Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bubbles on June 29, 2015, 01:48:27 PM
-
.
-
This is by no means new, Rose. Psychologists have been suggesting this for 20 or 30 years.
-
I don't see it is necessarily that concerning. Note I do not know enough about this area to know whether or not paedophilia(pedant head: note spelling) qualifies as a sexual orientation.
However if it does - it still does not in anyway mean that any change in the rights they have in this respect are coming their way. You still have the issues of consent and harm to deal with.
These issues alone means that paedophilia will remain a criminal activity.
-
Why is it concerning?
-
I don't think anyone considers that paedophilia can be 'cured'. But I think the days are long gone when the idiotic liberal left (and no doubt pervy right somewhere) argued for paedophile rights. We now gave very strong ideas on what informed consent is and are clear that children cannot give it. End of story. There's nothing in that article to suggest that anyone is recommending a campaign for paedophile rights.
What it does show though is that the current ideas around sentence tariffs and rehabilitation aren't going to be effective.
-
Anyway - that Pat Dollard (now that I have accessed the site) is clearly using the issue to take a pop at recent liberalisation of laws for homosexuals.
I would file it under ignore.
-
Yes, bigots still use a nasty comparison between gays and paedophiles. Shows how desperate and full of hate they are, really.
There was a period in the 70s/80s when paedophiles were given psychiatric treatment, and could avoid prison. However, this was abandoned later, partly because treatment often didn't work, and also I think some were able to fake it, and then go back to offending.
-
I don't see it is necessarily that concerning. Note I do not know enough about this area to know whether or not paedophilia(pedant head: note spelling) qualifies as a sexual orientation.
Pedant head: the pedophile' spelling is perfectly legit. in American/Canadian English - whence this report came.
However if it does - it still does not in anyway mean that any change in the rights they have in this respect are coming their way. You still have the issues of consent and harm to deal with.
These issues alone means that paedophilia will remain a criminal activity.
It's perhaps worth remembering that the age of consent is nothing more than a social construct. At present, it bears very little relation to either an age of being able to make decisions, or to commonly-held views of a child's stages of maturity. Since I was born, it has slowly been reduced from 25 to 16.
-
In the 80s I was shocked when a member of the 'paedophile information exchange' was given airtime on BBC radio. The pervert was pedalling his very sick agenda, saying that adults and children had a right to have sex with each other! >:( >:( >:( Not long after that they became a banned organisation, what took them so long to ban it?
Paedophilia is not a sexual orientation like hetero/homo/sexuality, which are normal. It is a very sick perversion and should always be treated as such.
-
I don't see it is necessarily that concerning. Note I do not know enough about this area to know whether or not paedophilia(pedant head: note spelling) qualifies as a sexual orientation.
Pedant head: the pedophile' spelling is perfectly legit. in American/Canadian English - whence this report came.
However if it does - it still does not in anyway mean that any change in the rights they have in this respect are coming their way. You still have the issues of consent and harm to deal with.
These issues alone means that paedophilia will remain a criminal activity.
It's perhaps worth remembering that the age of consent is nothing more than a social construct. At present, it bears very little relation to either an age of being able to make decisions, or to commonly-held views of a child's stages of maturity. Since I was born, it has slowly been reduced from 25 to 16.
25? When and where?
-
http://us.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/06/26/handsome-gorilla-hit-with-the-ladies-ripley-pkg.cnn
Maybe bestiality is next!
-
Sexual deviation is just the result of genetic differences, which themselves are its raison d'etre.
It is up to us to control those which we consider antisocial.
-
I don't see it is necessarily that concerning. Note I do not know enough about this area to know whether or not paedophilia(pedant head: note spelling) qualifies as a sexual orientation.
Pedant head: the pedophile' spelling is perfectly legit. in American/Canadian English - whence this report came.
However if it does - it still does not in anyway mean that any change in the rights they have in this respect are coming their way. You still have the issues of consent and harm to deal with.
These issues alone means that paedophilia will remain a criminal activity.
It's perhaps worth remembering that the age of consent is nothing more than a social construct. At present, it bears very little relation to either an age of being able to make decisions, or to commonly-held views of a child's stages of maturity. Since I was born, it has slowly been reduced from 25 to 16.
You really are a humourless prig aren't you?
Anyway - of course the age of consent is a social construct. That doesn't mean that it is going to be changed to allow paedophiles to molest children. Any suggestion that it is, or could happen is pathetic scaremongering of the very worst kind.
-
I don't see it is necessarily that concerning. Note I do not know enough about this area to know whether or not paedophilia(pedant head: note spelling) qualifies as a sexual orientation.
Pedant head: the pedophile' spelling is perfectly legit. in American/Canadian English - whence this report came.
However if it does - it still does not in anyway mean that any change in the rights they have in this respect are coming their way. You still have the issues of consent and harm to deal with.
These issues alone means that paedophilia will remain a criminal activity.
It's perhaps worth remembering that the age of consent is nothing more than a social construct. At present, it bears very little relation to either an age of being able to make decisions, or to commonly-held views of a child's stages of maturity. Since I was born, it has slowly been reduced from 25 to 16.
25? When and where?
I think Libya was 21
was Hope in Libya? To have experienced this slow reduction? Interested in how we classify this as it isn't true of any part of the UK
-
Nor indeed of any place I am aware of, so Hope where have you been to have this slow reduction from 25 to 16?
-
In the UK the age of consent has never been 25, it has been 16 for as long as I can remember and I am older than Hope!
-
Off the top of my head it's been 16 since the Labouchere Amendment, which I think was 1880- or 1890-something.
ETA: It was 1885 - and that's when it was raised (from 13), not lowered. So I guess Hopalong is thinking of somewhere else, because the UK it ain't.
-
I think some confuse the age of consent and the age of majority, which used to be 21 until the early 70s, I think.
-
Perhaps.
-
Whilst I see the necessity for a norm, it is quite ridiculous to assume that every child develops at the same rate.
Some kids are totally mature and responsible at 14 and others not capable of making sensible decisions until they are much older.
-
Rose,
I believe that a homosexual can be a paedo. You mention lack of research. Yes of course, how politically incorrect it would be to research homosexual paedos. Look, a fella that is horny for young males and not young females is a homosexual paedo. Recognizing that homosexuals have been persecuted for ever, it is no excuse to deny that sickos can be among them. Are they human? I think so, so yes, lets not cover up the reality that some may want to harm boys. I mean is a heterosexual that goes after young girls not heterosexual? Silly isn't it? No problem with claiming a peado is heterosexual. Ruffles no feathers, like apple sauce on a pork chop.
-
Whilst I see the necessity for a norm, it is quite ridiculous to assume that every child develops at the same rate.
Some kids are totally mature and responsible at 14 and others not capable of making sensible decisions until they are much older.
Yes, I think the law is set to protect the childish ( childlike ?) ones for longer
Indeed, and when a case is brought up that should always be taken into consideration. The law is there for the guidance of wise judges and the strict obedience of foolish ones. Unfortunately there is no shortage of the latter.
-
Both heterosexuals and homosexuals can be paedophiles. Sadly some bigots seem to focus exclusively on homosexuals where paedophilia is concerned! >:(
-
Dear Rose,
So a true pedophile ( what ever that is ) cannot change their sexual orientation.
So what do we do, lock them all up and throw away the key, if one child is harmed, is that one child too many, should they all be tagged.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Rose,
So a true pedophile ( what ever that is ) cannot change their sexual orientation.
So what do we do, lock them all up and throw away the key, if one child is harmed, is that one child too many, should they all be tagged.
Gonnagle.
I agree and brand them too! >:(
-
I suspect that the origin of paedophilia is much more complex than we imagine. Sexuality doesn't seem to be quite so readily determined simply by genetics. My guess is that it is the result of some complex interaction at a sensitive developmental stage between genetics and environment. (Oh dear - this makes sound like some latter day Freudian! Or worse, like an epigeneticist follower of Sriram!)
