So, When Did You Choose to be Straight?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:I will also draw attention to the argument put forward by others that because our society does consider child sex wrong any and all evidence that it does not always harm the subjects will be rejected or hidden instead of being openly debated and considered.

All I've ever seen is that some victims find it easier to overcome than we might expect -- which, while a good thing in itself, is certainly no reason to reconsider any law. There are still countless horror stories from victims; more than enough to justify banning sex with children (for crying out loud).

That's besides the fact that children are scientifically proven to lack adults' ability to weigh the consequences of their actions. So even children who might think they want to be with an adult should be protected from adults who might take advantage of them.

PhilDidge wrote:I will leave a few points for sphinx to think about before I go.

Is it right or wrong to breath oxygen for a human to survive?

Neither...it is simply necesary, and as phrased your question makes no sense?? honestly.

If it were both OPTIONAL and harmless to others then it could not be wrong. (the harm done could be a number of things, but lets stick to health harm here ...forget financial etc)
if it were OPTIONAL and harmed others it could potentially be wrong.
since it isnt optional, then even if it involves harming others, since your sole responsibility in a crisis is to you and yours, If your requiring oxygen involved terminating others for you and your survival the right or wrong of it depends entirely on whether you are the winner or not...Though society may take a different view if you snatched the oxygen cylinder off the president you MAY still be accused of wrong doing (since society considers HIM more important than YOU.)

like I say ...right or wrong is highly subjective....


Now sphinx thinks wrongs is just a perception, but it has a definition, which will help set her free here

Byeee see you all tomorrow

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

All I've ever seen is that some victims find it easier to overcome than we might expect -- which, while a good thing in itself, is certainly no reason to reconsider any law. There are still countless horror stories from victims; more than enough to justify banning sex with children (for crying out loud).

That's besides the fact that children are scientifically proven to lack adults' ability to weigh the consequences of their actions. So even children who might think they want to be with an adult should be protected from adults who might take advantage of them.

Again I am raising what has been said by others elsewhere

We are limited in perception by our own experiences and society perceptions.  Someone else pointed out a famous society which did not perceive child sex as wrong namely the Romans.  Would a contemporary study using that societies own parameters conclude that the children suffered from the sexual relationships they were part of?

However that is about as far as I am able to go in my efforts to neutrally introduce alternate viewpoints - my ability to debate from someone elses point of view is limited (and I would like to thank you Ben for accepting my points as the debate I intended and not immediately attacking me as a paedo apologist)

I have raised them because I am extremely uncomfortable with some of the tones sexuality debates develop.  I have no problem with peoples sexuality but I also have no problem with peoples attitudes towards sexuality and I do not like the way there is a tendency to attack people who do have a problem with sexuality just for expressing their opinion.  I will not deny that there is abuse and prejudice of gays but there are large numbers of people, especially older people, who do not like homosexuality but are willing to accept people pleasing themselves behind closed doors.  All to often these people are drawn into saying they dont like it and then attacked because they do not like.  They were raised in an atmosphere that saw homosexuality in exactly the same way we now see paedophilia - it is not fair to attack them because they maintain the attitudes of their youth.  There are campaign groups who try to do for paedophilia what was done for homosexuality - I at least try to consider how I and others like me would feel if they succeeded.  I try to imagine a forum 50 years from now with those that are sickened by child sex being attacked by the forward thinking "unprejudiced" members of that time as bigots haters etc.

I hope at least some people get where I am coming from.

heavenly father wrote:how can homosexuality be normal when the most normal thing for any species is to survive.

heavenly father wrote:so if it's on;y a tiny percentage what makes you think it is natural or normal.

grumpy old git wrote:

heavenly father wrote:so if it's on;y a tiny percentage what makes you think it is natural or normal.

that wasnt the point

define normal.....

heavenly father wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

that wasnt the point

define normal.....

you define normal your the one claiming homosexuality is normal.. :D 

heavenly father wrote:how can homosexuality be normal when the most normal thing for any species is to survive.

heavenly father wrote:would you say what around 2 percent do is normal.

grumpy old git wrote:

heavenly father wrote:would you say what around 2 percent do is normal.

