|
Post by Zolah on Mar 28, 2006 14:03:22 GMT -5
I have lately been looking around and noticing stuff, Especially on gaia. It seems like 12-11 year olds have some sort of ' sexual revolution' on their way, i dont say its a good thing. I mean, They are so concentrated around this subject sex. and many, i mean MANY gets in trouble cause of it.. I hang alot out on the life issues forum, and the only thingb i can find is diffrent sorts of sexual harrasments, rape between children.. Though it is problebly many 'trolls' but what idf it true? there are some that say ' oh go girl! ' meaning that it is fully acceptable things like that... Its horrible! and this site should be a strictly pg13 forum, and they alow things like yaoi, yuri, or sexual pictures.
I also heard from a friend wich is doing things like hacking into something called chi, wich is a big organisation wich tries to give child pornographi to those who wants. ever seen the owl 'o Rly?' or the cat in a trash can? those are inside jokes just for that orginasation. I could have mistaken the name but it was a name like chi.san or simillar... I just think its horrid and apparently they grow as fast as the intgernet gets bigger.
What do you think? are america/europeean contrys getting more and more unfair/just in these areas?
What is a certain age to start too think about such things? should they become better on censuring it from children?
Do you remember any certain changes through the years? like clothing, people.. bit everything.
Please keep this as clean as possible, its a quite sensitive subject
|
|
|
Post by Flagg on Mar 28, 2006 16:04:55 GMT -5
Short answer: Yes, I think it's a problem, and something needs to be done about it.
Long answer: There are a whole lot of moral ideas about sex flying around today. Even in groups of people that you would expect to think pretty similarly, you'll probably find differences of opinion about how it should be handled, so obviously everyone's not going to agree. However, one thing I hope everyone should be able to agree with is this: Sex is something incredible precious, and it should never, ever be treated like a toy. Unfortunately, that is exactly what's happening in the younger people today.
I think one way we can see how cheap sex has become today is the way folks dress. I used to work at a library, and I would guess that 1 of every 4 girls (10-15 age range) were dressed in a way to show off their bodies. Now, I admit, it is encouraging that the other 3 out of 4 still seem to have the right idea, but it's still a problem. When a 12 year old girl buys and wears tight short-shorts with a provocative word written across the rear, there is something seriously wrong.
So what caused this problem? My guess would be that one of the key contributors is the trickle-down affect from grownups. Grownups started treating sex like a toy (or at least they started to on television), so then older teens began to follow suit. And then the younger teens and pre-teens saw what they were doing, and since whatever the older kids do is automatically cool and fun, they decided they too must join in.
Because of this, like Zolah said, I think the child porn business has just been loving it. It's a lot easier to trick a kid into sending a picture when they think what they're doing is going to make them feel like a grownup. Even if they don't do something like that (which I sincerely hope they don't... Gah, if I could remove one evil from this planet, child porn would be it), they will still end up with their hearts broken. They'll give themselves away before they are even close to mature.
And that's where I think it's time that we (older teens/young adults) started sending a different message to the younger people around us. We need to start showing by the way we dress, the way we act and the words we say that sex is NOT some toy to be played with as soon as possible. Instead, it is something insanely special that must be handled with maturity. We're more of an example to them than we know, so if we don't start changing, who can complain when they don't?
|
|
|
Post by Daggertooth on Mar 28, 2006 21:39:48 GMT -5
Growing up in Utah there was great paranoia on this subject. But thatfs probably the other extreme of the subject. Sex not only special, but as an act specifically to procreate. Utah had the only government sponsored porn czar for a while, covers up magazines that sport women in bikinis or even just showing a little skin, and made laws against stores like bikini cuts.
But I digress. Child porn is against the law and sexual abuse of the minor. These people molest kids and justify it by saying they are educating them on life. Right, birds and the bees via first hand experiencec.sick. It is a big problem and I can tell you I would probably be shocked if I ever discover exactly how big a problem it is.
I wouldnft know if it is a growing problem or if younger kids are dressing sexed up simply cause I grew up in Utah and didnft pay attention to that kind of stuff while in Vegas. Even as a substitute teacher I never paid much attention to what kids wore, plus I guess there is always the dress code.
With education I would think the age 14 is the latest for sexual education, Whether through the school program or a home sit down with parents. There is always controversy in Utah about this though. Especially since LDS kids are not allowed to date until 16. They believe that education on this matter will lead to experimentation. I actually have no idea when they think education on the matter is appropriate.
As far as sex goes, I donft think it is any of my business whether or not someone else treats sex as a toy. I donft like the idea of one night stands every night, but I think that waiting till your married is a bit restrictive. I donft think that my personal ideas on this is grounds to force it on others. I suppose you could say the same on my stance against child porn, but thatfs different, thatfs actual sexual abuse of a minor.
Daggertooth
|
|
|
Post by silverwolf on Mar 29, 2006 11:05:07 GMT -5
I can't say much, 'cause if I get too into it I'll nforget to go to leave my class.
I hate the "if we teach them about it, they'll just go out and try it for themselves" way of thinking.
If this is true, they shouldn't teach about sex or the Halocaust or war of anything else bad that's ever happened.
I'm not saying sex is bad, of course. Though, I do have to go with "an eight-year-old dressed like a hooker is a bad thing".
|
|
|
Post by Eclectic Replicant on Mar 29, 2006 15:52:48 GMT -5
I think you are talking about 4chan, and the O'Rlly joke is not an inside joke thrust me, they do not give child ponography, it's just one of those places (a forum to be precise) where human scum gets together to share hentai and regular (and not so regular) porn.
Some of these kids are probably trying to sound cool talking about sex and porn (i know, i used to and thanks to the gods i got over that), kids these days.
|
|
|
Post by Shippo_no_Neko on Mar 29, 2006 20:05:49 GMT -5
Ugh. All of that stuff makes me sick. Knowing that some creepy man is looking at pictures of naked 13 year olds just makes me want to throw up. Hentai and anime porn, too. I can understand nudity in art, or where it's not there to boost sales or whatever (like InuYasha). Anyway, I have very strong feelings on the subjects of molestation and sex and such. I think that sex was meant to be something special, not a toy, or a fun new game. You should do it only with the one you love, and I even believe that abstinance is a good way to go. Anyway, before I start ranting, I'd just like to say that I think that this stuff is absolutely terrible.
|
|
|
Post by Milky the Man on Mar 30, 2006 17:08:55 GMT -5
I also feel strongly on this subject. I am at an age where it is my peers that are dressing this way. What girls don't understand is the effect the way they dress and act has on other people. First off, let's start with the effect on men. I don't think that these girls are dressing to attract sexual attention. If you ask a girl who is dressed innapropriatly if she's trying to attract men, she'll probably give you a very confused look. The reason is: Girls don't dress for men; they dress for other girls. Really, the only reason they'll dress like they do is because they want to dress better and more in-style than competition. They don't want to look like losers. It's all a big competition. What they don't realize, is that guys WILL look. LITERALLY, car crashes happen due to dress. No joke. For instance, in seattle, where my bro lives, he told me about a place where the women's volleyball practices. In the afternoon, when they come out, in their skimpy outfits, the street is mysteriously congested, and crashes frequently happen. The impact is larger than they know. I know that some enjoy the power they have, but they can't realize the full damage.