But there is evidence of the existence of developmental stages at which appropriate stimulus determines later behaviour - the best known being language. If an infant is not exposed to language by the age of about 18 months it will never acquire language. It may be that aspects of sexuality are hard-wired and their correct expression will be a combination of genetic, hormonal and experiential factors - possibly both pre- and post-parturition.
This is not to excuse or condone paedophilia. It is abhorrent and plainly pathological. One can only hope that its incidence is very low. However, the lurid reporting of rare incidents means that all men are now presumed to be dangerous to children unless proven otherwise.
These issues alone means that paedophilia will remain a criminal activity.
Absolutely.
There is also confusion about the term paedophile - it is someone with an interest in pre-pubertal children. Adults with an interest in post-pubertal children are hebephiles.
-
I don't see it is necessarily that concerning. Note I do not know enough about this area to know whether or not paedophilia(pedant head: note spelling) qualifies as a sexual orientation.
However if it does - it still does not in anyway mean that any change in the rights they have in this respect are coming their way. You still have the issues of consent and harm to deal with.
These issues alone means that paedophilia will remain a criminal activity.
paedophilia (pedant head: note spelling)
You insensitive person - you beat me to it!
-
In the UK the age of consent has never been 25, it has been 16 for as long as I can remember and I am older than Hope!
OK, I'm willing to accept that that is the case. I had always understood that the age of consent and the age of majority had been the same until shortly after the 2nd W.W. - at least that is what my father told me and he was a historian before he became a clergyman.
By the way, there are still a few cases where the age of majority (usually in financial trust cases) is 30!! A friend of mine was told by the lawyers that his trust would mature (is that the correct term?) on his 25th birthday, only for them to discover that it was actually 30, 3 days before that birthday!!
-
paedophilia (pedant head: note spelling)
You insensitive person - you beat me to it!
Nat, as I pointed out before, paedo- is only correct in British English. In American, and therefore generally Canadian English as well, the correct spelling is pedo- (as in the thread title).
-
paedophilia (pedant head: note spelling)
You insensitive person - you beat me to it!
Nat, as I pointed out before, paedo- is only correct in British English. In American, and therefore generally Canadian English as well, the correct spelling is pedo- (as in the thread title).
I am in England - so it is spelt "PAE"
-
paedophilia (pedant head: note spelling)
You insensitive person - you beat me to it!
Nat, as I pointed out before, paedo- is only correct in British English. In American, and therefore generally Canadian English as well, the correct spelling is pedo- (as in the thread title).
How come you target me for the comment and not Trentvoyager who made the comment to which I was replying.
There are quite, like, enough Americanisms, like, in the English language already!
-
How come ypou target me fotr the comment and not Trentvotager who made the comment to which I was replying.
There are quite, like, enough Americanisms, like, in the English language already!
Well, I had already pointed out the fact to Trent earlier today - see post #11
Whilst I would agree with your second point, it should be noted that the report that Rose referred to in the OP is - I believe - a Canadian report and is therefore likely to reflect American spelling (by the way, my browser wouldn't allow me to open the link).
-
Why is it concerning?
Because it means there is no hope for pedophiles.
-
But I think the days are long gone when the idiotic liberal left (and no doubt pervy right somewhere) argued for paedophile rights.
Which days were they? I must have missed them.
-
But I think the days are long gone when the idiotic liberal left (and no doubt pervy right somewhere) argued for paedophile rights.
Which days were they? I must have missed them.
1974-1984 . . . surely you can't have missed that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange
-
Nat, as I pointed out before, paedo- is only correct in British English. In American, and therefore generally Canadian English as well, the correct spelling is pedo- (as in the thread title).
Are foot feshitists aware of this?
-
This is a bit concerning
"Earlier this year two psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality.
Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”
He went on to say, “True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent.”
When asked if he should be comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, Van Gijseghem replied, “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”
Dr. Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem. Quinsey said pedophiles’ sexual interests prefer children and, “There is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”
Read more at http://patdollard.com/2013/07/it-begins-pedophiles-call-for-same-rights-as-homosexuals/#fzSrog3fRZ7duceJ.99
Your thoughts?
The issue here is one of consent rather than 'sexual orientation'.
In the case of paedophiles, by definition there cannot be consent on the basis that a person under 16 is unable to give consent. That's why it is wrong. And why this bears no relation to consensual heterosexual or homosexual activities.
-
Nat, as I pointed out before, paedo- is only correct in British English. In American, and therefore generally Canadian English as well, the correct spelling is pedo- (as in the thread title).
Are foot feshitists aware of this?
Nice one!
-
Nat, as I pointed out before, paedo- is only correct in British English. In American, and therefore generally Canadian English as well, the correct spelling is pedo- (as in the thread title).
Are foot feshitists aware of this?
Yes, I believe that they are, if they live in America ;) Not sure about those here in the UK
-
And I suppose all it would take is a bunch of judges and senators to have pedophile tendencies before it becomes lawful in that country.
Anything shocking today could easily become acceptable and even seem very reasonable...given enough time and enough high profile people supporting it!
-
And I suppose all it would take is a bunch of judges and senators to have pedophile tendencies before it becomes lawful in that country.
Anything shocking today could easily become acceptable and even seem very reasonable...given enough time and enough high profile people supporting it!
Hysterical wibble.
-
Hysterical wibble.
The issues of abortion, divorce, women's suffrage, gay rights, to name but 4, are clearly hysterical wibble by your definition, Shaker.
-
Hysterical wibble.
The issues of abortion, divorce, women's suffrage, gay rights, to name but 4, are clearly hysterical wibble by your definition, Shaker.
I wasn't aware that abortion laws were decided by a bunch of judges and senators who wanted to perform abortions.
I wasn't aware that divorce laws were decided by a bunch of judges and senators who themselves wanted to divorce.
I wasn't aware that laws relating to the liberalisation of homosexuality were decided by a bunch of judges and senators who are themselves gay.
Sriram is simply being a thoughtless and reactionary arse.
-
Hysterical wibble.
The issues of abortion, divorce, women's suffrage, gay rights, to name but 4, are clearly hysterical wibble by your definition, Shaker.
I wasn't aware that abortion laws were decided by a bunch of judges and senators who wanted to perform abortions.
I wasn't aware that divorce laws were decided by a bunch of judges and senators who themselves wanted to divorce.
I wasn't aware that laws relating to the liberalisation of homosexuality were decided by a bunch of judges and senators who are themselves gay.
Sriram is simply being a thoughtless and reactionary arse.
No, he isn't. Although I don't necessarily agree with him, your summary of the way in which laws changed over the years ignores the role that the legal profession had - not necessarily in instigating the changes - but in passing judgements that required legislation to be rethought and changed.
Sriram's post makes two different, even though related points. One, that sometime in the future, peadophile judges could become instrumental in changing the law is this area. The second that it often takes high-profile support of a campaign to make it successful. Your 'hysterical wibble' post didn't specify which of those two points you were responding to. Can you honestly tell us that, of the 4 examples I gave, none were boosted by high-profile support?
-
No, he isn't.
Yes he is. It's quite a regular thing with him.
Sriram's post makes two different, even though related points. One, that sometime in the future, peadophile judges could become instrumental in changing the law is this area.
Anybody who believes this is a blithering fool.
The second that it often takes high-profile support of a campaign to make it successful. Your 'hysterical wibble' post didn't specify which of those two points you were responding to. Can you honestly tell us that, of the 4 examples I gave, none were boosted by high-profile support?
They all were. Except that none of the examples you gave had or have anything to do with the sexual abuse of subjects incapable of informed consent.
-
Except that none of the examples you gave had or have anything to do with the sexual abuse of subjects incapable of informed consent.
Combined, of course, with the very culture-specific definition of that phrase 'capable of informed consent'. It isn't a set stage of development; it depends on what age each society chooses to allow children to make their own decisions.
