|
|
Post by Flagg on Apr 4, 2006 23:26:14 GMT -5
*EDIT* Sorry if this post is a bit sloppy. I'm a bit tired at the moment, so my thoughts are not entirely together. Hopefully it will still add something.
Shh, that's a secret. *glances about nervously*
You're very likely correct. And there is certainly nothing wrong with that. There should be some things every person knows to be true in their heart, but they should not expect anyone else to agree with them automatically.
Also, a sign of a good debator is to know when the horse is dead so they can stop beating it.
Agreed. Thinking that is not meant to, at least theoretically, lead to action is thinking best left unthought when it comes to issues such as this.
I think your solution is good, and if it could be carried out, I think the world would be a better place for it. Unfortunately, it seems like child pornography is like a Hydra. For every site that gets shut down, or supplier that gets put away, two seem to take their place. What law enforcement officials do to fight this problem is helping, and if it weren't for the measures already in place, the problem would obviously be much, much worse. But at the same time, to some extent we are treating the symptoms and not the real sickness.
Sadly, I have no idea how to cure the real sickness. I do not know how the children involved become so. I don't know if its kidnappings, abusive parents (be they biological, foster, or adoptive), or some other source that is not currently coming to mind. Most likely it is a combination of all of these. I do think that if there is a way to protect the children from the get-go, before they're ever put in such a wretched situation, that might help in curing the sickness. Perhaps law enforcement on a more local level, where children are known to be abducted, could possibly help stem the flow considerably.
Of course, again, I really know nothing as to the practical source of the problem, so all of that may just be a load of rubbish.
I'm not sure how large of a degree stricter punishments would help in preventing it, but I do know that they would bring a greater sense of justice to the children once their villains are caught. If that ain't a good enough reason to bring about stronger punishments, I don't know what is.
|
|
magicklorelai
Full Member
"Who told the wall to jump me!?"
Posts: 232
|
Post by magicklorelai on Apr 5, 2006 13:26:08 GMT -5
I skimmed a lot of the debate, so if I cover something someone else has, I apologize. Also, if I cross a line with what I say, or take it past the PG-13 rating, then feel free to delete it, Mods.
The first part of this thread started about children younger and younger getting into sex earlier in life. I agree that this is wrong, as is child pornography. I also agree that those of us in the older age brackets, who influence the young'ins quite a bit, need to be much better role models.
College-age, high-school age young adults are far too oversexed as it is. Because parents don't want to teach it, and teachers are scared that parents will complain about teaching it in school, kids follow their urges and whatever they can pick up to "learn by experience". As has been stated before, this leaves them open to malicious adults taking advantage of the confusion and need to understand what's starting to develop. The only thing I remember learning in school was why we shouldn't be afraid of the "changes" that were coming.
In all truth, I was three when I first picked up an instructional book on the subject. The words were simple and the (drawn) pictures were demonstrative enough to teach me the basics of what the equipment was used for. Granted, I barely understood it, but it never shocked me when I began to REALLY learn about sex. I always saw it as matter of fact, because that was how it was presented to me. If we act like the act is so forbidden, children will play with it like it IS a toy- a forbidden toy that draws a line between them and their parents. As it's also been said, it makes kids feel older to talk about/pursue sex when their parents react so strongly to it.
What makes it forbidden? It's considered sinful to want to have sex, and of course, wrongful sex(adultery, one-night-stands, etc) isn't exactly something we should encourage, considering all of the many, many dangers(STD's, for one) out there. I feel that the act is beautiful, a real connection between two people. It's called lovemaking because, when there is real love involved, it can be a fulfilling connection...but I don't feel teenagers should participate in this behavior. They are too young to know what love is, there are too many hormones in their system and it is scientifically proven that the brains are NOT wired correctly. (this is not a patronization to teenagers, this is just simple facts).
Personally, I have not made love to anyone. I've made it to 20 years without once engaging in the activity. This may sound personal, but it's neither a medal nor a complaint. Does this make me a hero or a loser? That's the other thing....there's a huge pressure in this country to believe that virginity is a sign that you're a "loser", someone unappealing. Children younger and younger fear losing ground with their peers, so they try to look "cool" by being appealing younger. This ALSO leads back to the child pornography problem.
Anyone who is attracted to children is sick. They are not well. They have turned what could be a simple compassion for children into a desire that is neither love nor appropriate. I don't feel they should be locked away, I feel they need to be treated and cared for. Those who are pedophiles and act on it have an impulse control disorder- just like obsessive compulsive or a cleptomaniac. They cannot control it inside their heads. I can't bring myself to despise them, because they are suffering from an illness like anyone else who suffers from disease. I don't justify nor condone the actions or behaviors, but I don't like drawing lines in the sand.
While I do feel there are several lines we should not cross, remember that things that were taboo, forbidden, or "sick" are now beginning to be understood. Homosexuality is starting to be seen as real love between two human beings, though there's still a ways to go before it's truly understood.
Anyway, I apologize if I offended anyone. This is a sensitive subject, a heavy one, and I have some very strong feelings about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rehiro on Apr 6, 2006 15:10:24 GMT -5
Hey im back. Cant stick around for long. I didnt run away with my tail between my legs when the gaze of opposition was lifted from me if thats what you thought  I havent read any of the most recent posts. I'll get back eventually, but I have no time right now. You guy's can survive without my explosive anger for a while. I look forward to being offended some more on this topic in the future ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Rehiro on Apr 12, 2006 23:22:25 GMT -5
I am back! I dont really get how you do that thing with the big quote thing... you know with the name and date. I know daggertooth explained but I dont get it... even though i've done it before.