Another problem is the porn. GOD, WHY DOES PORN EXIST??? Regular porn disgusts me, makes me want to vomit my guts onto the pavement. It utterly disgusts me. Child porn? I cannot believe it even exists. What sick freak would want to ogle pics of naked children? People like this obviously have some mental disease. Sex is not something to play around with, and it can be a good thing, but it's VERY dangerous. Kids don't understand what they're messing with... It seems that with the people around me, the rush is to be 'mature.' What is maturity? True maturity is acting as an adult would. Or, more precisely, as an adult SHOULD. But here, in the Jr. High environment, maturity is cussing, smoking drugs, dating other people, having sex, and acting like a rebel. In JR. HIGH! Jeez! In short, people try so hard to be mature, it's immaturity in itself. It's a great irony. Really, I'm not sure what can be done about this. I know for a fact that kids don't listen to their parents, or their teachers, or any other adults in their lives. Their friends are the only things that matter. It's a terrible problem. Even if telivision cleaned itself up, if the magazines in the grocery store waiting line were all on gardening, if the internet magically was cleansed, and beer ads didn't exist, I don't think that there would be a change. At least, not an immediate one. The problem is the people. People always find a way to screw up. I am not sure what can be done. I think the real cure is to teach your kids early on what is right, and what is wrong. Make sure they understand. I mean, TRULY understand. People's actions are not without effect...
|
|
|
Post by Rehiro on Mar 30, 2006 20:54:40 GMT -5
I think you people are hating for the sake of hating. Letting society influence you in another way and basing what you think off of the thoughts of others. Im not saying dont hate, but find out why you should hate and dont assume that something is evil, no matter how awful it is, until you've looked at it with deeper insight (Metophorically. Look at the facts, the uncertainty's and look within yourself, I dont mean look at child porn). You have just decided to take a different angle at society's influence. And society has proved to be untrustworthy.
I would like to go into what sex actually is, then into its influence on people and then into sexual perversions but I dont think that I could do it accurately without violating the PG13 rule.
But this subject goes beyond PG13 policy and we will never reach true insight on this issue by abiding it.
|
|
|
Post by Flagg on Mar 30, 2006 21:14:40 GMT -5
Rehiro, am I understanding you correctly as saying that everyone decides for themself what is right and what is wrong? Or am I just totally hearing you wrong (which has certainly happened with me before...)? Because the idea of absolute moral truth (the idea that some ideas of good and bad are true for everyone, no matter what, period) plays very much into this discussion. Or, well, any discussion about a moral issue, really.
Oh, and I personally vote that the PG-13 rule continue to remain in effect for this topic. In my opinion, Charby is fun, and should remain fun. If this thread goes off into all sorts of questionable discussion material, may the level of "insight" go up? Maybe. But at what cost? Innocence should never be lost for discussion's sake.
|
|
|
Post by Rehiro on Mar 31, 2006 0:32:44 GMT -5
Well now, why do you think a person would be arroused by a child? Logically speaking it would give no profit. Putting aside ethics, the child is still underdeveloped and thus less attractive.
Does the pervert have anything to gain from this? Will it make him super cool? No. So it is a sexual perversion. The powerful human libido working instinctively.
You people hate these people because your instincts tell you that it is wrong. So that means that your just fortunate your instincts take you down a road of good morals. What makes you so different from them if you just follow your instincts? Dosent that give you the potential to become a monster just as bad?
Sure, there are some rules that, as a society, we need to follow, but its no excuse to stop thinking. Even perverts are people. When something troublesome appears, we have a tendency to point and shout "monster" but, even if their crimes are inexcusable and unforgivable, we need to remember that they are still human.
How do you know there arent people who live their lives under repression because their orientation tells them to be attracted to children? That people kill themselves because of this instinct? That, just like homosexuality its a genetic thing causes them to do what they do? Could you live a life of such repression? For so long, homosexuality was thought to be a psychological illness and people would take them for freaks. The human libido would crack them time and time again. If I lived a life, plagued with child lust. I think I would kill myself.
So is it a perversion? Perversions are psychological and not genetic. I cant prove anything.
If your attracted to kids, dont freak out and dont hate yourself. It wont do anyone any good. If your aware of the problem you can help yourself. But if you listen to your instincts, then you'll just hurt people. Its the same with normal people. If people didnt think, society would not make any progress.
If you ask me, you guys arent even all that different.
So, fine, you can keep it PG13 if you want. But you wont find any truth. You'll just complain and agree with each other. I think we should not have such a discussion if we cant look at it from every side.
|
|
|
Post by Daggertooth on Mar 31, 2006 1:15:22 GMT -5
You people hate these people because your instincts tell you that it is wrong. Let me stop you right here for a second. You are doing an awful lot of assuming at the expense of everyone on this topic. Forcing the subject to be one way or another then telling us where we stand. I can tell you right now that though each person has a similar opinion they are not for the same reasons. Smashing everyone together as a bandwagoning hateful elite is disrespectful to the subject at hand and those partaking in the discussion. What makes you so different from them if you just follow your instincts? The fact that I done physically and psychologically abuse underage individuals for my personal pleasure. You want to call me lucky because Ifm not attracted to little kids. Go ahead, doesnft make child abuse okay for those not as gfortunateh as me. Sure, there are some rules that, as a society, we need to follow, but its no excuse to stop thinking. Nobody said anything about not thinking. Fact is everyone seems to have an opinion on the subject and a strong one at that. Yes they are human, since when was that grounds for exemption from a crime? How do you know there arent people who live their lives under repression because their orientation tells them to be attracted to children? There most defiantly are people living in repression. Just like there are Homosexuals who go out of their way to have an opposite sex spouse and children. Having the urge does not automatically require to satiate it. You may feel sorry for those gbornh this way, but that still does not justify child abuse. If they feel so bad and kill themselves, well Ifm sorry they couldnft deal with their life in a more productive way. They arenft the only ones as anyone can commit suicide, even those we least suspect. Itfs tragic in every case, but still not justification for child abuse. If you ask me, you guys arent even all that different. Whatfs this, a holier than thou attitude because your willing to accept this kind of behavior? Thatfs a twist now isnft it. Grouping us all together, assuming things about everyone here, then taking on an accusing tone. I think you need to get off your high horse and look at everyone as individuals. So, fine, you can keep it PG13 if you want. But you wont find any truth. You'll just complain and agree with each other. I think we should not have such a discussion if we cant look at it from every side. So the only way to get truth is to go into NC17 ratings. Right, Ifm sure wefre creative enough to pull it off. I bet you could to if you give it a try. Daggertooth
|
|
|
Post by Rehiro on Mar 31, 2006 1:52:44 GMT -5
Wow... didnt expect anyone to break it down like that. You better have deciphered the entire conversation, else your just choosing what you want to take and what you want to leave, just like I was complaining about. If theres something you agree with, add it in! Then things will be more clear. We dont have to be enemy's you know. Just a couple of people striving to find truth!