I would say it probably doesnt matter...provided it harms nobody....and in that case it isnt even my business...

grumpy old git wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:I will leave a few points for sphinx to think about before I go.

Is it right or wrong to breath oxygen for a human to survive?

Neither...it is simply necesary, and as phrased your question makes no sense?? honestly.

If it were both OPTIONAL and harmless to others then it could not be wrong. (the harm done could be a number of things, but lets stick to health harm here ...forget financial etc)
if it were OPTIONAL and harmed others it could potentially be wrong.
since it isnt optional, then even if it involves harming others, since your sole responsibility in a crisis is to you and yours, If your requiring oxygen involved terminating others for you and your survival the right or wrong of it depends entirely on whether you are the winner or not...Though society may take a different view if you snatched the oxygen cylinder off the president you MAY still be accused of wrong doing (since society considers HIM more important than YOU.)

like I say ...right or wrong is highly subjective....


Now sphinx thinks wrongs is just a perception, but it has a definition, which will help set her free here

Byeee see you all tomorrow

grumpy old git wrote:also from wikipedia (ok so not the greatest source but often quite accurate)


A wrong (from oe wrang – crooked)[1] is an act that is illegal or immoral.[2] Legal wrongs are usually quite clearly defined in law of each state or jurisdiction. They can be divided into civil wrongs and crimes (or criminal offences) in common law countries,[2] while civil law countries tend to have some additional categories, such as contraventions.
Moral wrong is an underlying concept for legal wrong, and some moral wrongs are punishable by law, for example rape or murder.[2] Other moral wrongs have nothing to do with law. On the other hand, some legal wrongs, such as parking offences, could hardly be classified as moral wrongs.[2]


still very subjective and dependant upon social norms

PhilDidge wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:also from wikipedia (ok so not the greatest source but often quite accurate)


A wrong (from oe wrang – crooked)[1] is an act that is illegal or immoral.[2] Legal wrongs are usually quite clearly defined in law of each state or jurisdiction. They can be divided into civil wrongs and crimes (or criminal offences) in common law countries,[2] while civil law countries tend to have some additional categories, such as contraventions.
Moral wrong is an underlying concept for legal wrong, and some moral wrongs are punishable by law, for example rape or murder.[2] Other moral wrongs have nothing to do with law. On the other hand, some legal wrongs, such as parking offences, could hardly be classified as moral wrongs.[2]


still very subjective and dependant upon social norms

This really has you worked up old bean and why sphinx ran as fast as she could from answering if ever wrongs had been done to her, because neither of you are shying away from something that is very much a trait in many animals. Some rights and wrongs are subjective, some are naturally inbuilt in us.

So I will test your ability further here to try and understand.

I am trying to lead you to where I am going here but clearly you do not understand

This is why I would like to understand if ever you or Sphinx have ever been wronged, so will await your answer.


There are many things we do naturally daily knowing whether they are right and wrong of which they are not subjective at all, you just need to think harder. For example you know for a fact to stop and wait for clear traffic before crossing the road is the safest and the right way to do it, of which there are many right and wrong ways to do things in life.


If a person has been physically violated against their will, is it right or wrong?

Basic wrongs/law in every country are roughly the same of which have been around for countless years, why is this? I mean why are they replicated world over and even before different cultures came into contact with each other? What doe that tell you about understanding right from wrong in humans?

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

This really has you worked up old bean and why sphinx ran as fast as she could from answering if ever wrongs had been done to her, because neither of you are shying away from something that is very much a trait in many animals. Some rights and wrongs are subjective, some are naturally inbuilt in us.

So I will test your ability further here to try and understand.

I am trying to lead you to where I am going here but clearly you do not understand

This is why I would like to understand if ever you or Sphinx have ever been wronged, so will await your answer.


There are many things we do naturally daily knowing whether they are right and wrong of which they are not subjective at all, you just need to think harder. For example you know for a fact to stop and wait for clear traffic before crossing the road is the safest and the right way to do it, of which there are many right and wrong ways to do things in life.


If a person has been physically violated against their will, is it right or wrong?