I think its interesting that before I came along, people would simply state their opinion and be satisfied. Then, when I appeared, people began responding to me, and only me. Then when I pointed it out, the conversation divided, and when I disappeared the conversation died. Does that mean everyone agrees now? Or does it mean that if im not around, people aren’t interested in the subject anymore? Or does it mean that people wanted to argue with me, and not discuss the topic at hand?
If you people truly did not catch my insult, then why would you centre on me? Especially since what I said was not very controversial beyond the insult. I believe that part of what I meant to say got through and it spurred the conversation forward.
(This is from Flagg)
Yes, I thought you were saying that I was openly defending pedophiles.
So, your basic argument is that we shouldnt think? How will that solve anything? It might not make the situation worse, but it sure wont make it better if you ask me.
If lawers havent already thought of using my arguments, then they must not be very good.
I dont know. Maybe we should think about it (reference to not thinking theory).
(This is from Daggertooth)
Certainly! I thought that you people were speaking your oppinions out of instinct and letting raw emotion and the oppinions of others manipulate you. If you cant think with a clear head, it makes you pretty unqualified to be coming to conclusions on a subject such as this. If my presence influenced the conversation so much, how much has life manipulated your oppinions? I meant to suggest that you try to break down your mental barriers before tackling such a serious topic.
If your looking only for flaws in my argument, and not wisdom, if your trying to win a fight, if your speaking anothers oppinion then your in bad shape for discussing this topic, and I think that you people let your environment affect you to an extreme extent. Not any more than the average guy on the street, but still... I think you need to at least attempt to sort your mind out, instead of just arguing with me.
Yes they do.
Im trying
The question should start at the most basic level: Sex, its influence and the human mind.
Well, then good thing im not using it as a scapegoat. Just acknowledging its possibility. I think people dont want to consider this as a possibility mostly because they would then have to feel sorry for them, and they dont want to feel sorry for them. Not because its impossible. Im not saying let them off easier because its genetic, but if we can locate the root of a problem, we might just be able to improve on our situation. Things that seemed impossible at one time, have come true in the future. I believe that we (the human race. Not us individuals) should further the study on pedophiles and keep the laws we already have, until we can come to a better understanding of the situation and then decide on the best course of action. As it is, not many people are very educated on the subject.
Well if thats true, it makes it easier to sympathize with them.
Cultural scale.
Take them now, but dont assume that we did the right thing. Think and study while they're being punished.
You misinterpreted it. It was supposed to go with the other thing I said right after it about talking oddly. I was trying to say you people had a hard time understanding what I was saying, and you thought I was defending pedophiles but I wasnt.
Yeah, some of it.
I guess im just not used to this form of speech. I guess i'll get used to it. I dont have many online debates. But something about going through a post, deciding what you wanted to take and leaving what you didnt felt wrong to me. And it seemed to encourage picking on another debaters choice of words instead of discussing what was actually being talked about.
But I guess this way you can go more specifically into what was said and you guys arent going to try to be jerks in this conversation. I noticed that the argument only was going back to a single post, and I thought also that this might have been influenced by the use of quotes somehow, but that little theory dosent exactly add up. I would like to point out that its easy to go off topic if we only remember what happened directly before us.
But yeah, all in all the quotes system works better. I realize that now.
Never mind. Thats in the past. Im not spiteful anymore.
Well, you may respond to almost everything (i'll try and be more thorough from now on and speak of what wasnt responded to) but you do dissect some things I say, and leave out others (again, i'll try to give some examples in the future).
Whats my oppinion?
Yeah, well three against one is still not so great in my favor. And Zolah did say:
Which implies that im defending pedophiles like I thought you two were. That was a misunderstanding on my behalf. If I can forgive you guys for not understanding me, I think that you can forgive me for the same reason.
(back to daggertooth)
I think you could have, and with just as much logic. Also, you seemed to find things to respond to directly after I said you were speaking to only me.
I wouldnt. Seems like my fiery presence was the best thing to ever happen to this conversation.
(This is Momo)
Indeed! We cannot fail our moderators!
(This is from Ryo)
We cannot fail! And since Zolah started this thread, I would guess that she would be happy to see it discussed. Thats three moderators that would want us to speak!
I didnt mean to imply that I didnt want you guys to keep talking. I simply thought that the way we were going about it was not as effective as it might. But nobody can expect true enlightenment straight off. Im just a mortal, with only as much worth as any of you guys. I wouldnt want to think that I had bullied or scared you away.
(This is Milky)
*Gasp* but-but Milky.... nah, its cool.
Cool.
Yeah, but I thought they werent thinking in the right way. They werent trying to become aware.
Indeed. By saying what I said, I got the best reaction out of people, but by doing that I also revealed a surprising weakness. A weakness that threatened to make these people seem unqualified for the conversation. What you said Milky, comes very near to the core of what I meant to say. Even if I dont think exactly the same as you, and even if I think im a step ahead, I wouldnt put the not thinking accusation on you because you notice things. I enjoyed your observations in your last post as well, and I didnt think the acusation should be directed at you. Even if I dont actually agree with you any more than anyone else, i'd say you were a true thinker. Im not asking to be your friend. In this discussion I have neither friend nor foe and I speak purely out of observation and intellectual thought.