Weeeeell I contradict myself if you pay attention. I mix up instinct and sheep-like mentality. This conversation drifted away from the "small children dressing like prostitutes" conversation and into the "child pornography" conversation. You all act like you have slightly different oppinions for the first, but for the second, not much difference at all. I dont think we should even be talking about this since Ryo banned the P-word.
Did I ever ever say it was normal and healthy to molest children?! NO!! Its not! Its not good! But you have to admit that, if you rely on your instincts to tell you what is right and wrong, theres a chance they might lead you wrong.
I say that most people here dont think. I didnt say people said that they themselves didnt think. I said they follow the views of others and their own instincts. Instincts and other peoples oppinions can be strong. And what are you talking exemption from a crime? Did I say they should be exempted from their crime? But what if they suffer from mental illness? What if their instincts tell them to do something and they do it because they're not different from you? Then maybe they are suffering because the evil inside of them was surfaced while your evil is all corked up inside. That would mean it was just bad luck.
I believe that there are reasons and we should try and find them instead of just hating it up. I dont think we should let them get away with what they do. Sexual abuse to a child can have extremely traumatic effect on them, and we should not let that go on.
Okay, well imagine always being forced to acknowledge the desire to do something horrible but with no chance of ever being able to satiate it. To think yourself a monster and a menace but to also feel that incredible and painfull need to fulfill that desire. People break under these circumstances all the time. I wouldnt molest a child, I dont think, but if I couldnt shake the feeling, i'd probably end up killing myself.
Well... how are you different? If its your belief that the desire is involuntary for them, how else are you different from them?
I could try. But its not a PG13 topic. I dont think I could pull it off. Information would be left out.
(not in response to quote)
I dont believe that the problem with children becoming more sexually exploited and child molestation is as directly linked as some people think. Child abuse is truly a problem but we need to think and try and do stuff, instead of just hating.
|
|
|
Post by Daggertooth on Mar 31, 2006 2:51:11 GMT -5
You better have deciphered the entire conversation, else your just choosing what you want to take and what you want to leave, just like I was complaining about. If theres something you agree with, add it in! Well I donft need to comment on every thought you present to read the entire conversation. But Ifll try to be more thorough. We dont have to be enemy's you know. Agreed Just a couple of people striving to find truth! gTruth is in the eye of the beholderh gTruthful words offend the earsh gOnly those who seek the truth can be deceived.h A truth may be found, but it may not necessarily be the same. This conversation drifted away from the "small children dressing like prostitutes" conversation and into the "child pornography" conversation. Indeed, I suppose there are actually two topics at hand here. You all act like you have slightly different oppinions for the first, but for the second, not much difference at all. Did you expect the board to be split 50/50 on whether or not sexual child abuse was a bad thing? I suppose to be fair we would need to break down the child pornography industry into its associated parts. Not all of it is geared towards child abuse, example being graphic comics. Some would call that victimless child pornography. There are two main trains of thoughts I can think of following that. One, it allows those with that kind of urge to satiate it without harming anyone. Two, it grooms would be sex offenders into thinking that its acceptable and making them more prone to carry out the act towards minors. Both are probably represented in their community to some degree. But you have to admit that, if you rely on your instincts to tell you what is right and wrong, theres a chance they might lead you wrong. Ifll give you that. I personally donft believe in a universal morality. Flagg would need to comment on this aspect of it. I say that most people here dont think. I didnt say people said that they themselves didnt think. Not following you herec But what if they suffer from mental illness? What if their instincts tell them to do something and they do it because they're not different from you? Then maybe they are suffering because the evil inside of them was surfaced while your evil is all corked up inside. That would mean it was just bad luck. If they go with the urge to commit a crime then they are different than me cause I havenft done that. If itfs due to the bad luck of them having those urges and me not, well thatfs the way the cards were dealt. Sometimes itfs not fair, like Utahfs laws against sodomy, but thatfs society for you. Still, Most everyone has at least some form of self restraint. And Yes, society has laws that protect the insane or even moments of insanity, but society is complex that way. I believe that there are reasons and we should try and find them instead of just hating it up. I dont think we should let them get away with what they do. Sexual abuse to a child can have extremely traumatic effect on them, and we should not let that go on. So, keep the anti-sexual child abuse mentality, toss out the hateful lingo. Easy enough. A little rhetoric change, some playing with political correctnessc. Okay, well imagine always being forced to acknowledge the desire to do something horrible but with no chance of ever being able to satiate it. To think yourself a monster and a menace but to also feel that incredible and painfull need to fulfill that desire. People break under these circumstances all the time. I wouldnt molest a child, I dont think, but if I couldnt shake the feeling, i'd probably end up killing myself. Yes there are people not compatible to our society. What do you want to happen? Break down those laws to the lowest common denominator? Something to make the Hannibal Electors of the world happy? There are some urges that are so against society that they can not be accepted. And a person who doesnft want to change canft be forced. If someone wants to conform, tries really hard, and fails, well Ifm sorry, it happens, life is not fair. Well... how are you different? If its your belief that the desire is involuntary for them, how else are you different from them? First, I donft know if the desire is involuntary. Therefs probably a whole field of psychology looking into that right now. For a difference, I would like to say an amount of self control that does not conflict with society. I am not one to shout out conformity on all levels, but there needs to be some level ground for society to function properly. I could try. But its not a PG13 topic. I dont think I could pull it off. Information would be left out. Any graphic detail would make many feel uncomfortable and thus fellow posters would be left out. Plus there are minors who read this forum, I would want every thread, even the serious debates, to be open to them. I dont believe that the problem with children becoming more sexually exploited and child molestation is as directly linked as some people think. But would you agree that they are linked? And if so exactly how? Daggertooth
|
|
|
Post by Zolah on Mar 31, 2006 6:28:58 GMT -5
Ok, Seeming like people disliked this topic I can remove it. as i mentioned this was a sensitive area, I just wanted to discuss this thing with someone, since i feel it is starting to get out of controll. I will let this topic stay until i see if people think its okay, if even one says it should be removed... I is removed.
Im once more sorry
//Zolah
|
|
|
Post by Daggertooth on Mar 31, 2006 9:15:49 GMT -5
Looks like this is going the way of any normal discussion so I am really not sure where it's getting out of control. Considering I actually spent some time organizing my thoughts I would be rather disappointed if this discussion was removed. Give it time, we may not all agree on every detail presented, and many of us will feel strongly about our position, but I bet we could keep it civil and sincerely doubt we will digress to crude vulgarities.
Daggertooth
|
|
|
Post by Flagg on Mar 31, 2006 12:56:52 GMT -5
(everything below is, of course, just my opinion. I may speak in absolute terms, but I expect and accept that some will disagree)
If we begin to rationalize away why someone does something, it can become a tricky game. Quite often the end result of such rationalizing is a solution which lets the criminal off the hook. "Oh, they couldn't help doing that, they were born that way," or "But it wasn't really their fault, it was because of the enviroment around them!" I'm not saying that's what you were suggesting, Rehiro, but the if the train of thought you bought a ticket for gets to its last station, that's where it will end up. People today do not want to take responsibility for their actions. No, that's not quite true... People throughout history have not wanted to take responsibility for their actions. We humans love playing the blame game. To use a religious/historical example, if you look at the Jewish/Christian creation story, we see that it has been going on since the very first people!
