasty?

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is a joke about the sexual abuse of children, then it is in truly poor taste. And if it was a serious question and you get a serious affirmative response, I hope you do the right thing and provide their account info to their nearest local law enforcement agency which can see if they are convicted felons and have complied with the provisions of Megan's law.

[Mat Sklansky]

Did you read the terms? Abuse of anyone isn't funny. That most adult men find women between the ages of fourteen and seventeen, attractive, is pretty much a fact. Do I think it is therefore ok for an adult to have sex with a fourteen year old in the vast majority of instances that I can think of? No.

Do I find the term Pederasty ( A condition in which an adult, usually male, is sexually attracted to post-pubertal adolescents (14 to 17)), funny? Yes. In that it is a funny word which describes a pretty widespread biological desire as a "condition." Notice it refers to attraction, not action

I hope that clears things up. If anyone told me that they had the intention of harming any child or adult I would certainly report them to the best of my abilities.

[BluffTHIS!]

Matt,

Thanks for clearing that up and for also making it clear you would report any such action.

[Lestat]

Lighten the [censored] up dude!

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
So how 'bout it, how many of you have Pederasty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that would be me. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif
It doesn't seem to me that this is a bad or unnatural thing.

[Cyrus]

Before people start confessing to pederasty, as Cola just did (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=3952465) /images/graemlins/smirk.gif, let's agree on the terms. Some ReligiousTolerance.com definitions are wrong, Mat. The fact that the definitions for Hebephilia and Pederasty are identical should have given you, people, a broad hint to that.

Here are the dictionary.com definitions. They are far from complete but they'll do:

paederast: an adult who has sexual relations, especially anal intercourse, with a child.

paedophile : an adult who is sexually attracted to children.

infantophilia : There is no definition of it in dictionary.com. The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices has it wrong: "arousal from playing role of infant", confusing it with infantilism. The proper definition is the one from wikipedia.org : the primary sexual attraction of adults to very small children (usually defined as 0–3 years old).

[A key term in this realm is the Greek word phoebus (and not "phepius", as the ReligiousTolerance.com website has it) which means "youth".]

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
Before people start confessing to pederasty, as Cola just did (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=3952465) /images/graemlins/smirk.gif, let's agree on the terms. Some ReligiousTolerance.com definitions are wrong, Mat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dictionary.com:
Main Entry: ped·er·as·ty
Pronunciation: 'ped-&-"ras-tE
Variant: or chiefly British pae·der·as·ty /'pEd-/
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -ties
:anal intercourse especially with a boy as the passive partner

No! That is most certainly not what I was confessing to. Mat tricked me!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v431/AngryCola/pict11.jpg

[MelK]

Study this chart and tell us which ones apply to you (http://www.deviantdesires.com/map/mappics/map81002.gif) /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Mat Sklansky]

Those were not the definitions listed in the link I provided. If those were wrong, so was I. Of course, that still seems funny.