Agreed. Why mince words? If I worked on instinct, I would probably rape as many women as I could, as fast as I could. But since I understand morals and ethics and can respect and even empathize with the potential rape victom, because I can think about the consequences of my actions, for these reasons, I would not. But the again, as society sees it, im just a healthy heterosexual, so I dont have to view myself as a monster.
If it is genetic, or even psychological, and society calls you a monster, then your likely to view yourself as a monster. And if you view yourself as a monster, you might be less inclined to resist. More likely to rise to societies expectations and be the monster that you know you are. Societies influence is a very powerful thing, and it has effected the people here too much. So much that I made that implication of a similarity between the people here and pedophiles a while back. Just in the way that they are both human and both affected in ways that humans are affected.
Maybe. Not certain on this.
I dont agree. Life sucks and there is a lot that happens that just sucks so much! And you cant really count on anything. Its enough to drive you crazy. People can be mentally ill in as many ways as you can imagine. It can be so terrible that its hard to believe its true.
OH! I totally agree with that!
|
|
|
|
Post by Flagg on Apr 12, 2006 23:42:24 GMT -5
It's time to play the fun game of definition. If I was proposing nobody think, then I would be a hypocrit, since I myself had to think a good deal about this subject if I were to even suggest such a thing. So by the most basic definition of the word "think," it becomes obvious that I could not be proposing a cessation of thought.
What I object to is not the progression of thought in all its forms. My objection is against the application of any thought we may choose in a real-world situation, despite the fact that this thought materializes in a vastly immoral way. Thinking which stays in the mind is never harmful, nor is it ever productive in and of itself. But once that thinking leads to action, there are consequences, and they can often be negative (see Uganda, where people think children will make good soldiers). So by all means, everyone should think away on this subject! But before any of that thinking leaves the theoretical stage and is put into practice, it should be carefully considered by those who can decide such things properly.
I think there is a fine, strong wall of rational decision between thought and action in place today, letting mostly only good ideas through, though a few bad ones do leak out every now and then. But I think that wall may be crumbling slowly, and it worries me, since then there will be no guidelines for people to follow as to what is allowable and what is not.
Sarcasm duly noted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daggertooth on Apr 13, 2006 3:17:03 GMT -5
I think your solution is good, and if it could be carried out, I think the world would be a better place for it. Unfortunately, it seems like child pornography is like a Hydra. For every site that gets shut down, or supplier that gets put away, two seem to take their place. What law enforcement officials do to fight this problem is helping, and if it weren't for the measures already in place, the problem would obviously be much, much worse. But at the same time, to some extent we are treating the symptoms and not the real sickness. Isnft that usually the case with these things. Its a lot like arresting the drug users you find on the street. They are not the ones distributing. But if you catch enough, maybe give them a plea bargain if they give you information that leads you to the bigger fish, then you take steps to helping the problem. I doubt the problem will every truly be solved. Is it fair to give criminals plea bargains and lighter punishments if they provide information to catch bigger fish? We can only do so much, what happens when these problems cross international boarders and the local governments refuse to cooperate. They could be the ones providing the websites, the illicit materials, and even be a safe haven for kidnapers. I donft know if that is indeed the case, but I wouldnft be surprised if that caused complications. I'm not sure how large of a degree stricter punishments would help in preventing it, but I do know that they would bring a greater sense of justice to the children once their villains are caught. I think stricter punishments are good and publicity. There are also morality issues with this as well though. What rights does the criminal have and what about their privacy? How strict a punishment is too strict? I am assuming death is a bit harsh for the crime, so what kind of prison sentence? Also, if the criminal reforms, like our prison system is suppose to do, what kind of life do they have if their privacy is violated? There are websites of all public sex offenders, who wants to live by a known sex offender, what kind of job can they get? If theyfve truly reformed then how fair is it that their lives are still largely ruined with little chance of rebuilding. It reminds me of Le Miserable and the yellow ticket of leave. The only thing I remember learning in school was why we shouldn't be afraid of the "changes" that were coming. I agree, but too many parents donft think this is something that should be taught in schools. The idea that it is better to teach it at home when the parents deem it necessary. Often times they just donft bother with it or donft go into any detail as to whatfs going on. The idea being if you teach them they will experiment. If we act like the act is so forbidden, children will play with it like it IS a toy- a forbidden toy that draws a line between them and their parents. As it's also been said, it makes kids feel older to talk about/pursue sex when their parents react so strongly to it. I agree here as well. Perhaps the strong social taboos are at fault for a lot of the observed behavior. Does it strike anyone odd that any kind of sex scene, even the one on titanic, are so taboo, yet it is entirely permissible for someone to graphically kill several other people? I dont really get how you do that thing with the big quote thing... you know with the name and date. I know daggertooth explained but I dont get it... even though i've done it before. Basically I hit the quote button and then copy and paste the line that forms. I tried deleating the board, thread, and time but it seems these boards need them for the quote to actually show the authors name. I found the bulk of what you said repetitive and fairly frankly egotistical, thus irrelevant to the conversation at hand. So, your basic argument is that we shouldnt think? Flagg did a decent job explaining this, I just wanted to add that gthinking too muchh does not equal gnot thinkingh and your interpreted conclusion is incorrect. The question should start at the most basic level: Sex, its influence and the human mind. Why? Why do you think it is so necessary for us to delve into the details of the perpetrators psyche to understand a crime has been committed? As a preventative measure it is important to develop a dogmatic profile of perpetrators, but thatfs hardly the extent of this conversation. You seem to think that even