Genesis 3 12The man said, "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."
13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
Now, I don't want this to turn into a religious debate. That'd be a whole other can of beans altogether. ; ) I'm just using that to point out that throughout history, people have known that we like to pass the blame along. My point is that, while we certainly must take into consideration all the factors, it is becoming more and more popular to ignore one of the most basic factors of all: Sometimes people just do evil things because, hey, we're a messed up bunch. Some more messed up that others, yes, but the fact still remains that sometimes we deserve every bit of blame we get because we are who we are. We should recognize our own demons (used here metaphorically, I'm not suggesting everyone is demon-posessed! ; D) and exercise self-control. Evil is a choice, and no amount of internal desire is an excuse to make that choice.
Oh, and I'm all for this thread staying open. But if does drift across the PG-13 line, I'll be the first to call for its removal. Like Daggertooth said, there are younglings here. And there may be people who are more sensitive to this topic than others. If someone from either one of those groups (or maybe some other one that I can't think of?) is hurt by what we say, then this whole discussion will have been for the worse, no matter how much truth might be gleaned from it.
|
|
|
Post by RyokoDragonez on Mar 31, 2006 14:07:16 GMT -5
Seeing as this is a rather heavy topic... and seeing as it has been called into review... I have been asked by another moderator to review it. So here's the official word, folks.
So-far this topic has gotten -very- close to passing the PG13 line. However, it has remained (slightly) under, thus safe that way. I am not all that pleased with the "P" word. But seeing as this IS the topic of conversation and the word is being used respectfully within that topic I will let it stand.
So-far this thread has been an intelectual and well-thought-out debate. There has been no flaming or personal attacks.
Thus. This thread is within forum rules. However, as it is a -very- heavy topic. I will ask that responces continue to be thought-out and carefully monitered to ensure that the topic remains 'safe' for our younger readers.
As Zolah stated previously, if even one person complains about this thread. We -will- lock the topic and again review it for possible deletion. (I would rather not delete it as the debate has been quite brilliant. However our younger viewer's innocence comes first.)
--- Ryoko Dragonez
|
|
|
Post by Rehiro on Apr 1, 2006 18:50:08 GMT -5
Im alive! I thought i'd open with that statement because the last time I posted I said that I would kill myself if I had to live a life of child-lust. Then for the first time in months, I disappeared unexpectedly. One logical conclusion of my explosive anger, followed with death speach, would be that I had indeed killed myself. But I assure you that I am no such pervert, nor has my arguments implied that I defend those people, the reality of my disappearance is that my computer broke again.
If I had not been so insulting and personal upon coming into this conversation, perhaps I would have been able to convince you better to my point of view but that you would argue against me simply because I had insulted you indicates in itself your inability to put aside your emotions and look at the facts. I had but one valid point to make and people got upset because I used harsh words when I spoke it. Its no reason to disagree with the point. The point didnt insult you. I did.
Anyway, im sick of using quotes. So if you want to go back and see what im responding to, you'll have to go look for yourself.
Yeah, there are many different forms of truth so lets find 'em. Is that little poem true? Its still no excuse not to think.
No, I didnt expect people to say they agreed with child abuse, but maybe they could talk a little bit more about the reasons for child abuse, how to stop it etc. instead of just agreeing that its not good.
As of your not understanding what I meant when I said that thing about not thinking... I insulted you! I insulted all of you! Its what made you guys so angry. Its what made you guys argumentative. You seemed to imply that I meant to say that you people said that you people didnt think, but really I said that you people didnt think. Thats where I got insulting and personal! I dont have a claim of superiority against anyone now who continues to converse on the subject because they are obviously thinking. And by that I dont mean that I thought that the before posts were stupid and people got smarter. It has nothing to do with intelligence. I simply felt a lack of effort on a subject that I thought deserved some.
Now as for stopping hating. I didnt mean get rid of the hate-lingo. I meant hate isnt going to do you any good. It'll simply cloud your judgements.
As for people not fitting into society. I didnt say feel sorry for me if I kill myself over child-lust. I simply said I would kill myself.
Now as for the feeling being voluntary or involuntary. Even if it is a perversion. Not many people ask to be perverted. Thats involuntary just like it being genetic would be. The only real argument you could make is that if perversions are psychological and being attracted to kids is a perversion, then child loving people are not good people because they all have the same, deep rooted psychological difference.
And finally; I think the two topics could be linked because its sexually exploiting children, and that just cant be discouraging pedophiles. Does sexually exploiting women expand the chance of rape?
Now on to Flagg. You are right not to imply thats what I meant! I never meant to imply we should let them off the hook. Not even go easier on them. I just said we should think and we have done so. I dont see how thinking is going to help pedophiles accept themselves and rape children.
And yeah, we got ourselves inner demons. I know I have one. And I have not yet bended to its will. We should not punish people out of spite however. I believe that our decisions must be made in the most effective way to stop the problem. The two might bring us to the same final conclusion for what must be done, but the reasons for what we are doing might be different and I disagree with your reasons.
As for PG13 policy: We should not violate the innocense of minors, but perhaps this is not the best place to speak of such evil things as this. I dont want to just say "hey, lets throw the rules aside and do what we want *evil laugh*". Closing the topic would be the only real alternative option.