-
Except that none of the examples you gave had or have anything to do with the sexual abuse of subjects incapable of informed consent.
Combined, of course, with the very culture-specific definition of that phrase 'capable of informed consent'. It isn't a set stage of development; it depends on what age each society chooses to allow children to make their own decisions.
So you would be perfectly happy, under your version of being "capable of informed consent", for nine-year old to be shagged stupid by a forty-nine because she was clever and grown up for her age and says I want to be shagged, I know what it is all about 'cos I've watched dogs and horses do it!
No bloody way!
-
Actually...come to think of it...traditionally, in all societies... sex (marriage) has been allowed soon after puberty. So, sex with a person post puberty (say even a 12 year old) could be argued as not pedophilia. If nature intends it who are we to question it?
I can see some senator latching on to that idea!
-
Actually...come to think of it...traditionally, in all societies... sex (marriage) has been allowed soon after puberty. So, sex with a person post puberty (say even a 12 year old) could be argued as not pedophilia. If nature intends it who are we to question it?
I can see some senator latching on to that idea!
Sriram
It has been stated many times on this forum paedophilia refers to sexual activity with a pre-pubescent child. Activity with a pubescent and recently post-pubescent child is hebephilia, and with a sexually-mature child is ephebophilia.
It is not a case of "could be argued", the definitions are clear.
There is a general belief among Christians that Mary the mother of Jesus was 13 or 14 at the time the conception. Assuming that there was no human intervention, does this make God a hebephile?
-
Actually...come to think of it...traditionally, in all societies... sex (marriage) has been allowed soon after puberty. So, sex with a person post puberty (say even a 12 year old) could be argued as not pedophilia. If nature intends it who are we to question it?
I can see some senator latching on to that idea!
Sriram
It has been stated many times on this forum paedophilia refers to sexual activity with a pre-pubescent child. Activity with a pubescent and recently post-pubescent child is hebephilia, and with a sexually-mature child is ephebophilia.
It is not a case of "could be argued", the definitions are clear.
There is a general belief among Christians that Mary the mother of Jesus was 13 or 14 at the time the conception. Assuming that there was no human intervention, does this make God a hebephile?
Exceptionally well put HH!
This is one of those posts that I read and think "I wish that I had said that!"
-
Actually...come to think of it...traditionally, in all societies... sex (marriage) has been allowed soon after puberty. So, sex with a person post puberty (say even a 12 year old) could be argued as not pedophilia. If nature intends it who are we to question it?
I can see some senator latching on to that idea!
Sriram
It has been stated many times on this forum paedophilia refers to sexual activity with a pre-pubescent child. Activity with a pubescent and recently post-pubescent child is hebephilia, and with a sexually-mature child is ephebophilia.
It is not a case of "could be argued", the definitions are clear.
There is a general belief among Christians that Mary the mother of Jesus was 13 or 14 at the time the conception. Assuming that there was no human intervention, does this make God a hebephile?
Alright!..alright! So much about words....and technicalities.
The point is..... are hebephilia and ephebophilia legal and socially acceptable? Are adults allowed to marry sexually mature children?
-
Actually...come to think of it...traditionally, in all societies... sex (marriage) has been allowed soon after puberty. So, sex with a person post puberty (say even a 12 year old) could be argued as not pedophilia. If nature intends it who are we to question it?
I can see some senator latching on to that idea!
Sriram
It has been stated many times on this forum paedophilia refers to sexual activity with a pre-pubescent child. Activity with a pubescent and recently post-pubescent child is hebephilia, and with a sexually-mature child is ephebophilia.
It is not a case of "could be argued", the definitions are clear.
There is a general belief among Christians that Mary the mother of Jesus was 13 or 14 at the time the conception. Assuming that there was no human intervention, does this make God a hebephile?
Alright!..alright! So much about words....and technicalities.
The point is..... are hebephilia and ephebophilia legal and socially acceptable? Are adults allowed to marry sexually mature children?
That is a very good question, Sriram.
I think that the word "allowed" is perhaps not the most appropriate since it does imply legality and I think that you are really asking about social acceptability. My judgement is that in England if a 50 year old decided to marry a 16 year old, it would attract official attention.
(As an aside, Anna Nicole Smith was 26 when she married an 89 year old multi millionaire. I believe the marriage was never consumated and that they did not live together.)
In Europe I believe the legal age of consent varies between 14 (eg Portugal) and 18 (Malta). In most countries it is 15 (eg France) or 16 (including UK). Some countries have ages of consent that are determined by the age of the sexual partner (Germany 15, but if the partner is over 21, then the question of exploitation has to be investigated).
Depending on the sexual development of the individual this could well be interpreted as hebephilia or ephebophilia. A complication (perhaps) is that girls mature earlier than boys. So for two 15 year olds the girl may be experiencing hebephilia and the boy ephebophilia!
-
You have digressed from the subject of whether pedophile judges, celebrities and other high profile people can at some time manage to make pedophilia acceptable and legal.
-
You have digressed from the subject of whether pedophile judges, celebrities and other high profile people can at some time manage to make pedophilia acceptable and legal.
You have to be a rare kind of moron to believe that.
-
You have digressed from the subject of whether pedophile judges, celebrities and other high profile people can at some time manage to make pedophilia acceptable and legal.
So that's what Sir Jimmy Savile was doing.
-
You have digressed from the subject of whether pedophile judges, celebrities and other high profile people can at some time manage to make pedophilia acceptable and legal.
What a crazy comment. :o Paedophilia is NEVER acceptable whether the pervert is a celeb or not! I can't see it ever being made legal!
-
You have digressed from the subject of whether pedophile judges, celebrities and other high profile people can at some time manage to make pedophilia acceptable and legal.
. . . and previously
Actually...come to think of it...traditionally, in all societies... sex (marriage) has been allowed soon after puberty. So, sex with a person post puberty (say even a 12 year old) could be argued as not pedophilia. If nature intends it who are we to question it?
If you really and truly believe this then you are, without a shadow of a doubt, a far sicker puppy that I had ever imagined possible.
-
It has taken me a while to find, among my reams of papers that I have collected over the years, but I have finally done so, a flyer from forty years ago.
Back in the early 70's I was living in Australia, sydney, and within weeks of each other a C of E vicar and a Catholic priest were both accused of child molestation. The C of E priest was arrested and charged and, eventually sentenced to, iirc, 12 years.
The Catholic priest was removed from his parish before charges could be laid and posted to a parish on South Island, New Zealand.
As soon as this latter information became public flyers began to appear on the doors of Catholics and Protestants all over their parishes.
They read:
If you could stop someone from sexually abusing a child, would you?
If your answer is "yes" you have higher moral standards than your God.
How the god of the bible could allow these and other crimes of violence, and the terrible diseases that man is heir to, is part of the reason that I am no longer Christian.
-
If the deity exists, maybe human depravity gives it a thrill!
-
If the deity exists, maybe human depravity gives it a thrill!
Pathetic - again!
-
If the deity exists, maybe human depravity gives it a thrill!
Pathetic - again!
As is your pathetic need to respond.
-
If the deity exists, maybe human depravity gives it a thrill!
Pathetic - again!
As is your pathetic need to respond.
As is yours!
You people have a problem: I don't know what it is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce!
-
If the deity exists, maybe human depravity gives it a thrill!
Pathetic - again!
As is your pathetic need to respond.
As is yours!
You people have a problem: I don't know what it is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce!
"You people" - please define.
-
If the deity exists, maybe human depravity gives it a thrill!
Pathetic - again!
As is your pathetic need to respond.
As is yours!
You people have a problem: I don't know what it is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce!
"You people" - please define.
Atheists, anti-theists, anti-Christians: all you who spend your time debunking things religious.
-
If the deity exists, maybe human depravity gives it a thrill!
Pathetic - again!
As is your pathetic need to respond.