thinking about punishment without understanding the intimate details of a criminals life is in and of itself criminal. I believe that we (the human race. Not us individuals) should further the study on pedophiles and keep the laws we already have, until we can come to a better understanding of the situation and then decide on the best course of action. I think we (we as in those in charge) have an adequate psychological profile to justify our actions against pedophiles. Any deeper analysis will not really have any bearing on any specific case but will assist in preventative measures. We know enough to justify punishment for the crime and be satisfied that your gthink it throughh requirement is met. I think people dont want to consider this as a possibility mostly because they would then have to feel sorry for them. {about environmental influence} Well if thats true, it makes it easier to sympathize with them. What does feeling sorry for someone have to do with crime and punishment? Most criminals have some sort of tragic past, what exactly does that have to do with the case? Take them now, but dont assume that we did the right thing. Think and study while they're being punished. Are you suggesting that even if we donft know if a crime has been committed it is okay to punish somebody? Punishing someone based on an assumption is never a good idea. What I am saying is that I doubt anyone is assuming when a known pedophile is punished. Basically that everyone whofs commented on this topic so far, with the possible exception of Milky, posted without thinking and were just hatemongering. I think you could have, and with just as much logic. I could have, but thatfs besides the point. Daggertooth |
|
|
|
Post by Flagg on Apr 13, 2006 12:10:22 GMT -5
I think this has a lot to do with the degree and frequency of a person's offenses. If a man drinks one can of beer in his life, that man is not an alcoholic, even if that beer gets him drunk enough to impair his driving so much that it leads to a fatal car accident. But if a person drinks large amounts repeatedly and is more often found stone drunk than sober (or even "functionally" drunk), then that person is an alcholic, and in my opinion should not be allowed to drive a vehicle (...Well, except a bicycle).
In the same way, if a person abuses a child one time in a fit of twisted passion, I certainly think that person should be given an honest chance to reform, since they have not shown themselves as having a destructive lifestyle that hurts children consistently. But if someone is a repeated child molester, has a pornographic collection that has been collected over a period of years, and has even resorted to kidnapping/buying themselves a child for the sole purpose of gratifying their desires, then, well, call me cruel, but I think that society needs to be protected from that sort of person. Even if they do reform, old habits die hard. I am not suggesting that they be completely cut off from normal society, but I do think that society has a right to know that there may be some danger around this person. It is then society's responsibility to realize that this person is trying to get better, and attempt to do what they can to help them along, but at the same time do their best to not expose their children to potential harm from this person.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daggertooth on Apr 13, 2006 20:18:10 GMT -5
I think this has a lot to do with the degree and frequency of a person's offenses. Thatfs tough for me to say. I our prisons are suppose to be there for reform. Shouldnft we as a society then give a chance to people who do actually reform? Frankly I question our current prison systems ability to reform individuals into productive members of society. Can you imagine how hard it would be to reintegrate into society with the whole world seemingly against you. Even if youfre reformed people will suspect you. And sure, maybe someone was really really bad, wouldnft they still be able to reform. Perhaps spiritually as well, I mean isnft repentance the same idea? If someone repents from a certain act (sincerely, none of this repent on the weekends so they can continue doing the same thing each week) would they be completely forgiven? At the same time I would personally want to know if anyone in my neighborhood was a sex offender. If I were a parent I could care less about a persons privacy when my Childs safety is at stake. Call me cold or hypocritical, but even if someone committed the crime once I would still want to know and caution my child away from that individual. Benefit of the doubt and complete reform sounds good, but when my child safety is at stake I could care less about anyone else. I have a story of benefit of the doubt that is quite graphic but it illustrates the fear of giving a criminal a second chance. Again, its graphic, as in violent, so donft read it if it may bother you. I have a friend working at a halfway house, a house that is where criminals go when they are trying to be reintegrated into society. One of the tenants asked if she could give him a ride to work. If he was to be reintegrated into society he needed to work, but with no transportation that can be hard. My friend said no. Well he kept pestering her about it, but eventually asked a different coworker if he could get a ride. She said yes. She was found a day later raped and murdered.My point is you just donft know if a person is reformed or not, and often times it can mean life or death. Do we as honest citizens want to give them that chance. At the same point there are many who made a mistake and vow never to do such again, donft they deserve a chance? When it comes to child abusers I would actually side with the parents on this one. They can try to rebuild their lives but it wont be easy, their mistake will haunt them. Maybe its not faircbut thatfs life. Daggertooth |
|
|
|
Post by Rehiro on Apr 14, 2006 20:53:09 GMT -5
(This is from Daggertooth)
I still dont get it. I tried it but it dosent work. I dont really have a problem with doing it this way if none you guys have a problem with me doing it this way.
(Heres an old quote from Daggertooth)
Well... nobody answered this in my last post
Granted, Daggertooth did say this
Now, how am I supposed to know that you dont just feel insulted and cant argue? Im willing to accept defeats. If you can prove me wrong I will state my appology, but if I followed your rules on reponding to what I feel like responding to, we would never get anywhere. I asked questions and nobody answered them.
Can you argue that the conversation didnt improve once you had someone to argue with? Can you argue that the conversation didnt divide the post directly after I complained? Can you argue that when I disappeared, the conversation didnt die and when I returned the conversation wasnt revived?
Can you argue that my presence hasnt influenced this conversation? And can you argue that if all of what I say did happen, that it was through coincidence? Can you argue that if my presence did influence you, that it does not indicate that life itself has influenced your oppinions? And if life has influenced your oppinions, that it does not affect the oppinions that you've posted? Or that your oppinions dont change the conversation any?