Now, I dont believe that you people are disagreeing with me on a personal level anymore. But after my first post, I think people began to argue with me because I argued with them. This is now a discussion and not an argument I think, which is a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by Daggertooth on Apr 2, 2006 0:18:37 GMT -5
One logical conclusion of my explosive anger, followed with death speach, would be that I had indeed killed myself. I have no idea how thatfs a logical conclusion. If I had not been so insulting and personal Perhaps youfre overestimating the tenacity of your argument or the sensitivity of fellow members. I can only speak for myself, but I found nothing insulting in your comments nor did I get upset. Anyway, im sick of using quotes. And yet you assume a mental laziness on our part due to an initial statement of personal position. Quotes better organize the conversation at hand, they make things more clear. Something you specifically requested earlier. Is that little poem true? Less a poem and more of a string of personal quotes from various sources. They are all true in their own way, in their own time and place. No, I didnt expect people to say they agreed with child abuse, but maybe they could talk a little bit more about the reasons for child abuse, how to stop it etc. instead of just agreeing that its not good. Considering that the initial comments were geared towards requesting personal thoughts I fail to see the problem. On most subjects people will state their opinion first before debating about other positions. I insulted you! I insulted all of you! Its what made you guys so angry. If that was your intent then you failed. I was neither insulted nor angry, though did disagree with your implied holier than thou attitude and your insinuating that everyone was of a single mindset. And I stated this disagreement. Now I find it curious that this is a discussion tactic of yours? Attempting to insult your fellow forum members is hardly effective as a good discussion strategy. And though youfll most likely give yourself credit and pat your back, I think your wrong. Its what made you guys argumentative. I disagree, what made people argumentative was the nature of the discussion. Though there was a lot of initial agreement there were enough differences in why we came to our conclusion that the discussion could have developed from there. You seemed to imply that I meant to say that you people said that you people didnt think, but really I said that you people didnt think. Huh? I dont have a claim of superiority against anyone now who continues to converse on the subject because they are obviously thinking. And by that I dont mean that I thought that the before posts were stupid and people got smarter. It has nothing to do with intelligence. I simply felt a lack of effort on a subject that I thought deserved some. So basically you disliked people stating just their opinion as their initial post. Ifm sorry but thatfs typically what people do, tell others what they think before discussing the intricate details. Detailed discussion typically occurs afterwards. Now as for stopping hating. I didnt mean get rid of the hate-lingo. I meant hate isnt going to do you any good. It'll simply cloud your judgements. Hate is also a description you brought into the conversation and assumed it as a label for all those here who stated their disapproval of child porn in their initial post. Hate is a very strong word and I doubt that it is an appropriate descriptor. As for people not fitting into society. I didnt say feel sorry for me if I kill myself over child-lust. I simply said I would kill myself. And I said: Yes there are people not compatible to our society. What do you want to happen? Break down those laws to the lowest common denominator? Something to make the Hannibal Electors of the world happy? There are some urges that are so against society that they can not be accepted. And a person who doesnft want to change canft be forced. If someone wants to conform, tries really hard, and fails, well Ifm sorry, it happens, life is not fair. Now as for the feeling being voluntary or involuntary. Even if it is a perversion. Not many people ask to be perverted. Thats involuntary just like it being genetic would be. The only real argument you could make is that if perversions are psychological and being attracted to kids is a perversion, then child loving people are not good people because they all have the same, deep rooted psychological difference. You donft need to ask for something for it to still be voluntary. Being groomed, desensitized, and acclimated to certain things is choice and if the end result seems involuntary you were still brought to that point by choice. It is all psychological, both the mentality of others and the initial rule itself. Culture and religion also plays a strong role in this. But what does that really excuse in light of our society? And finally; I think the two topics could be linked because its sexually exploiting children, and that just cant be discouraging pedophiles. Does sexually exploiting women expand the chance of rape? I would think so. But you were saying that you didnft think there was as strong a link as others were implying. It can be said that child pornography could be used to either satiate an urge or groom an individual for action, would it be okay to validate its existence for the sake of the former? The two might bring us to the same final conclusion for what must be done, but the reasons for what we are doing might be different and I disagree with your reasons. I would be curious as to your exact reasons why you disagree with Flagg. Now, I dont believe that you people are disagreeing with me on a personal level anymore. But after my first post, I think people began to argue with me because I argued with them. This is now a discussion and not an argument I think, which is a good thing. I think you give yourself and your tactics too much credit. You claim to insult and make angry then think thatfs why a discussion ensues? Right, the only productive thing youfve contributed was an interesting take on the subject, it was different and comments on it ensued. And yes, arguing against others is typically a cause for people to argue back, thatfs what debating is. Daggertooth
|
|
|
Post by Zolah on Apr 2, 2006 5:53:53 GMT -5
I have been reading tjis subject over and over again, and i cant still really get what youre saying ( this is possibly cause this is my second language). So Rehiro shortly says that Pedofiles should not be as harshly punished as they get? that they should get more of a free hand to do what they are doing?
This is my point about this atleast, I think they should go to prison and get psycology help. I dont think its good to leave them be, and watch whats coming next. that would just be like adding a fuse(?) to a bomb, and i think there should be a much better police force to get rid of such sites from the net so the ones that are vurnable to give in to pedofile tendenses would maybe not starting to give in ( oh i love my english grammar.. )
and my guess that many pedofiles get their view on how to treat others from when they got upbringed, so if we try to get them to act like the society should maybe we wont have these problems today.
|
|
|
Post by Flagg on Apr 2, 2006 21:47:05 GMT -5
(my apologies, I've always been a bit message board un-savy, so I can't do the proper quotes... I hope copy/paste still works! : ) You can, of course, scroll up to check the parts I left out...)
"Now on to Flagg. You are right not to imply thats what I meant! ... I dont see how thinking is going to help pedophiles accept themselves and rape children."
Maybe not our little musings on this message board, no. I don't think what we add to this discussion will ever have any bearing on any trial, and hopefully it will never affect any child in a negative way. But people who get paid to make up excuses (lawyers come to mind, but there are other professions) who buy into the hedonistic (self-serving) ideal may very well come up with a "new truth" (an awful phrase, in my eyes) about society that says "Hey, we only live once, why should we tell ANYONE what they do is wrong as long as it brings them pleasure? Of course, if it hurts someone else, we should punish them... But not too much, right? I mean, they were only doing what their bodies told them they had to. It's their genes, not them!" If you say such a thing could never happen, I admire your optimism.
"And yeah, we got ourselves inner demons. I know I have one."
Likewise.
"And I have not yet bended to its will."
Here we differ. *shrugs* I'd be the first to admit I'm a monster. Granted, they don't have laws against what I did (thankfully past tense), but it still hurt people. Only by the grace of God (again, not turning this to religion, just saying how I see it) have I changed, and do I continue to chage, for the better.
"We should not punish people out of spite however. I believe that our decisions must be made in the most effective way to stop the problem. The two might bring us to the same final conclusion for what must be done, but the reasons for what we are doing might be different and I disagree with your reasons."
Now here I am a bit curious... I'm not married and I have no children. I don't have any siblings young enough to be considered young. However, I do have quite a few amazing friends under the age of 12, and I know that if someone ever attacked them in a sexual way, I would not consider seeking their punishment through the judiciary system "spite." So, how were my arguments suggesting a rash, rushed decision? All I was suggesting is that people do bad, awful, terrible, etc. things, and the fact that they may have been *insert argument for how the offender didn't REALLY have complete control over the situation* doesn't change that.
|
|
|
Post by Rehiro on Apr 3, 2006 16:39:46 GMT -5
OH! You guys just dont get what im saying at all! And its so simple! Maybe im not expressing myself clear enough, but when I read what I say I sound perfectly clear. I only had one thing to say when I started talking, but its turned into a whole bunch of things! And I bet you people are arguing with me because of things you have interpreted that I dont mean for you to enterpret!
I never said that we should punish pedophiles less severely. I simply implied that to solve a problem, we often must understand it. And we sure as hell arent very close to solving this problem. You people are just repeating, and repeating whats been said a million times before, and it hasnt helped any!
And NO! That dosent mean we should punish them less severely! it means nothing of the sort. Punish without thought? Is that what you say? NO! That also dosent mean go easier on them.
For the record, im not excusing what they do, or saying that they should be let off. Not any of what I say in this post is meant to mean that. So keep that in mind.
I failed to insult you! I made it sound like I was protecting pedophiles! Apparantly I talk very oddly.
Im just a loud teenager, and I know that I dont have all the answers. I would gladly respond to anything put to me, and if you proved me wrong then I would be glad to admit it. But you people seem to take everything I say a different way then I mean. I feel like im talking to a brick wall!
Maybe your all genius' and im the one who cant understand anything!
And im not lazy for not using quotes because I respond to everything (except a little bit in the last post I made out of spite, but I dont suppose you see any reason for me to be spitefull) instead of just responding to what I like, like some people! True, im not responding to any specific stuff this time, but thats because im just so damn tired!