As is yours!
You people have a problem: I don't know what it is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce!
"You people" - please define.
Atheists, anti-theists, anti-Christians: all you who spend your time debunking things religious.
I do not "debunk" things religious. I just reject your religion in favour of my own.
-
If the deity exists, maybe human depravity gives it a thrill!
Pathetic - again!
As is your pathetic need to respond.
As is yours!
You people have a problem: I don't know what it is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce!
"You people" - please define.
Atheists, anti-theists, anti-Christians: all you who spend your time debunking things religious.
I do not "debunk" things religious. I just reject your religion in favour of my own.
You debunk, vilify: and you also abuse, as this recent posts illustrates:
"I suspect that Fllo's atatement that "blaspheming it makes me feel good when I am stressed" may well mean that, when under stress, to yell at the top of your voice "JESUS F*****G CHRIST ALL-F*****G-MIGHTY" is a great means of stress relief.
I know that it works for me."
-
If the deity exists, maybe human depravity gives it a thrill!
Pathetic - again!
As is your pathetic need to respond.
As is yours!
You people have a problem: I don't know what it is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce!
"You people" - please define.
Atheists, anti-theists, anti-Christians: all you who spend your time debunking things religious.
I think you are perhaps on the wrong forum if you expect everyone to agree with you. It is a discussion forum - now you can (and probably will) complain about the quality of those arguments - but to complain about those who have different viewpoints to you seems to miss one of the essential points of this board.
-
If the deity exists, maybe human depravity gives it a thrill!
Pathetic - again!
As is your pathetic need to respond.
As is yours!
You people have a problem: I don't know what it is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce!
"You people" - please define.
Atheists, anti-theists, anti-Christians: all you who spend your time debunking things religious.
I think you are perhaps on the wrong forum if you expect everyone to agree with you. It is a discussion forum - now you can (and probably will) complain about the quality of those arguments - but to complain about those who have different viewpoints to you seems to miss one of the essential points of this board.
I seem to spend my time as an apologist for Christianity; not debating text or history; just fending off the vilification and vitriol. Is that what you think the forum is about? I haven't noticed you objecting to that type of post; just objecting to me. Talk about blinkered!!
-
But I think the days are long gone when the idiotic liberal left (and no doubt pervy right somewhere) argued for paedophile rights.
Which days were they? I must have missed them.
1974-1984 . . . surely you can't have missed that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange
So there you have pedophiles arguing for pedophile rights, but the point was that the "idiotic liberal left" were arguing for them. It is that of which I have no recollection.
-
If the deity exists, maybe human depravity gives it a thrill!
Pathetic - again!
As is your pathetic need to respond.
As is yours!
You people have a problem: I don't know what it is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce!
"You people" - please define.
Atheists, anti-theists, anti-Christians: all you who spend your time debunking things religious.
I do not "debunk" things religious. I just reject your religion in favour of my own.
You debunk, vilify: and you also abuse, as this recent posts illustrates:
"I suspect that Fllo's atatement that "blaspheming it makes me feel good when I am stressed" may well mean that, when under stress, to yell at the top of your voice "JESUS F*****G CHRIST ALL-F*****G-MIGHTY" is a great means of stress relief.
I know that it works for me."
My recent post - to yell at the top of your voice "JESUS F*****G CHRIST ALL-F*****G-MIGHTY" is a great means of stress relief - is not debunking, vilification, or abuse, in fact a version of my comment here quoted dates back to the auto-biography of the late great Spike Milligan who stated that the nearest that most soldiers came to religion was to exclaim JESUS F*****G CHRIST ALL-F*****G-MIGHTY when thgey dropped a 25 pounder howitzer shell on their toes.
I consoider myself to be perfectly justified in, should I wish to do so, debunking, vilifiying, and/or abusing, your religious vews when you define mine as crap.
As has been said before, if you can't take it don't try dishing it out!
-
If the deity exists, maybe human depravity gives it a thrill!
Pathetic - again!
As is your pathetic need to respond.
As is yours!
You people have a problem: I don't know what it is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce!
"You people" - please define.
Atheists, anti-theists, anti-Christians: all you who spend your time debunking things religious.
I think you are perhaps on the wrong forum if you expect everyone to agree with you. It is a discussion forum - now you can (and probably will) complain about the quality of those arguments - but to complain about those who have different viewpoints to you seems to miss one of the essential points of this board.
I seem to spend my time as an apologist for Christianity; not debating text or history; just fending off the vilification and vitriol. Is that what you think the forum is about? I haven't noticed you objecting to that type of post; just objecting to me. Talk about blinkered!!
Make your life easier, and choose to believe that God does not exist.
-
If the deity exists, maybe human depravity gives it a thrill!
Pathetic - again!
As is your pathetic need to respond.
As is yours!
You people have a problem: I don't know what it is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce!
"You people" - please define.
Atheists, anti-theists, anti-Christians: all you who spend your time debunking things religious.
I think you are perhaps on the wrong forum if you expect everyone to agree with you. It is a discussion forum - now you can (and probably will) complain about the quality of those arguments - but to complain about those who have different viewpoints to you seems to miss one of the essential points of this board.
I seem to spend my time as an apologist for Christianity; not debating text or history; just fending off the vilification and vitriol. Is that what you think the forum is about? I haven't noticed you objecting to that type of post; just objecting to me. Talk about blinkered!!
Make your life easier, and choose to believe that God does not exist.
Make your life easier, and save hours and hours, by avoiding the constant repetition!
-
I only repeat because you evade a simple question.
One that shows you are a liar.
-
I only repeat because you evade a simple question.
One that shows you are a liar.
I am not a liar: but you are a fool.
-
I only repeat because you evade a simple question.
One that shows you are a liar.
I am not a liar: but you are a fool.
Can you believe God does not exist?
If you cannot then you ARE a liar.
-
I only repeat because you evade a simple question.
One that shows you are a liar.
I am not a liar: but you are a fool.
Can you believe God does not exist?
If you cannot then you ARE a liar.
Just go away, for pity's sake. You are one pain in the proverbial! :(
-
I only repeat because you evade a simple question.
One that shows you are a liar.
I am not a liar: but you are a fool.
Can you believe God does not exist?
If you cannot then you ARE a liar.
Just go away, for pity's sake. You are one pain in the proverbial! :(
So you evade yet again.
Admit you cannot choose your beliefs.
Its obvious you cannot do why do you claim you can?
-
I only repeat because you evade a simple question.
One that shows you are a liar.
I am not a liar: but you are a fool.
Can you believe God does not exist?
If you cannot then you ARE a liar.
Just go away, for pity's sake. You are one pain in the proverbial! :(
So you evade yet again.
Admit you cannot choose your beliefs.
Its obvious you cannot do why do you claim you can?
For the last time: what does it matter to you anyway? What ever I say, you contradict. Been on the Blue Moon again? :)
-
I only repeat because you evade a simple question.
One that shows you are a liar.
I am not a liar: but you are a fool.
Can you believe God does not exist?
If you cannot then you ARE a liar.
Just go away, for pity's sake. You are one pain in the proverbial! :(
So you evade yet again.
Admit you cannot choose your beliefs.
Its obvious you cannot do why do you claim you can?
For the last time: what does it matter to you anyway? What ever I say, you contradict. Been on the Blue Moon again? :)
Because I care about truth.
You made a truth statement that I think is false.
You will not answer the question but keep replying.
I will ask until you either respond or go away, then everyone can see that you evaded the question.
-
If the deity exists, maybe human depravity gives it a thrill!
Pathetic - again!
As is your pathetic need to respond.
As is yours!
You people have a problem: I don't know what it is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce!
"You people" - please define.
Atheists, anti-theists, anti-Christians: all you who spend your time debunking things religious.
I do not "debunk" things religious. I just reject your religion in favour of my own.
And what would that be? Something to do with trees; dressing up in silly clothes; dancing around at night, when the moon is full? Do tell, oh wise one!