See? Its all connected, and very relevent. If you dodged this just because you were insulted, then that indicates that you are still letting emotions drive you, and I argue that that has no place here. You shouldnt think of this as an argument, where people have points, and if you admit to being wrong you lose a point. If you can prove me wrong, I will admit to it, and if you ask me a question, I will respond. If you can accept that you made a mistake, then you can fix it. But saying you dont have a problem, then not backing it up with any logic isnt going to make me think your right. Its just going to make me think your dodgy.
Sure I was egotistical. But very rightly so, I think. I've asked some questions, and I would like them answered. If you dont answer them, I can only assume that you cant. If what I say is irrelivent, then tell me why for my own benifet, so that I can improve on myself and discuss in a more profitable way.
Heres more stuff that didnt get answered:
And thats it. Kind of the same point as the one that wasnt responded to above. I just went through my last post and tried to find questions that werent answered. I would have liked to see some talk on some other stuff, but if I dont put them into a question, then I cant say that anyones obligated to answer.
Now, that was just me going over unanswered stuff. Im getting on to answered stuff and new questions, and normal discusssion now.
(This is Flagg)
Yeah, thats true, and I did think you were being a hypocrit.
If your not against the progression of thought in all its forms, and only against using these thoughts rashly, then I dont see any disagreement between me and you on this.
I wasnt sure because im so often misunderstood.
(This is Daggertooth)
Y'see Flagg already told me that, so there really wasnt much point in pointing that out again. You could have pointed out any number of things that I said, but you said that.
Heres a quote from me
The way you rub my nose in it, you must not agree.
(Okay, back to Daggertooth)
Do you think that a person would think "I think i'll molest a child for absolutely no reason"? Do you think a person chooses to be a pervert? Through understanding a problem, we come closer to solving it. And besides, I dont think that punishing without understanding makes a person a criminal as I state here:
Somethings got to be done now, thats a fact, but to punish without understanding when you can punish with understanding does make you a criminal. Something needs to be done now, but we should still plan for the future.
(back to Daggertooth)
Erm, I think you used two sepererate quotes in the one quote you used to say this thing here.
I was actually saying in the first quote you used that you people allow feeling sorry for them to cloud your judgements. That because one possibility would leave you feeling sorry for something that you dont want to feel sorry for, you dont want to except it as a possibility.
In the second one, I was saying that the excuse you used to prove that we should not feel sorry for them, you actually proved it otherwise.
Well... theres a chance we're doing things wrong isnt there? And until we can figure that out, we've got to do something right?
Whoa there Mr.Negativity, you could put a spin on that and have me say that my point is most of the people here suffer from mental barriers and that I suggest a different form of thinking, but you choose the most insulting way for me to say it.
Also, I have shown many other oppinions now, but yeah, that was my starting one.
I dont think so. A point is a point whether or not it comes from me, and if you concentrate on certain things because of enmity, then its just going to screw things up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daggertooth on Apr 15, 2006 0:18:24 GMT -5
Note: Everything from this point until a line bisects the page is basically directed to Rehiro and is rather off topic. It would be better worth your time to skip to the on topic stuff. So basically you want me to say that the only reason this discussion is a discussion is because of you and that without you people would not only continue to blather on unintelligently, but the conversation itself would cease to exist. And if I disagree you want me to cite each and every one of your points in an attempt to rationalize why your egotistical ramblings are not justified. If I donft go out of my way and off topic to do this then suddenly I am proving your point that I am insulted and have no argument for that matter. Listen, your ego has nothing to do with this topic. Half of what anyone has said to you has been off topic. Explaining to you why you need not be insulted, rash, and railed up at the same time as explaining why you need not try to insult others to stimulate response. I said I wasnft insulted and you didnft believe me, and hammered into that idea over and over again as if asking, gif you werenft insulted then whyc.h Was going to make a difference. There is a topic and that topic is not you. That said, I did say I would answer your questions if you thought I was dodging what you were saying. I actually meant important on topic stuff, but apparently did not specify, I had assumed it didnft need to be saidcthe faults of assuming. Though I find it a great waste of time, boring, and severely off topic as well as feeding your already bloated ego, I will answer your questions. I think its interesting that before I came along, people would simply state their opinion and be satisfied. Thatfs what people typically do when discussing things. They state their opinion. If someone wants clarification or disagrees a little then discussion ensues, but usually not until after a few opinions are posted. Heck, sooner or later someone is going to read the first topic, skip all the pages, and post their opinion. Thatfs what happens with these things. Then, when I appeared, people began responding to me, and only me. When you appeared you made an opening statement that seemed to defend pedophiles as well as assume everyone was, ghating for the sake of hating.h Not to mention claiming that everyone was just going with the flow of society, despite the fact that though the same conclusion was made by those who posted previously to you they were made for different reasons. Then when I pointed it out, the conversation divided, Aside from the fact that conversations naturally do this anyway, maybe it had something to do with how you were complaining that everyone was against you. It was only me and Flagg, there was no reason to feel like everyone was against you and if simply responding to what you said caused this, well then might as well move on to more interesting conversations. I had said that Flaggfs divine morality would be an interesting conversation, which it was. So maybe, just maybe, it did have something to do with you. when I disappeared the conversation died. Was this when everyone was suppose to logically think you committed suicide or after you posted your one paragraph stating you will return shortly, A paragraph that just happened to pop up at the conclusion of a discussion on social morality versus divine morality. Did your absence from that mean you agreed totally with everything being said? Does that mean everyone agrees now? If you want to assume that no comment means something then who am I to argue with you? Or does it mean that if im not around, people aren’t interested in the subject anymore? I am starting to think that your not interested in the subject either, you just keep on making statements about your importance and questioning those who disagree. Even when I asked you to clearly state your opinion you posted something not about the topic but against the reasoning of others on the topic. A reasoning, I might add, that you assumed and still insist upon. Or does it mean that people wanted to argue with me, and not discuss the topic at hand? You keep bringing it up. I tried to not discuss it in my