Somebody please tell me why, if your so uninsulted, I am the one who gets responded to the most! Look at it! Everyone is responding to my posts! Not to each others! What did I ever say that was so controversial?
|
|
|
Post by Flagg on Apr 3, 2006 16:57:55 GMT -5
Shh, take a deep breath Rehiro, it's OK. No need to get upset here. Like you've said, this is a discussion, nothing more.
"I never said that we should punish pedophiles less severely. I simply implied that to solve a problem, we often must understand it. And we sure...arent very close to solving this problem. You people are just repeating, and repeating whats been said a million times before, and it hasnt helped any!
And NO! That dosent mean we should punish them less severely...Punish without thought? Is that what you say? NO! That also dosent mean go easier on them."
If you misunderstood any of my statements as saying YOU said that they would get off easier, then I apologize, that was not my intent. What I tried to put forward was the idea that if people do take the route you suggest, and spend their time thinking too much about the problem, then if the right (a term I use here not to denote "moral rightness", but instead "a factor needed to accomplish a purpose") people get involved in this process it could eventually lead to those who abuse children getting off. The example that comes to mind is Dr. Crane (AKA, Scarecrow) from Batman Begins. He used his posistion to get clearly guilty people off on a lighter sentence (well, before he got his new boss, anyway). He did what he did for a number of reasons, but mostly it was greed and a hunger for power. Now, suppose someone with Dr. Crane's level of authority happens to believe that people should be allowed to do whatever makes them feel good. Their mindset will flow out in how they carry out their job. If a case comes before them in which one man caused (in this person's eyes only!) minor trauma to many children, with great personal pleasure as a result, then this doctor/lawyer will do all in their power to change the way the courts treats this monster for the "better" (the child molester's better, not for anyone else). Again, this may sound like it could never happen, but I would disagree. Justice is bending further and further every year. How long until it snaps?
Also, I fail to realize how what I (and others) propose is so thoughtless. If you could elaborate on that, it would be profitable, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Daggertooth on Apr 3, 2006 22:03:24 GMT -5
@oh! You guys just dont get what im saying at all! And its so simple! Maybe im not expressing myself clear enough, but when I read what I say I sound perfectly clear. Perhaps it would be wise to reiterate your exact position on the subject. I only had one thing to say when I started talking, but its turned into a whole bunch of things! Discussions tend to do that. And I bet you people are arguing with me because of things you have interpreted that I dont mean for you to enterpret! If thatfs the case then correct the mistakes. I simply implied that to solve a problem, we often must understand it. And we sure as hell arent very close to solving this problem. You never exactly stated at what level the problem needs to be understood. Ifll admit that you implied the psychological or genetic level as a starting point. Truth of the matter is how deep does one need to go. There are established laws and they are being broken, when it comes to psychological and sexual abuse to children, for many that base state is all thatfs needed. Of course going deeper and asking questions digs to the root of the problem, but what exactly do you want to know? Genetics tends to be a fun little scapegoat in all this. Its so easy to say that a drunks a drunk cause its genetic, that they smoke cause its geneticcwhatever. Ifll admit that genetics vary and do instill tendencies in people. But in the end it is the environment that will dictate if those tendencies seriously influence a person, and the choices of that person and others as to how far it goes. You people are just repeating, and repeating whats been said a million times before, and it hasnt helped any! Are you referring to just this thread, or this topic on a cultural scale? Ifm not sure if your grossly exaggerating our conversation or being metaphorical about the national conception of sexual child abuse. And NO! That dosent mean we should punish them less severely! it means nothing of the sort. Punish without thought? Is that what you say? Nobody said punish without thought. But obviously you donft think we put enough thought into our ideas about punishment. Exactly how much thought needs to be undertaken before the perpetrator can be held accountable? I made it sound like I was protecting pedophiles! Did you do this on purpose? Did you expect nobody to comment on it? Or am I misinterpreting that sentence? Maybe your all genius' and im the one who cant understand anything! Or perhaps your way of understanding and speaking is different from ours and what your trying to say is being lost in translation. And im not lazy for not using quotes because I respond to everything. Meh, your call. Still, you tell everyone that if they want to know what your referring to that they need to dig it out from the posts above you. Not only creating a less organized post but requiring lurkers and those who want to get involved to search where something may have been said, and possibly cause them to assume what response goes with what quote. Telling others to do extra effort because you donft want to sounds lazy to me. Flagg. To use quotes all you need to do is press the quotation button on the upper right of the post. Or you can use the tags manually. [*quote] text [*/quote] without the stars of course. Its fairly simple, but doing it your way works fine. If you want to stick to what you are doing may I suggest using the bold tags g[*b] text [*/b]h to differentiate your text from the quoted ones. (but I dont suppose you see any reason for me to be spitefull) You are correct. I donft see any reason at all for you to be spiteful, insulting, insulted, or as emotionally railed up as your posts seem to be relaying. Ifm actually confused about it. instead of just responding to what I like, like some people! Second time you said this, first was directed towards me. I must ask you exactly what you have said that I didnft comment on. Do I need to dissect every sentence now? If Ifm dodging the topic at hand then call me on it, quote what you think was so important that I dodged. Otherwise you come across sulking. Somebody please tell me why, if your so uninsulted, I am the one who gets responded to the most! Perhaps it has something to do with your opinion being different? Look at it! Everyone is responding to my posts! Everyone? *looks* Umcme and Flagg? oh, and Zolah saying you confused her. Youfre far from being ganged up against here, especially if most of it is over misunderstandings. 1: Much of what has been said has indeed been directed towards you. Either asking for clarification or trying to discuss something you stated. 2: I found nothing in the post of Flagg or Zolah that I disagreed with or thought was important enough for me to add my comments to. What did I ever say that was so controversial? You presented a different opinion and a different angle to the subject. Thatfs how conversations like these starts. You also presented it in an aggressive manner which stimulated responses in your direction. Now donft misinterpret me, I am not saying trying to insult people and being spiteful does anything. I doubt anyone was insulted by your comments. I am saying that assuming what other opinions are, labeling others, and generally acting all holier than thou will get people to look twice in your direction. But then youfve already read my responses to all that. I would ask you to relax. There seems to be a lot more railed up emotion in your posts than is necessary. Youfre not being ganged up against, people are just curious about you and your reasoning and will state differing opinions if they have one. What I tried to put forward was the idea that if people do take the route you suggest, and spend their time thinking too much about the problem, then if the right (a term I use here not to denote "moral rightness", but instead "a factor needed to accomplish a purpose") people get involved in this process it could eventually lead to those who abuse children getting off. This is true. However it is important to remember that not all situations are the same for every scenario. Understanding the underlying reasoning can be helpful in dealing with the root of the issue and allow for better preventative measures. There are also scenarios that blur the line. I recall a news clip a long time ago where two Iranian brothers had moved to America, they were upstanding citizens and very proud of their culture and heritage. One day one Iranian, who was a father, gave his 14 year old daughter to the brother as a wife. Their custom. Well the girl ran away. Worried, the two brothers went to the authorities to help find herc.where they were promptly arrested for child endangerment and child abuse. To which they were very shocked. Other scenarios include religious freedoms. There are polygamist in Utah known for wedding off girls at astonishingly young ages. Itfs specific to their religion and their practices. Also, I fail to realize how what I (and others) propose is so thoughtless. If you could elaborate on that, it would be profitable, I think. I too would like this accusation elaborated upon. Daggertooth
|
|
|
Post by Flagg on Apr 3, 2006 23:04:19 GMT -5
Like this...?
etc.