-
I only repeat because you evade a simple question.
One that shows you are a liar.
I am not a liar: but you are a fool.
Can you believe God does not exist?
If you cannot then you ARE a liar.
Just go away, for pity's sake. You are one pain in the proverbial! :(
So you evade yet again.
Admit you cannot choose your beliefs.
Its obvious you cannot do why do you claim you can?
For the last time: what does it matter to you anyway? What ever I say, you contradict. Been on the Blue Moon again? :)
Because I care about truth.
You made a truth statement that I think is false.
You will not answer the question but keep replying.
I will ask until you either respond or go away, then everyone can see that you evaded the question.
I suggest you go away, and take your silly ideas with you.
-
BA
More evasion and insult.
You fail the test yet again, and confirm that you cannot choose your beliefs as you incorrectly claimed.
Do you accept that this was not correct, and that you cannot actually choose your beliefs?
-
BA
More evasion and insult.
You fail the test yet again, and confirm that you cannot choose your beliefs as you incorrectly claimed.
Do you accept that this was not correct, and that you cannot actually choose your beliefs?
Why don't you choose to put your template and "tests" away, and think of something a little less boring to say? Can you do that? Can you pass the test? :)
-
BA
More evasion and insult.
You fail the test yet again, and confirm that you cannot choose your beliefs as you incorrectly claimed.
Do you accept that this was not correct, and that you cannot actually choose your beliefs?
Why don't you choose to put your template and "tests" away, and think of something a little less boring to say? Can you do that? Can you pass the test? :)
You made the claim not me.
If you did not mean it, why did you claim it.
You seem to be backing away from this incorrect claim, why not just admit it?
-
BA
More evasion and insult.
You fail the test yet again, and confirm that you cannot choose your beliefs as you incorrectly claimed.
Do you accept that this was not correct, and that you cannot actually choose your beliefs?
Why don't you choose to put your template and "tests" away, and think of something a little less boring to say? Can you do that? Can you pass the test? :)
You made the claim not me.
If you did not mean it, why did you claim it.
You seem to be backing away from this incorrect claim, why not just admit it?
You know, I've even forgotten what your "test" was about. So it couldn't have impacted much on me!
-
BA
More evasion and insult.
You fail the test yet again, and confirm that you cannot choose your beliefs as you incorrectly claimed.
Do you accept that this was not correct, and that you cannot actually choose your beliefs?
Why don't you choose to put your template and "tests" away, and think of something a little less boring to say? Can you do that? Can you pass the test? :)
You made the claim not me.
If you did not mean it, why did you claim it.
You seem to be backing away from this incorrect claim, why not just admit it?
You know, I've even forgotten what your "test" was about. So it couldn't have impacted much on me!
Yet you keep posting about it.
It is simple.
YOU claim you can choose your beliefs.
I challenged you to actually demonstrate this by NOT believing in your god.
You will keep posting any insult or dodge, but you always fail this simple test, and you do not retract the obviously wrong statement.
Do you stand by your statement that you can choose your beliefs?
-
But I think the days are long gone when the idiotic liberal left (and no doubt pervy right somewhere) argued for paedophile rights.
Which days were they? I must have missed them.
1974-1984 . . . surely you can't have missed that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange
So there you have pedophiles arguing for pedophile rights, but the point was that the "idiotic liberal left" were arguing for them. It is that of which I have no recollection.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10659100/Harriet-Harman-Jack-Dromey-Patricia-Hewitt-and-the-Paedophile-Information-Exchange.html
Don't worry, there's a liberal left that isn't idiotic.
-
Hi Rose,
Of course you can decide what to believe in some circumstances, when evidence for its truth/falsity is available ... but if such is not the case the honest thing to do is remain undecided.
If, however, the evidence presented to you confirms the truth of it, then you have no choice ... you can't then decide not to believe it. And vice-versa, of course! :)
-
Hi Rose,
Of course you can decide what to believe in some circumstances, but only if evidence for its truth/falsity not available ... although in that case the honest thing to do is remain undecided.
If, however, the evidence presented to you confirms the truth of it, then you have no choice ... you can't then decide not to believe it. And vice-versa, of course! :)
It seems I'm not the only one who fails your silly "test." Perhaps you could address yourself to them also, and bore the pants off them, to boot. It might also be a bit more apposite, if you did it on a more appropriate thread.
-
Hi Rose,
Of course you can decide what to believe in some circumstances, when evidence for its truth/falsity is available ... but if such is not the case the honest thing to do is remain undecided.
If, however, the evidence presented to you confirms the truth of it, then you have no choice ... you can't then decide not to believe it. And vice-versa, of course! :)
No idea what you mean by "the only honest thing to do is remain undecided". If you mean do nothing until you have repeatable, testable evidence in order to decide, that's just one option. Another option is to choose a view. They are equally valid and honest options. If we all sat around undecided until we have repeatable testable evidence for every decision we made very little would get done - especially in relation to business decisions.
You can choose to live your life according to your belief that we have to remain undecided if you want, but thankfully many of us choose a different belief from you in life and choose to take a risk and adopt a view on many things for which you might think the "honest" thing to do is remain undecided and do nothing.
-
Hi Rose,
Of course you can decide what to believe in some circumstances, when evidence for its truth/falsity is available ... but if such is not the case the honest thing to do is remain undecided.
If, however, the evidence presented to you confirms the truth of it, then you have no choice ... you can't then decide not to believe it. And vice-versa, of course! :)
No idea what you mean by "the only honest thing to do is remain undecided". If you mean do nothing until you have repeatable, testable evidence in order to decide, that's just one option. Another option is to choose a view. They are equally valid and honest options. If we all sat around undecided until we have repeatable testable evidence for every decision we made very little would get done - especially in relation to business decisions.
You can choose to live your life according to your belief that we have to remain undecided if you want, but thankfully many of us choose a different belief from you in life and choose to take a risk and adopt a view on many things for which you might think the "honest" thing to do is remain undecided and do nothing.
A point well-made, Gabriella.
-
Hi Rose,
Of course you can decide what to believe in some circumstances, when evidence for its truth/falsity is available ... but if such is not the case the honest thing to do is remain undecided.
If, however, the evidence presented to you confirms the truth of it, then you have no choice ... you can't then decide not to believe it. And vice-versa, of course! :)
Well said.
-
Hi Rose,
Of course you can decide what to believe in some circumstances, when evidence for its truth/falsity is available ... but if such is not the case the honest thing to do is remain undecided.
If, however, the evidence presented to you confirms the truth of it, then you have no choice ... you can't then decide not to believe it. And vice-versa, of course! :)
No idea what you mean by "the only honest thing to do is remain undecided". If you mean do nothing until you have repeatable, testable evidence in order to decide, that's just one option. Another option is to choose a view. They are equally valid and honest options. If we all sat around undecided until we have repeatable testable evidence for every decision we made very little would get done - especially in relation to business decisions.
You can choose to live your life according to your belief that we have to remain undecided if you want, but thankfully many of us choose a different belief from you in life and choose to take a risk and adopt a view on many things for which you might think the "honest" thing to do is remain undecided and do nothing.
Fine! But centering your life round something which some other human has thought up is not for me.
I am quite capable of arriving at my own moral code and living by it, but perhaps my mistake is in thinking that everybody else can too.
-
Hi Rose,
Of course you can decide what to believe in some circumstances, when evidence for its truth/falsity is available ... but if such is not the case the honest thing to do is remain undecided.
If, however, the evidence presented to you confirms the truth of it, then you have no choice ... you can't then decide not to believe it. And vice-versa, of course! :)
No idea what you mean by "the only honest thing to do is remain undecided". If you mean do nothing until you have repeatable, testable evidence in order to decide, that's just one option. Another option is to choose a view. They are equally valid and honest options. If we all sat around undecided until we have repeatable testable evidence for every decision we made very little would get done - especially in relation to business decisions.