Basic wrongs/law in every country are roughly the same of which have been around for countless years, why is this? I mean why are they replicated world over and even before different cultures came into contact with each other? What doe that tell you about understanding right from wrong in humans?

Another morning another post of didge not getting it.  Who would have thought it.

Try this.

I am walking down the street.
A man jumps out and holds a knife to my throat.
I tell him my husband is a kick boxer and coming to pick me up.
The man lets go of me and runs off.

I lied.  I told him something that was incorrect.

Was I wrong?

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Another morning another post of didge not getting it.  Who would have thought it.

Try this.

I am walking down the street.
A man jumps out and holds a knife to my throat.
I tell him my husband is a kick boxer and coming to pick me up.
The man lets go of me and runs off.

I lied.  I told him something that was incorrect.

Was I wrong?

Dear me, the chance are you would be dead, were you wrong, no you were correct in your action, so the bigger picture was you did not do any wrong, you were right because he let you go, thus your actions wee right, if he did not let you go you would be wrong, easy to twist your simpleton analogy

Right lets help poor sphinx out who seems so afraid to answer my points.

Are humans inbuilt with morality?

Do you teach your children right from wrong?

What are wrongs to you?

This will help if you actually stop avoiding

Back later

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Dear me, the chance are you would be dead, were you wrong, no you were correct in your action, so the bigger picture was you did not do any wrong, you were right because he let you go, thus your actions wee right, if he did not let you go you would be wrong, easy to twist your simpleton analogy

Right lets help poor sphinx out who seems so afraid to answer my points.

Are humans inbuilt with morality?

Do you teach your children right from wrong?

What are wrongs to you?

This will help if you actually stop avoiding

Back later

Yey two points right on the same thread - you are on a role.

Where my actions have the desired outcome they are right even if they are technically incorrect.

Hence in the desired outcome of having you get my point I was  right.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Yey two points right on the same thread - you are on a role.

Where my actions have the desired outcome they are right even if they are technically incorrect.

Hence in the desired outcome of having you get my point I was  right.

Yes and already stated some rights and wrongs are subjective and yet you have made plagiarised view points not of your own on the topic at hand, I wish to delve deeper into your views to show why they are so flawed.

Now first of all many things in life are easily defined as right and wrongs for example like not placing your arm into a fire as it would damage you to many other examples. Thus we have guides of do's and don'ts.

You have made your views points onto something without knowing your views on what you define as wrongs. What makes you see something as wrong?
What makes you decide what to teach your child right from wrong?

This is very important to your claims, so stop being a weasel and answer the questions

 

PhilDidge wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

PMSL never laughed so much in all my life, it is obviously right to breath oxygen to survive for a human, thus it is not subjective what so ever, if you are unable to breath oxygen you die, which is a fact, thus you have a clear right or wrong answer

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Yes and already stated some rights and wrongs are subjective and yet you have made plagiarised view points not of your own on the topic at hand, I wish to delve deeper into your views to show why they are so flawed.

Now first of all many things in life are easily defined as right and wrongs for example like not placing your arm into a fire as it would damage you to many other examples. Thus we have guides of do's and don'ts.

You have made your views points onto something without knowing your views on what you define as wrongs. What makes you see something as wrong?
What makes you decide what to teach your child right from wrong?

This is very important to your claims, so stop being a weasel and answer the questions

 

Why?

You may think it important to my claims - I do not.

What I think/thought important was you getting my point - you did that so my objective is achieved and I have no need to go into anything else.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Why?

You may think it important to my claims - I do not.

What I think/thought important was you getting my point - you did that so my objective is achieved and I have no need to go into anything else.

Hilarious, so you make a big song and dance about something and then fear being challenged with your views.

Happy with that and is what I expected from you

 :D 

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Hilarious, so you make a big song and dance about something and then fear being challenged with your views.

Happy with that and is what I expected from you

 :D 

What challenge to my views?

You have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to get my up a side topic regards what I think wrong is - and as I have refused to go up that side topic you still do not know what my views are on wrong and so as you do not know my views you cannot challenge them.

If you want to challenge my views on the thread topic they are nicely explained in and earlier post to Ben.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

What challenge to my views?