last post and you decided to call me out on it. If you people truly did not catch my insult, then why would you centre on me? Again with the insult and assuming everyonefs response. Do you really want me to reiterate the facts? That it was your assuming, unwarranted labeling, and implied support of pedophilia that caused others to converse with you and not anyone feeling slighted. Not to mention that geveryoneh is two people and gcentering on youh was maybe five or six posts trying to piece together exactly what your position on this actually is. Especially since what I said was not very controversial beyond the insult. The only thing conversational was why your tactic was not needed to stimulate conversation. Something that you have already dismissed and disagree with. In fact I doubt anyone will sway your belief that insulting others is a productive debate tactic despite the only conversation resulting from the supposed insult being why it didnft work and/or why someone wasnft insulted. I believe that part of what I meant to say got through and it spurred the conversation forward. I think it was more the confusion and misinterpretations from your initial posts that spurred some conversation. That is what you were trying to say right, that for the most part what we gleaned from your posts were incorrect? I think you better give credit where credit is due. I mean you didnft strike up any conversation, you just assumed what the reasoning of other peoples posts were and stated what you thought about that. In fact it wasnft until Flagg started questioning your initial opinion that conversation started moving along. I would think that we owe Flagg a great deal of praise for his ability to steer this discussion with his questioning and debate tactics. I still dont get it. I tried it but it dosent work. I dont really have a problem with doing it this way if none you guys have a problem with me doing it this way. I have no problem with it. Itfs just that you did ask. Here is the exact line of text [*quote author=rehiro board=general thread=1143572602 post=1145065989] Without the star of course. Now, how am I supposed to know that you dont just feel insulted and cant argue? Well because the answer was simple. You are demanding conversation that is off topic and irrelevant. I am on page 4 and have not said anything worthwhile for this conversation. If you want to go assuming that Ifm so insulted I cry myself to sleep at night and that I now completely believe that without you the forum itself would collapse well go ahead. Quite frankly I am only responding to this off topic stuff because you called me on it. Rest assured that I will add a disclaimer to my, gIf Ifm dodging the topic at hand then call me on it, quote what you think was so important that I dodged.h To state things important to the topic and not blatant ego boosting. Im willing to accept defeats. Thatfs good to know. If you can prove me wrong I will state my appology, but if I followed your rules on reponding to what I feel like responding to, we would never get anywhere. We are not getting anywhere because you are demanding that irrelevant information be addressed. No one really cares how important you think you are, thatfs not the topic. If you want you can go make another thread dedicated to yourself. You could even be the driving force behind it. I asked questions and nobody answered them. What were those questions again? Oh yes, why people werenft insulted. Why you werenft the foundation of this topic. Why you were being ganged up upon. Important questions were answered. If not call me on it, but no more of this blatant ego boosting. Can you argue that the conversation didnt improve once you had someone to argue with? Nobody is saying that. Having someone with a different opinion is often very important to a conversation. Ifm guessing that this gsomeone to argue withh is you and no one else. I still think conversation would have ensued without you, you do not. Lets leave that as an opinionated standstill. Can you argue that the conversation didnt divide the post directly after I complained? I can argue if it was a coincidence or not. But I think you may be right. You were getting rather railed up for a bit here, whining that everyone was against you. Flagg and I both insisted that we were not. Ifm sure that the decision to move on had a little to do with trying to make you feel less ganged up upon. The fact that the original topic was running its course may have had something to do with it as well. Can you argue that when I disappeared, the conversation didnt die and when I returned the conversation wasnt revived? Actually I can since it moved on after we were suppose to think you logically committed suicide. Also, Flagg and I had a very nice conversation on morality during another disappearance. Not to mention these disappearances lasted a few days and could hardly be considered disappearances at all. Several other threads have gone much longer without being considered dead. Can you argue that my presence hasnt influenced this conversation? No I can not. Truth be told your influence has steered conversation. Your argumentative nature, assumptions of others, and unique opinion has sparked a lot of discussion. The only thing I was saying is that you are not the foundation, the keystone, to this very topic. Something you insist upon and no doubt will continue to insist upon. I found it annoying and called you on it, then apparently you wished to have an entire discussion based entirely on your importance. And can you argue that if all of what I say did happen, that it was through coincidence? Ifd say itfs a combination of both. I dare say that if Flagg and I did not question your initial post then the conversation would have gone quite differently. See? Its all connected, and very relevent. So much text and so much time, all about you. No, whether or not you are the founding keystone of this thread is not relevant at all. I could be wrong, maybe I should worship the ground you walk on. Does not change the fact that everything I said above is irrelevant to this topic. I suggest you make a new thread dedicated to your own importance if you wish to continue this. I fear that we have damaged this topic and discussion enough with all this off topic shenanigans. Its just going to make me think your dodgy. Your probably going to think that regardless. Much like the way you automatically assumed the thought process of everyone on this debate. Sure I was egotistical. But very rightly so, I think. I disagree, lets leave it at that. I've asked some questions, and I would like them answered. Your questions are largely about yourself and have no bearing on this discussion. If you dont answer them, I can only assume that you cant. You do that. I will no longer honor off topic questions that do nothing more that boost your ego. If what I say is irrelivent, then tell me why for my own benifet, so that I can improve on myself and discuss in a more profitable way. I did, and you demanded that I still answer them. From now on Ifll will quote irrelevant questions and simply state that it is irrelevant. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I draw this line as an indication of where on topic discussion appears to take place. Can you argue that if my presence did influence you, that it does not indicate that life itself has influenced your oppinions? And if life has influenced your oppinions, that it does not affect the oppinions that you've posted? Or that your oppinions dont change the conversation any? Okay, this may actually have something important to the conversation. I am curious though. A persons opinion is developed through life experience. You seem to be implying, and youfve done this before, that any opinion developed from life experience is a bad thing. If you dodged this just because you were insulted, then that indicates that you are still letting emotions drive you, and I argue that that has no place here. First: I have said time and again that I was not insulted, not by you or what you have said. I will say that I am now annoyed, but not insulted. If you want to keep assuming and insulting go ahead. I grow tired of this and will no longer respond to questions about how insulted I am. If this in turn makes you believe that I am insulted then so be it. Second: Morals are largely emotion based. They often drive how severe we find one act over another. Why do you think that they have no place in this discussion? Third: If by emotions have no place here you are referring to individual members and our various posts then I agree to an extend. Making a post in anger is never a good thing. Emotions often cloud the clarity in which a person makes their posts, but then it can also add passion. There is nothing inherently wrong with a passionate post. You shouldnt think of this as an argument, where people have points, and if you admit to being wrong you lose a point. In case you are misinterpreting my use of the word gpointh I will say this. My use of gpointh refers to direct statements and not some invisible scorecard. If you can prove me wrong, I will admit to it, and if you ask me a question, I will respond. Thatfs very good to know. But saying you dont have a problem, then not backing it up with any logic isnt going to make me think your right. Listen, if I agree I donft have to go into great detail why I agree. If I was not insulted I donft need to go into great detail about why. If I disagree I will tell you why. Y'see Flagg already told me that, so there really wasnt much point in pointing that out again. You could have pointed out any number of things that I said, but you said that. I thought it was worth reiterating. You reading something that wasnft there, assuming, then running with it. Everyone makes mistakes, its not fair to poke at one and hold you down for it constantly and I donft intend to do that. But I do think that this is something youfve done multiple times, And thus stressed as something to watch yourself on. The way you rub my nose in it, you must not agree. There, assuming again. Youfve done a lot of assuming during this discussion. Not a good thing to do. Do you think that a person would think "I think i'll molest a child for absolutely no reason"? Do you think a person chooses to be a pervert? I think an individuals environment conditions a person to certain things. However, the final act is theirs and theirs alone. If they were not aware of the fact that what they were doing was wrong they can still be held accountable. I have already mentioned an example where ignorance was no excuse. Through understanding a problem, we come closer to solving it. True, but at its core. That does not mean we should stop dealing with the problem at hand. Take drugs for instance. Understanding where drugs come from and who supplies the drugs is extremely important, but that doesnft mean we should stop prosecuting the common drug user. And besides, I dont think that punishing without understanding makes a person a criminal as I state here: Take them now, but dont assume that we did the right thing. Think and study while they're being punished. That still sounds like your saying we should punish a person without knowing if they did something right or wrong. Somethings got to be done now, thats a fact, but to punish without understanding when you can punish with understanding does make you a criminal. Something needs to be done now, but we should still plan for the future. Ifll agree with you here to a point. The information you seek is important in finding the source and trying to ultimately stop the problem. It has very little bearing on a captured individual. When a person is detained, caught red handed, when prosecuting him it does not matter if they bought a kid off of ebay. Thatfs information that is very important, but not for the prosecution of that individual. Erm, I think you used two sepererate quotes in the one quote you used to say this thing here. I did, which is why there are brackets summarizing what the bottom quote is referring to. Basicaly it seemed that you were saying the same thing for both genetically induced problems and problems induced by ones environment. I was actually saying in the first quote you used that you people allow feeling sorry for them to cloud your judgements. That because one possibility would leave you feeling sorry for something that you dont want to feel sorry for, you dont want to except it as a possibility. I agree that feeling sorry for someone could lighten their punishments. I fail to see exactly why genetics would do this. In the second one, I was saying that the excuse you used to prove that we should not feel sorry for them, you actually proved it otherwise. Which is rather funny because I was not even talking about feeling sorry for anyone. I was saying that if genetics is involved then I think it would only influence tendencies and that it is the environment one grows up in that affects whether or not they act on those tendencies. Besides, you canft gproveh anything when the subject is completely based on opinion. The subject apparently being feeling sorry for someone due to circumstances of genetics and/or environment. Well... theres a chance we're doing things wrong isnt there? And until we can figure that out, we've got to do something right? There is always a chance we are doing something wrong. That doesnft justify just rounding random people up, tossing them in some unnamed prison, then trying to think of an excuse later. Whoa there Mr.Negativity, you could put a spin on that and have me say that my point is most of the people here suffer from mental barriers and that I suggest a different form of thinking, but you choose the most insulting way for me to say it. Also, I have shown many other oppinions now, but yeah, that was my starting one. I think you answer yourself quite nicely there, stating that I am putting a spin on what you said then admitting that this was your initial opinion. When I asked that you clarify your position you stated nearly the same thing, albeit different words. So it would seem your opinion hasnft changed much. Correct me if I am wrong. Perhaps you should state gyourh opinion on the topic and not just what you think of everyone responses in general. Let me follow that with what you said earlier. I think you could have, and with just as much logic. So first you insist that you think I can, when I agree you say otherwise. A point is a point whether or not it comes from me, and if you concentrate on certain things because of enmity, then its just going to screw things up. But if it is not really relevant to the conversation at hand or can be brought up later then thatfs best. Your not the one who dictates what should be mentioned or not. I'm sorry you felt ganged up upon, but in all seriousness it was just back and fourth banter between you, me, and flagg. There, now I must ask you to stay on topic and to refrain from off topic irrelevant ego boosting questions. I doubt anyone wants to read why your so important and I fear it has diluted the worth of this entire conversation. Know that from now on I will only answer irrelevant question with a response telling you they are irrelevant. If that makes me dodgy so be it. If you really disagree with me on their worth then repeat it telling me why it is relevant. I think I have been extremely patience and over accommodating. I will no longer waste my time with trying to explain to you why you are not the greatest thing in the world. You are an important member of the community, you have a unique opinion, and you can be interesting, but the world does not revolve around you. Daggertooth |
|
|
|
Post by RyokoDragonez on Apr 15, 2006 3:07:51 GMT -5
I've finally caught up on this topic since I've been gone. And I do believe that some things need to be brought to moderation.