You can choose to live your life according to your belief that we have to remain undecided if you want, but thankfully many of us choose a different belief from you in life and choose to take a risk and adopt a view on many things for which you might think the "honest" thing to do is remain undecided and do nothing.
Fine! But centering your life round something which some other human has thought up is not for me.
I am quite capable of arriving at my own moral code and living by it, but perhaps my mistake is in thinking that everybody else can too.
Maybe they do, but you, in a rather self-important manner do not appreciate it being so. Not everybody would necessarily see things exactly as you do, would they
-
Hi Rose,
Of course you can decide what to believe in some circumstances, when evidence for its truth/falsity is available ... but if such is not the case the honest thing to do is remain undecided.
If, however, the evidence presented to you confirms the truth of it, then you have no choice ... you can't then decide not to believe it. And vice-versa, of course! :)
No idea what you mean by "the only honest thing to do is remain undecided". If you mean do nothing until you have repeatable, testable evidence in order to decide, that's just one option. Another option is to choose a view. They are equally valid and honest options. If we all sat around undecided until we have repeatable testable evidence for every decision we made very little would get done - especially in relation to business decisions.
You can choose to live your life according to your belief that we have to remain undecided if you want, but thankfully many of us choose a different belief from you in life and choose to take a risk and adopt a view on many things for which you might think the "honest" thing to do is remain undecided and do nothing.
Fine! But centering your life round something which some other human has thought up is not for me.
I am quite capable of arriving at my own moral code and living by it, but perhaps my mistake is in thinking that everybody else can too.
I would be interested to know a moral code you live by that someone else in history did not think of first. Can you give me an example of a moral code that you came u with all by yourself?
-
Hi Rose,
Of course you can decide what to believe in some circumstances, when evidence for its truth/falsity is available ... but if such is not the case the honest thing to do is remain undecided.
If, however, the evidence presented to you confirms the truth of it, then you have no choice ... you can't then decide not to believe it. And vice-versa, of course! :)
No idea what you mean by "the only honest thing to do is remain undecided". If you mean do nothing until you have repeatable, testable evidence in order to decide, that's just one option. Another option is to choose a view. They are equally valid and honest options. If we all sat around undecided until we have repeatable testable evidence for every decision we made very little would get done - especially in relation to business decisions.
You can choose to live your life according to your belief that we have to remain undecided if you want, but thankfully many of us choose a different belief from you in life and choose to take a risk and adopt a view on many things for which you might think the "honest" thing to do is remain undecided and do nothing.
Fine! But centering your life round something which some other human has thought up is not for me.
I am quite capable of arriving at my own moral code and living by it, but perhaps my mistake is in thinking that everybody else can too.
I would be interested to know a moral code you live by that someone else in history did not think of first. Can you give me an example of a moral code that you came u with all by yourself?
There are variations possible, in any moral code. I was suggesting that Leonard had not the right to claim his code was the only one to live by, not that he stated what it actually is!
-
I heard this from a chap some time ago and how he would like to treat pedophiles, it goes as follows: take the said pedophile to a wooden shed, trap certain parts of the offender in a vice inside the shed, give them a knife and then set light to the shed.
It produced a wry smile on my face I'm sure but I do have some sympathy with the idea because of how revolting this crime is to most people.
Apparently, so I'm told these people really don't think there is anything wrong with their line of thought on this subject and take some convincing there is anything wrong with them?
There are certainly some strange people about.
ippy
-
I would be interested to know a moral code you live by that someone else in history did not think of first. Can you give me an example of a moral code that you came u with all by yourself?
Of course ... the one I live by.
Obviously, like everybody else, I am the product of my nature/nurture, and being a member of a social species pretty well makes certain that others of my species will arrive at the same conclusion as I have, since there aren't an enormous number of variants.
-
Hi Rose,
Of course you can decide what to believe in some circumstances, when evidence for its truth/falsity is available ... but if such is not the case the honest thing to do is remain undecided.
If, however, the evidence presented to you confirms the truth of it, then you have no choice ... you can't then decide not to believe it. And vice-versa, of course! :)
No idea what you mean by "the only honest thing to do is remain undecided". If you mean do nothing until you have repeatable, testable evidence in order to decide, that's just one option. Another option is to choose a view. They are equally valid and honest options. If we all sat around undecided until we have repeatable testable evidence for every decision we made very little would get done - especially in relation to business decisions.
You can choose to live your life according to your belief that we have to remain undecided if you want, but thankfully many of us choose a different belief from you in life and choose to take a risk and adopt a view on many things for which you might think the "honest" thing to do is remain undecided and do nothing.
Fine! But centering your life round something which some other human has thought up is not for me.
I am quite capable of arriving at my own moral code and living by it, but perhaps my mistake is in thinking that everybody else can too.
I would be interested to know a moral code you live by that someone else in history did not think of first. Can you give me an example of a moral code that you came u with all by yourself?
There are variations possible, in any moral code. I was suggesting that Leonard had not the right to claim his code was the only one to live by, not that he stated what it actually is!
BA - My question was addressed to Leonard, not to you.
-
I would be interested to know a moral code you live by that someone else in history did not think of first. Can you give me an example of a moral code that you came u with all by yourself?
Of course ... the one I live by.
Obviously, like everybody else, I am the product of my nature/nurture, and being a member of a social species pretty well makes certain that others of my species will arrive at the same conclusion as I have, since there aren't an enormous number of variants.
If your moral code is influenced by nurture, how are you claiming you came up with your moral code all by yourself? Your claim is just another one of the beliefs you choose to hold - unless you can provide us with repeatable, testable evidence that you live by a moral code that you came up with all by yourself.
-
Hi Rose,
Of course you can decide what to believe in some circumstances, when evidence for its truth/falsity is available ... but if such is not the case the honest thing to do is remain undecided.
If, however, the evidence presented to you confirms the truth of it, then you have no choice ... you can't then decide not to believe it. And vice-versa, of course! :)
No idea what you mean by "the only honest thing to do is remain undecided". If you mean do nothing until you have repeatable, testable evidence in order to decide, that's just one option. Another option is to choose a view. They are equally valid and honest options. If we all sat around undecided until we have repeatable testable evidence for every decision we made very little would get done - especially in relation to business decisions.
You can choose to live your life according to your belief that we have to remain undecided if you want, but thankfully many of us choose a different belief from you in life and choose to take a risk and adopt a view on many things for which you might think the "honest" thing to do is remain undecided and do nothing.
Fine! But centering your life round something which some other human has thought up is not for me.
I am quite capable of arriving at my own moral code and living by it, but perhaps my mistake is in thinking that everybody else can too.
I would be interested to know a moral code you live by that someone else in history did not think of first. Can you give me an example of a moral code that you came u with all by yourself?
There are variations possible, in any moral code. I was suggesting that Leonard had not the right to claim his code was the only one to live by, not that he stated what it actually is!
BA - My question was addressed to Leonard, not to you.
Pardon me! I commented because I know he won't, since he has no answer, as usual. Possibly Shaker will help him out.
-
If your moral code is influenced by nurture, how are you claiming you came up with your moral code all by yourself? Your claim is just another one of the beliefs you choose to hold - unless you can provide us with repeatable, testable evidence that you live by a moral code that you came up with all by yourself.
The code I live by is the result of my life experience. How much I have been influenced by others, I have no idea, any more than anybody else here has.
Nevertheless, I refuse to follow the dictates of any religion or belief. I am quite prepared to break the law if I consider it right to do so, simply because the law is arrived at by other humans, and I am just as likely to be right as they are.
Does that answer your question?
-
I think people who advocate breaking the Law should be ashamed of themselves. We live in a democracy, but we are defined by the rule of law. If you object to any particular law, then there are ways to express your disaffection: campaigning, petitioning, by way of the ballot box, if necessary. To advocate breaking the Law is mischievous, dangerous, and probably illegal.