You have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to get my up a side topic regards what I think wrong is - and as I have refused to go up that side topic you still do not know what my views are on wrong and so as you do not know my views you cannot challenge them.

If you want to challenge my views on the thread topic they are nicely explained in and earlier post to Ben.

That is the point to understand this further we need to understand what you believe is wrong, hence you keep dodging at every level, it is utterly pathetic and the only reason is you fear you might be wrong on your initial views it seems. If your own views contradict then clearly there is little merit to what you have stated.

So I will ask you some simple questions

What to you is wrong about child abuse?  

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

That is the point to understand this further we need to understand what you believe is wrong, hence you keep dodging at every level, it is utterly pathetic and the only reason is you fear you might be wrong on your initial views it seems. If your own views contradict then clearly there is little merit to what you have stated.

So I will ask you some simple questions

What to you is wrong about child abuse?  

Yeah I think everyone else has already managed the understanding that I am not expressing my views but am rather presenting arguments to explore the topic further.

However regards your question - you would first have to define "child abuse"  (namely do I think it wrong to make a child kiss their elderly relative on the cheek?  No.  Do I think what Ian Watkins filmed himself doing was wrong? Yes)

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

How is it an illness? It's not hurting them or leading to destructive behavior.

So homosexuality is something people are born with but is not an illness and does not need to be cured.
However paedophilia is something people are born with but is an illness and does need to be cured.

Who is making these judgement calls?  On what basis?

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Yeah I think everyone else has already managed the understanding that I am not expressing my views but am rather presenting arguments to explore the topic further.

However regards your question - you would first have to define "child abuse"  (namely do I think it wrong to make a child kiss their elderly relative on the cheek?  No.  Do I think what Ian Watkins filmed himself doing was wrong? Yes)

I saw your views earlier that we should not challenge old people because they grew up with religious gobbledygook where they think two consenting adults of the same sex is wrong, yes I read that.

Okay what do you see as child abuse, by that do you believe it happens and what are the wrongs you feel are involved. I know what I see as wrong in this but that would not help understand your view points so I have to understand yours by you explaining to me what your views on this are.
Like getting blood out of a stone  

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


I saw your views earlier that we should not challenge old people because they grew up with religious gobbledygook where they think two consenting adults of the same sex is wrong, yes I read that.

Okay what do you see as child abuse, by that do you believe it happens and what are the wrongs you feel are involved. I know what I see as wrong in this but that would not help understand your view points so I have to understand yours by you explaining to me what your views on this are.
Like getting blood out of a stone  

You saw my views that we should not challenge  old people because they grew up with religious gobbledygook where they think two consenting adults of the same sex is wrong.

What I actually said is that it is wrong to attack people who stick to views that developed in a time or place where those views are the norm.
Attack, define attack, by your view of attacking is that challenging their perception now the wrong thing to do, and we should ignore that some people because they hold prejudice views just say that is okay? Really?

Your question about what I see as child abuse in order to understand my viewpoints would be valid if on any other occasion you had managed to see my viewpoints instead of interpreting what you think my viewpoint is according to your own viewpoint - which is exactly what you did when you saw my views as not challenging old people.
Your view points are absurd, I think to live ina decent society that we should be able to challenge people who hold backward views. Your belief is that grew up in a time when it was acceptable to hate gay people so that makes it okay. when it does not, as homosexuals face discrimination and certainly from older people, thus it is essential to challenge perceptions no matter what era they grew up. Off the back of this you then question whether we should question those who abuse children, where it is not consenting or the fact the child is both physically and mentally sexually immature. You then base this that somehow this might one day be acceptable because people today challenge it. My view is it will never be acceptable for the simple fact a child both physically and mentally sexually immature and thus very much is being abuised  

As you have so far been totally unable to see my viewpoint I consider it pointless providing you with it.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

You saw my views that we should not challenge  old people because they grew up with religious gobbledygook where they think two consenting adults of the same sex is wrong.

What I actually said is that it is wrong to attack people who stick to views that developed in a time or place where those views are the norm.
Attack, define attack, by your view of attacking is that challenging their perception now the wrong thing to do, and we should ignore that some people because they hold prejudice views just say that is okay? Really?