Agreed. Different cultures have different standards for what the line is. I don't think that American law should apply across the globe. But at the same time, I do think there are lines that should never be crossed, no matter how different the culture is. To use an analogy... In America, you can't serve cats and dogs to people, except maybe in the privacy of your own home (I believe, please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm far from an expert on animal cruelty laws). But in other countries, that is perfectly acceptable. I have no problem with that. But in some cultures, cannibalism is accepted and practiced. THAT is never acceptable. In the same way, if a person is not yet sexually mature (i.e., puberty), I do not believe that person should be married, no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by Daggertooth on Apr 3, 2006 23:32:02 GMT -5
Yup. Agreed. Different cultures have different standards for what the line is. I don't think that American law should apply across the globe. But at the same time, I do think there are lines that should never be crossed, no matter how different the culture is. Thatfs the hardest thing about morality issues. If you believe in universal moralities then suddenly youfre willing to condemn others for being different. You start to have a cultural superiority complex. What happens if you move into that culture and are the only one with your morality, would you try to force change on everyone? Itfs a topic that has caused a lot of political misunderstandings and strife. A recent political aspect of morality comes with how US based internet browser providers have dealt with the US and China. China required that they censor certain events. Examples being a search for Tiananmen Square in China on Yahoo would yield only a tourist site and not any famous pictures of defiance. Is this wrong? I personally would say yes but canft think of any way around itc.how much pressure should a nation put on another to try to get them to conform to your preferred morality? Same thing goes with human rights, womenfs rights, and other morality issues. In America, you can't serve cats and dogs to people, except maybe in the privacy of your own home. If there is a law then Ifve never heard of it. Wouldnft surprise me though as Dogs and Cats have a favorable position in our society. I have no problem with that. But in some cultures, cannibalism is accepted and practiced. THAT is never acceptable. I recall the same issue occurred when the Greeks, who cremated their dead, became horrified at a culture they encountered that Consumed their dead. I donft recall the other culture, but to them the only way the person could pass on and be remembered was to be consumed by family members. It was a deeply religious and spiritual practice strongly embedded into their culture. It disgusts me, but as far as morality is concerned I see no real problem with it. Besides, people are made of meat. Isn't wasting food bad? In the same way, if a person is not yet sexually mature (i.e., puberty), I do not believe that person should be married, no matter what. I would say the exact same thing. But I donft think my beliefs and our culture is so much greater than everyone elsefs that we can just storm into their home and tell them what they can or canft do. If they move into the states then theyfre on our turf and must adhere to our rules or face the consequences. Ifm uncertain if ignorance of our way of life is an excuse for a lesser penalty. I know that excuse has been used with political dealings between Australia and Indonesia. There is a law in Indonesia that clearly states that using illegal drugs requires the death penalty. Whenever an Australian citizen on holiday is caught with drugs it is always an international incident where Australia tries to get its citizens off the hook. Daggertooth
|
|
|
Post by Momo on Apr 3, 2006 23:44:06 GMT -5
I would just like to drop in and say that I am pleased to see that intelligent, orderly discussion and debate is the order of the day in this thread. As a moderator, I am very proud of all involved for their mature and reasoned treatment of this contentious subject. Don't stop now, this is CTV Forum history in the making!
|
|
|
Post by Flagg on Apr 4, 2006 10:08:12 GMT -5
Firstly, I personally do not believe morals are, at their core, a cultural thing. To use a rather poor analogy (maybe because it's almost lunchtime, hee hee), consider chicken. Lots, maybe most of the cultures around the globe have a unique way that they came up with the prepare and serve this tasty bird. Fry it, bake it, roast it, BBQ it, stir-fry it, slice it, dice it, etc. Most of them are pretty tasty, though some people won't like the ones from foreign countries due to personal taste. However, if some culture decides the best way to eat chicken it to pick it up and start chewin', that not only probably doesn't taste good (I could be wrong, of course), but it is certainly not healthy. In the same way, I personally believe that there are moral absolutes; rules that apply to everyone universally at a base level. Different cultures may take these rules and interpret them differently, and in most cases, that's OK. But sometimes, the way they see right and wrong becomes so incredibly skewed that a cultural difference no longer becomes an excuse; the act is simply wrong. For example...
Whoops, didn't define myself properly... That, while I agree is pretty nasty, I don't think is morally wrong universally, since the people are already dead. What I was thinking of was more along the lines of what some cultures that I have read of do in this modern. They will regularly raid other villages to take prisoners, since human flesh has become part of their staple diet. The reason this is wrong is not because of what they're using t he people for (heh, like you said, at least they're not letting it go to waste), but rather the fact that they are taking human life for a reason besides self-defense.
Now, to get it back on topic. : ) I believe children are children. If a person is not old enough to have sex (well, their bodies are developed to a point where they are physically ready. We'll ignore the emotional age aspects for the moment), then I don't think they should be married (unless the marriage is willing to remain unconsumated until a later time, of course. I know some cultures "marry" children very early, but they don't even meet until they're at least into their teen years) or involved with anyone in a sexual way. Again, this is just my opinion, but I would say that any culture that would disagree with that does need to change, not because it's what I believe, but because it seems to be something very basic that everyone should believe.
Those were some excellent examples, by the way. : D
|
|
|
Post by Milky the Man on Apr 4, 2006 21:32:58 GMT -5
Wow, there's a lot of heat in here! I have one thing to say back on the whole Rehiro/Daggertooth argument. I'm inclined to agree with Daggertooth on a lot of this, but then Rehiro has some good points as well. I think the whole argument was due to lack of communitation. Basically, Rehiro thought that people should think more instead of following the crowd. Which I totally agree with. However, he also said that the people here personally were not thinking. That's simply wrong. A tremendous amount of thought has gone into these posts. I am not sure why he would think that, because having accused people of not thinking, he got well thought-out replies. Odd! There's also an argument about instinct and genetic tendencies. We need to think about things, sure, but INSTINCT is no excuse for taking an action. For instance, let's say there's a man who sees a beautiful woman. If he decides to follow his instinctual attraction to her, and rapes her, he's done something wrong. If he's genentically inclined to violence, or drugs or something, it's not any less wrong. It's NO excuse. I think that everyone knows in their hearts what is truly right and wrong. I think back on my own experiences. Every time I do something wrong on purpose, I know I'm doing wrong. But I do it anyway. Take it back a ways. Little Timmy finds that a stool has been left next to the counter. Filled with glee, he ascends the rungs on the side of the stool, and climbs up onto the counter. There, he reaches for the COOKIE JAR! *gasp* He takes a cookie! (noo, Timmy, don't DO IT!) Soon he's eaten the whole jar. Then mom walks in. Timmy knows he's done wrong, even though he's still a strapping young lad of four. The lesson here, boys and girls, is that Little Timmy knew he did something wrong, but did it anyway! (Uh oh, Timmy! That's bad!) So basically, we now tie this in! If someone is genetically more prone to do drugs, and have cravings, it doesn't make them any less a criminal! If someone is mentally ill, they still know they do wrong. I think it's more like, they don't care. You know the lie detector? The thing they use on, like, the reality/matchmaking shows, and stuff, to see if they're lying? Or the police use them? Well, you know how you lie to those? You don't feel guilty. At all. There are people with disorders, who lie compulsively, and don't care. They feel no guilt. But they know they did something wrong. I think there is a choice. (Note: I could, of course, be wrong. I am no medical expert, the above are simply my opinions and guesses, taken from my basic knowledge of human nature) Ok, so I think I strayed off of what anyone was saying, so don't get offended, anyone. I was just getting this out there, as my opinion. You know, for thought. (Sorry about the whole discussion, Zolah. We're all using lots of odd words in difficult ways, I can see how if it was your second language, you'd be confused a bit.) Morals are about what is truly right. Put yourself in other people's perspectives, and detatch yourself from your emotions. Often, you can know what is truly right. As matter of eating people goes, think of the perspective. Does the person want to be eaten? I THINK NOT! O.O I'd say more, but I gotta do HW! Oh, and I'm 13. Nothing here has offended me, and nothing here has been new to me. I knew everything that has been discussed, and more, too. I think we're doing well!