-
I think people who advocate breaking the Law should be ashamed of themselves. We live in a democracy, but we are defined by the rule of law. If you object to any particular law, then there are ways to express your disaffection: campaigning, petitioning, by way of the ballot box, if necessary. To advocate breaking the Law is mischievous, dangerous, and probably illegal.
Hogwash.
The suffragettes broke the law to achieve their aims.
Just one example of many, where there was a need to break the law to improve it.
They broke the Law, and that was wrong. The campaign for universal suffrage would have been successful in the final analysis. What you advocate is, in effect, anarchy. There is always a proper and lawful way to effect change, though it may take longer. Dangerous idiots like you don't deserve to live in a democracy if you are prepared to violate one of its core principles.
-
I think people who advocate breaking the Law should be ashamed of themselves. We live in a democracy, but we are defined by the rule of law. If you object to any particular law, then there are ways to express your disaffection: campaigning, petitioning, by way of the ballot box, if necessary. To advocate breaking the Law is mischievous, dangerous, and probably illegal.
Hogwash.
The suffragettes broke the law to achieve their aims.
Just one example of many, where there was a need to break the law to improve it.
They broke the Law, and that was wrong. The campaign for universal suffrage would have been successful in the final analysis. What you advocate is, in effect, anarchy. There is always a proper and lawful way to effect change, though it may take longer. Dangerous idiots like you don't deserve to live in a democracy if you are prepared to violate one of its core principles.
Oh you've fallen for the line that we live in a democracy have you? Well that's a whole other kettle of fish. (see below)
But, if you know a law to be unjust and you have no other way of making your voice heard and you are prepared to accept the consequences of your action then it may be a last resort but I see no reason for not acting.
I see no reason for your unnecessary name calling - which incidentally detracts from the point (which has some merit) you are making.
-
I think people who advocate breaking the Law should be ashamed of themselves. We live in a democracy, but we are defined by the rule of law. If you object to any particular law, then there are ways to express your disaffection: campaigning, petitioning, by way of the ballot box, if necessary. To advocate breaking the Law is mischievous, dangerous, and probably illegal.
Hogwash.
The suffragettes broke the law to achieve their aims.
Just one example of many, where there was a need to break the law to improve it.
They broke the Law, and that was wrong. The campaign for universal suffrage would have been successful in the final analysis. What you advocate is, in effect, anarchy. There is always a proper and lawful way to effect change, though it may take longer. Dangerous idiots like you don't deserve to live in a democracy if you are prepared to violate one of its core principles.
Oh you've fallen for the line that we live in a democracy have you? Well that's a whole other kettle of fish.
But, if you know a law to be unjust and you have no other way of making your voice heard and you are prepared to accept the consequences of your action then it may be a last resort but I see no reason for not acting.
I see no reason for your unnecessary name calling - which incidentally detracts from the point (which has some merit) you are making.
You are exasperating, and so wrong, that's why I name-called. When you say there is no other way to make your voice heard you are being absurd: put your point to the Press, to the media generally, to your MP, organise a petition, on-line if you like, canvass local people, twitter, use Facebook, get a sandwich board(!!!), the ballot box. What more do you want?
-
I think people who advocate breaking the Law should be ashamed of themselves. We live in a democracy, but we are defined by the rule of law. If you object to any particular law, then there are ways to express your disaffection: campaigning, petitioning, by way of the ballot box, if necessary. To advocate breaking the Law is mischievous, dangerous, and probably illegal.
Hogwash.
The suffragettes broke the law to achieve their aims.
Just one example of many, where there was a need to break the law to improve it.
They broke the Law, and that was wrong. The campaign for universal suffrage would have been successful in the final analysis. What you advocate is, in effect, anarchy. There is always a proper and lawful way to effect change, though it may take longer. Dangerous idiots like you don't deserve to live in a democracy if you are prepared to violate one of its core principles.
Oh you've fallen for the line that we live in a democracy have you? Well that's a whole other kettle of fish. (see below)
But, if you know a law to be unjust and you have no other way of making your voice heard and you are prepared to accept the consequences of your action then it may be a last resort but I see no reason for not acting.
I see no reason for your unnecessary name calling - which incidentally detracts from the point (which has some merit) you are making.
Where women's suffrage is concerned if those brave women hadn't stood up for our rights in the way that they did, we wouldn't have the vote and still be subservient to the male of the species! GOOD FOR THEM!
-
BA
An interesting read:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/immigration-humanrights
-
I think people who advocate breaking the Law should be ashamed of themselves. We live in a democracy, but we are defined by the rule of law. If you object to any particular law, then there are ways to express your disaffection: campaigning, petitioning, by way of the ballot box, if necessary. To advocate breaking the Law is mischievous, dangerous, and probably illegal.
Hogwash.
The suffragettes broke the law to achieve their aims.
Just one example of many, where there was a need to break the law to improve it.
They broke the Law, and that was wrong. The campaign for universal suffrage would have been successful in the final analysis. What you advocate is, in effect, anarchy. There is always a proper and lawful way to effect change, though it may take longer. Dangerous idiots like you don't deserve to live in a democracy if you are prepared to violate one of its core principles.
Oh you've fallen for the line that we live in a democracy have you? Well that's a whole other kettle of fish. (see below)
But, if you know a law to be unjust and you have no other way of making your voice heard and you are prepared to accept the consequences of your action then it may be a last resort but I see no reason for not acting.
I see no reason for your unnecessary name calling - which incidentally detracts from the point (which has some merit) you are making.
Where women's suffrage is concerned if those brave women hadn't stood up for our rights in the way that they did, we wouldn't have the vote and still be subservient to the male of the species! GOOD FOR THEM!
Don't be ridiculous!
-
BA
An interesting read:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/immigration-humanrights
Yes, interesting, but wrong. Once we accept that it is okay to go down that road, we are on a slippery slope. Where does it end? As far as Paul and his actions were concerned, he lived in a different age, and was not fortunate enough to live in a democratic system, and so had little recourse but to do as he did. As far as we are concerned, in the now, we have all the resources we need to effect change, if it is needed, and is the will of all, and is legal. We live in a democracy, and when we look around the world, and its upheavals, we should cherish it, and stick to its rules.
-
In the UK the age of consent has never been 25, it has been 16 for as long as I can remember and I am older than Hope!
For gay male relationships it has only been 16 for quite a short time, floo. Can't remember exactly but some time during the last 10 - 15 years
-
In the UK the age of consent has never been 25, it has been 16 for as long as I can remember and I am older than Hope!
For gay male relationships it has only been 16 for quite a short time, floo. Can't remember exactly but some time during the last 10 - 15 years
That is true, but I was thinking of heterosexual relationships, which is to what I think Hope was referring
-
In the UK the age of consent has never been 25, it has been 16 for as long as I can remember and I am older than Hope!
For gay male relationships it has only been 16 for quite a short time, floo. Can't remember exactly but some time during the last 10 - 15 years
January 2001.
-
In the UK the age of consent has never been 25, it has been 16 for as long as I can remember and I am older than Hope!
For gay male relationships it has only been 16 for quite a short time, floo. Can't remember exactly but some time during the last 10 - 15 years
January 2001.
Now it seems unbelievable how long Christian teaching bamboozled people into believing it was wrong.
-
Yeah ::)
-
Now it seems unbelievable how long Christian teaching bamboozled people into believing it was wrong.
Legal doesn't mean 'not wrong', Len.
-
Now it seems unbelievable how long Christian teaching bamboozled people into believing it was wrong.
Legal doesn't mean 'not wrong', Len.
Legally speaking that's pretty much exactly what it does mean.
-
Now it seems unbelievable how long Christian teaching bamboozled people into believing it was wrong.
Legal doesn't mean 'not wrong', Len.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! What is wrong with being gay and in a loving relationship with your partner? 'Because the Bible says so', is NOT a rational answer!