Your question about what I see as child abuse in order to understand my viewpoints would be valid if on any other occasion you had managed to see my viewpoints instead of interpreting what you think my viewpoint is according to your own viewpoint - which is exactly what you did when you saw my views as not challenging old people.
Your view points are absurd, I think to live ina decent society that we should be able to challenge people who hold backward views. Your belief is that grew up in a time when it was acceptable to hate gay people so that makes it okay. when it does not, as homosexuals face discrimination and certainly from older people, thus it is essential to challenge perceptions no matter what era they grew up. Off the back of this you then question whether we should question those who abuse children, where it is not consenting or the fact the child is both physically and mentally sexually immature. You then base this that somehow this might one day be acceptable because people today challenge it. My view is it will never be acceptable for the simple fact a child both physically and mentally sexually immature and thus very much is being abuised  

As you have so far been totally unable to see my viewpoint I consider it pointless providing you with it.

Your view point in my view as seen takes a very easy option out of, in fact it takes the view to ignore

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Your view point in my view as seen takes a very easy option out of, in fact it takes the view to ignore

Attack = egging of house.

Get it now?

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Attack = egging of house.

Get it now?

That is not attacking, that is vandalism loosely veiled and classed as criminal damage.

Not a definition of attacking

Anyway I see you did not answer the rest

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


That is not attacking, that is vandalism loosely veiled and classed as criminal damage.

Not a definition of attacking

Anyway I see you did not answer the rest

So if a group of people throw eggs at your house declaring they are doing so because of an opinion you expressed you would not consider that an attack.

Interesting.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

So if a group of people throw eggs at your house declaring they are doing so because of an opinion you expressed you would not consider that an attack.

Interesting.

No not really but I now see you have detracted from the other points, what he said was absurd, he is in a position of authority, what they did was wrong also by throwing eggs, I hardly though constitute that as attacking him, when they have targeted a building with eggs, even though the law states other wise  

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

No not really but I now see you have detracted from the other points, what he said was absurd, he is in a position of authority, what they did was wrong also by throwing eggs, I hardly though constitute that as attacking him, when they have targeted a building with eggs, even though the law states other wise  

And we have another didge moment - the law considers it an attack but because didge does not agree others may not use it as an argument.  Classic.

sphinx wrote:Yes laws change - and when that happens something that was wrong becomes right or something that was right becomes wrong.

Which was my original point was it not?

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:Yes laws change - and when that happens something that was wrong becomes right or something that was right becomes wrong.

Which was my original point was it not?

It was part of your point, others I have challenged which now you seem to want to ignore.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

It was part of your point, others I have challenged which now you seem to want to ignore.

No it was the whole point didge - dont worry you did get it right, there is nothing else to work out on it.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

No it was the whole point didge - dont worry you did get it right, there is nothing else to work out on it.

There is plenty, as with your answer earlier you take the option to duck out

Eilzel wrote:I do believe paedophiles are born that way. Further, I do not believe there is a cure. Same with gay people; no cure. The problem then is 'what to do' with paedophiles?

Well and offender should be locked in some mental institute for life imo, since they have crossed the line of harming another. As for someone who is that way inclined and feels unable to control themselves indefinitely, well then the only solution is surely the same.

It is a difficult area but if someone does have those feelings they ARE a danger to society.

Obviously just because someone is 'born' a paedophile does not means they warrant rights- their condition means they eventually will harm another- whereas homosexual relationships do not involve a victim.

feelthelove wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I do believe paedophiles are born that way. Further, I do not believe there is a cure. Same with gay people; no cure. The problem then is 'what to do' with paedophiles?

Well and offender should be locked in some mental institute for life imo, since they have crossed the line of harming another. As for someone who is that way inclined and feels unable to control themselves indefinitely, well then the only solution is surely the same.

It is a difficult area but if someone does have those feelings they ARE a danger to society.

Obviously just because someone is 'born' a paedophile does not means they warrant rights- their condition means they eventually will harm another- whereas homosexual relationships do not involve a victim.

  Well said Les x