|
|
|
Post by Daggertooth on Apr 4, 2006 22:52:05 GMT -5
Firstly, I personally do not believe morals are, at their core, a cultural thing. Well I actually think that morality is a combination of social and cultural influences. If absolute morality does exist then these socio-cultural morals are superimposed upon them and take precedent in light of that specific society, creating a subjective morality despite the supposed presence of the objective morality. To use a rather poor analogy (maybe because it's almost lunchtime, hee hee), consider chicken. Or maybe you are just a wee bit too obsessed with Charby? Lots, maybe most of the cultures around the globe have a unique way that they came up with the prepare and serve this tasty bird. Fry it, bake it, roast it, BBQ it, stir-fry it, slice it, dice it, etc. Most of them are pretty tasty, though some people won't like the ones from foreign countries due to personal taste. However, if some culture decides the best way to eat chicken it to pick it up and start chewin', that not only probably doesn't taste good (I could be wrong, of course), but it is certainly not healthy. In Southeast Asia they chop the chicken up bones and all. Now if there was ever a morally wrong way to prepare chicken that would be it. Imagine having to pick the crunched up bone out of your mouth all the time, sharp pieces too. Ifd actually have to argue how healthy it is. Mainly because I think your assuming and I think our society has an excessive fear of raw food. I know that our industrialized method of growing chicken has left it prone to a lot more parasites and disease but I doubt it would do much harm. Ifm being too critical of the specific analogy. I understand that your trying to state that though there are differences between different cultures there still is an underlying basal set of objective morals that all gshouldh follow. Am I correct in my understanding? An example may be Murder for fun, there are slight differences in the definition of murder and what qualifies as murder, but at its core the vast majority of cultures view murder for fun as morally bad. You could call this an objective morality, but I would argue that this is an example of a moral fundamental to the existence of society. A fundamental moral for societies sake as opposed to an objective moral for moralities sake. But sometimes, the way they see right and wrong becomes so incredibly skewed that a cultural difference no longer becomes an excuse; the act is simply wrong. Perhaps, but exactly how do you go about justifying any accusation of moral inferiority? It would usually have to come from the outside or be influenced from the outside as those inside that specific society would not find it to be a problem. The same reasoning as those that state you canft judge the past by the morals of the present. More importantly, how can you prove that your morality is better and that they are simply wrong? What I was thinking of was more along the lines of what some cultures that I have read of do in this modern. They will regularly raid other villages to take prisoners, since human flesh has become part of their staple diet. The reason this is wrong is not because of what they're using t he people for (heh, like you said, at least they're not letting it go to waste), but rather the fact that they are taking human life for a reason besides self-defense. Wouldnft providing sustenance for your family so they can live be on par if not more important than self defense? People are animals. I actually donft know of any group that does this in modern times. It may also be a case of misunderstanding or misinformation, a cause of a lot of conflict. And this is where understanding the whys and reasons behind actions, especially across the cultural spectrum, is very important. Borneo is the most recent example I know of that participated in gheadhuntingh as they call it. I think the 60fs was the last recorded event. This was an island with a surprisingly high amount of different cultures and fierce territorial wars were fought between the Kayan and Iban and others. Head hunting and cannibalism was regularly practiced. But it wasnft just for food, there were spiritual reasons as well as cultural because war and victory were very important. Were these constant wars a moral evil? What of their victory practices? Course if it is indeed raiding others just for food. Well I personally would say that it is bad and hate to be the one being raided. But then whatfs the difference between raiding others just for food and raiding others for any other reason? Reasons that could probably be justified, as in you either raid them for your resources or you die. I figure we will be at a standstill as far as morality is concerned. I could go on and sooner or later reveal some basic morality I personally find fundamental for a stable society, whereas you could state probably close to the same morals as an objective principal. At its core we will probably have to agree to disagree. I believe children are children. If a person is not old enough to have sex (well, their bodies are developed to a point where they are physically ready. We'll ignore the emotional age aspects for the moment), then I don't think they should be married (unless the marriage is willing to remain unconsumated until a later time, of course. I know some cultures "marry" children very early, but they don't even meet until they're at least into their teen years) or involved with anyone in a sexual way. I agree. I also think that mental age is important as well. In this day and age humans are developing faster than we used to (I personally suspect all those growth hormones we pump into our food. I mean we age cows in one year what it naturally takes five years, hormones are not that different between animals, especially basic things like growth hormones.). Whatfs the age nowadays, between 12 and 14? Ifm sure different societies will argue when someone is old enough to make the decision to marry, but Ifm personally biased towards our laws as a good rule of thumb. Again, this is just my opinion, but I would say that any culture that would disagree with that does need to change, not because it's what I believe, but because it seems to be something very basic that everyone should believe. Yeah but then you are biased to the society youfre raised in. A more important question is what can be done. In our society I think we need to try to purge child porn sites. I do think that there are some who use those sites harmlessly, but I would think enough donft that purging those sites is necessary. I also think that possession and distribution of real child porn should be punishable as those represent cases of actual child abuse. Course I think these are already against the law. Perhaps stricter punishments are in order? But how strict? I mean even Malaysiafs death penalty for drug trafficking hasnft stopped drug trafficking completely, and they regularly enforce that law. Internet sites become much more complex when they cross the international border. We can try to cooperate with the other nations, but what if they refuse to cooperate? What is acceptable action against others to promote our morality and our laws? Sanctionscwar? There is probably a morality tradeoff between acceptable influential actions and foreign relations. Those were some excellent examples, by the way. : D Thanks. I like your well thought out posts. I think that everyone knows in their hearts what is truly right and wrong. Ifd have to disagree with you here. It is too easy to have a strong moral and desensitized to the point where you no longer feel guilty about that moral. Lets take drinking Coffee for an example. In Utah it is a strong moral, God said not to drink hot drinks. So if they drink it they will feel really guilty about it, probably spend time confessing and repenting. However, if they continue doing it sooner or later there will no longer be the presence of guilt when they drink coffee. whew, I've really got to stop being so long winded. Daggertooth
|
|