-
Now it seems unbelievable how long Christian teaching bamboozled people into believing it was wrong.
Legal doesn't mean 'not wrong', Len.
It does for law-abiding citizens.
-
Now it seems unbelievable how long Christian teaching bamboozled people into believing it was wrong.
Legal doesn't mean 'not wrong', Len.
It does for law-abiding citizens.
But you advocated law-breaking, so you are a hypocrite!
-
Now it seems unbelievable how long Christian teaching bamboozled people into believing it was wrong.
Legal doesn't mean 'not wrong', Len.
It does for law-abiding citizens.
Lots of law abiding citizens think that adultery is wrong, for example, so no, 'legal' and 'not wrong' are not synonymous in the eyes of law abiding citizens.
-
Now it seems unbelievable how long Christian teaching bamboozled people into believing it was wrong.
Legal doesn't mean 'not wrong', Len.
It does for law-abiding citizens.
Lots of law abiding citizens think that adultery is wrong, for example, so no, 'legal' and 'not wrong' are not synonymous in the eyes of law abiding citizens.
Cheating in your partner is wrong, homosexuality isn't!
-
Lots of law abiding citizens think that adultery is wrong, for example, so no, 'legal' and 'not wrong' are not synonymous in the eyes of law abiding citizens.
Very few citizens are totally law-abiding, but that does not mean the law is automatically right. What is morally right/wrong for one person is not necessarily so for another. In the eyes of the law, however, wrong can never be right.
-
Now it seems unbelievable how long Christian teaching bamboozled people into believing it was wrong.
Legal doesn't mean 'not wrong', Len.
It does for law-abiding citizens.
Lots of law abiding citizens think that adultery is wrong, for example, so no, 'legal' and 'not wrong' are not synonymous in the eyes of law abiding citizens.
Cheating in your partner is wrong, homosexuality isn't!
I agree. And...?
-
The statement "Adultery is wrong" is subjective opinion, agreed to by some and not others, as is "Homosexuality is wrong." On the other hand, homosexuality is legal and adultery is not illegal.
-
Ie both are legal and of subjective morality
-
The statement "Adultery is wrong" is subjective opinion, agreed to by some and not others, as is "Homosexuality is wrong." On the other hand, homosexuality is legal and adultery is not illegal.
All true. And...?
-
I see the stench of insults against gay people, even though largely unspoken, are hanging around this thread about paedophilia.
It's like watching the Jeremy Kyle show - you never, ever feel totally clean again once you've been subjected to the nastiness.
-
I see the stench of insults against gay people, even though largely unspoken, are hanging around this thread about paedophilia.
It's like watching the Jeremy Kyle show - you never, ever feel totally clean again once you've been subjected to the nastiness.
Indeed >:(
-
I think the thread just shows how confused people are about legality, morality, sexuality, objectivity etc. Including religious viewpoints.
-
I see the stench of insults against gay people, even though largely unspoken, are hanging around this thread about paedophilia.
It's like watching the Jeremy Kyle show - you never, ever feel totally clean again once you've been subjected to the nastiness.
You don't look at that vile rubbish, do you?
-
I see the stench of insults against gay people, even though largely unspoken, are hanging around this thread about paedophilia.
It's like watching the Jeremy Kyle show - you never, ever feel totally clean again once you've been subjected to the nastiness.
It is WRONG that paedophilia and homosexuality are often lumped together by very sick bigots. >:( Many paedophiles are heterosexual!
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-33755726
I see Ted Heath was suspected of child sexual abuse when an allegation was made about him in the 90s, but it wasn't acted upon! :o
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-33755726
I see Ted Heath was suspected of child sexual abuse when an allegation was made about him in the 90s, but it wasn't acted upon! :o
That one wqas bandied about a lot back then.
It was one of the things that left-wingers and old-school Tories used because they didn't like the idea of an unmarried Prime Minister.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-33755726
I see Ted Heath was suspected of child sexual abuse when an allegation was made about him in the 90s, but it wasn't acted upon! :o
That one wqas bandied about a lot back then.
It was one of the things that left-wingers and old-school Tories used because they didn't like the idea of an unmarried Prime Minister.
But it doesn't mean the claims lack validity. My brother-in-law's late father shared a billet with Heath when in the army during WW2. I know he didn't care for Heath much as he was very abrupt and could be unpleasant.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-33755726
I see Ted Heath was suspected of child sexual abuse when an allegation was made about him in the 90s, but it wasn't acted upon! :o
That one wqas bandied about a lot back then.
It was one of the things that left-wingers and old-school Tories used because they didn't like the idea of an unmarried Prime Minister.
But it doesn't mean the claims lack validity. My brother-in-law's late father shared a billet with Heath when in the army during WW2. I know he didn't care for Heath much as he was very abrupt and could be unpleasant.
And, equally, being abrupt and unpleasant isn't an indicator of a paedophile, it's an indication of an arsehole.
As with all of these accusations, in the absence of any actual facts or even the breadth of testimony, it's best not to speculate and to trust that the people who do have access to the information will compile it accurately.
O.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-33755726
I see Ted Heath was suspected of child sexual abuse when an allegation was made about him in the 90s, but it wasn't acted upon! :o
That one wqas bandied about a lot back then.
It was one of the things that left-wingers and old-school Tories used because they didn't like the idea of an unmarried Prime Minister.
But it doesn't mean the claims lack validity. My brother-in-law's late father shared a billet with Heath when in the army during WW2. I know he didn't care for Heath much as he was very abrupt and could be unpleasant.
And, equally, being abrupt and unpleasant isn't an indicator of a paedophile, it's an indication of an arsehole.
As with all of these accusations, in the absence of any actual facts or even the breadth of testimony, it's best not to speculate and to trust that the people who do have access to the information will compile it accurately.
O.
I never said it was, did I?
-
And, equally, being abrupt and unpleasant isn't an indicator of a paedophile, it's an indication of an arsehole.
As with all of these accusations, in the absence of any actual facts or even the breadth of testimony, it's best not to speculate and to trust that the people who do have access to the information will compile it accurately.
O.
I never said it was, did I?
Then it was entirely irrelevant
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-33755726
I see Ted Heath was suspected of child sexual abuse when an allegation was made about him in the 90s, but it wasn't acted upon! :o
That one wqas bandied about a lot back then.
It was one of the things that left-wingers and old-school Tories used because they didn't like the idea of an unmarried Prime Minister.
But it doesn't mean the claims lack validity. My brother-in-law's late father shared a billet with Heath when in the army during WW2. I know he didn't care for Heath much as he was very abrupt and could be unpleasant.
And, equally, being abrupt and unpleasant isn't an indicator of a paedophile, it's an indication of an arsehole.
As with all of these accusations, in the absence of any actual facts or even the breadth of testimony, it's best not to speculate and to trust that the people who do have access to the information will compile it accurately.
O.
I never said it was, did I?
I don't know that it was intentional, but when I saw it it seemed like an implication - apologies if that wasn't the case.
O.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-33755726
I see Ted Heath was suspected of child sexual abuse when an allegation was made about him in the 90s, but it wasn't acted upon! :o
That one wqas bandied about a lot back then.
It was one of the things that left-wingers and old-school Tories used because they didn't like the idea of an unmarried Prime Minister.
But it doesn't mean the claims lack validity. My brother-in-law's late father shared a billet with Heath when in the army during WW2. I know he didn't care for Heath much as he was very abrupt and could be unpleasant.
And, equally, being abrupt and unpleasant isn't an indicator of a paedophile, it's an indication of an arsehole.
As with all of these accusations, in the absence of any actual facts or even the breadth of testimony, it's best not to speculate and to trust that the people who do have access to the information will compile it accurately.
O.
I never said it was, did I?
I don't know that it was intentional, but when I saw it it seemed like an implication - apologies if that wasn't the case.
O.
Sorry it was certainly not intended, just an aside.