I certainly agree with the above quote from Daggertooth. Rehiro, you have gone far off-topic in just about all of your posts in this section and I can no longer ignore it as a moderator.
First and foremost you attempted to insult not only the members of this thread but every member of the forums. (Considering how I didn't know if you were insulting us or not until you confirmed that fact... I hadn't brought it up before). Insults are decidedly -not- proper forum behavior and action will be taken by the moderating staff.
Secondly. "Boosting Rehiro's Ego" is -not- the topic of conversation here and quite frankly I am dissapointed in your constant attempts to inflate your ego (both here and in other topics). It's not very flattering. Nor does it make any of us appreciate you any more. We are simply irritated.
If you wish to post in this thread again you will be required to remain strictly on-topic. Your post will be deleted if it deviates from the topic.
And lastly direct attacks ("Mr. Negativity", also putting words in people's mouths) are not appreciated on this forum.
Daggertooth: Direct attacks are not appreciated on these forums. Not to mention you were horribly off-topic in most of that post. It should have been taken to PM.
If this topic is to continue. It will have to be strictly on-topic. No more ego-boosting or replies to such. I don't want to... but I -will- lock this thread if I find it going off-topic in that way again.
~Note: The aforementioned parties in this moderation note have been notified of it's existance.~
---
Ryoko Dragonez
|
|
|
|
Post by antonious on Apr 17, 2006 16:45:28 GMT -5
The main purpose of this thread was to discuss the aparal of young teens and preteens dressing like prostitutes and basicly like Britanny Spears and Paris Hilton. Is that correct? This thread was brought to my attention by rehiro and I do believe he/she went off topic. I always hate to see such wity and inteligent conversations be ridiculed but not if they cause trouble. If this forum cotinues to "Hurt" people and cause trouble then maybe it should be deleted. I just hope that people could continue this argument on a different site where children cannot be subjected to it and it can receive the aknowledgement that it deserves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stonestrike on Apr 17, 2006 17:46:57 GMT -5
No, this topic was for the most part about the moral issues of child porn, Rehiro never went off topic for a moment. Personaly I think he's being treated unfairly and I support him.
|
|
|
|
Post by RyokoDragonez on Apr 17, 2006 19:28:38 GMT -5
And I presume that stonestrike also considers his post to be on-topic.
Newsflash: It's not.
If you want to discuss your opinions on Rehiro's off-topicness... go elsewhere. The staff are deliberating on and researching the situation.
Rehiro did go off-topic very badly in this thread. He himself announced that he attempted to insult every member of these forums. We (The staff) are extensively researching and addressing the issue now. Kindly stay out of it.
This is not a popularity contest. It is a breach of forum rules that is being dealt with acordingly.
Kindly do not post any further comments on this issue until the staff have reached their verdict.
---
Ryoko Dragonez
|
|
|
|
Post by Momo on Apr 17, 2006 19:55:40 GMT -5
Listen up. When Ryo, or any other moderator, is typing in the ORANGE font, she's not just speaking for herself as a mod, she's speaking for ALL of us. Including Zolah, and myself, and EEN.
Also, this is not a public trial. You are not a jury! We don't want to hear your whining. That will only make us angry. Or rather, angrier. And you don't want that. So, for the moment, we'd like you all to sit down and shut up until we're done.
EDIT: This does not apply to all but a few forum members. You know who you are. If you have not been pestering us at all, thank you, and we're sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by RyokoDragonez on Apr 18, 2006 0:19:38 GMT -5
Reason for locking thread temporarily: And you WERE warned in my post.
And thus, -LOCKED-
(Until this all blows over)
---
Ryoko Dragonez
|
|
|
|
Post by Flagg on Apr 18, 2006 11:13:25 GMT -5
I've been doing research on this topic (more or less) for a college paper.
I think there is a link between the original topic (like antonius said) of the shifting baseline of the dress/behavior that is becoming accepted for young teens/tweens and children's sexual exploitation. Here's my thoughts. Culture in general is becoming more and more internet-saturated. Few people, especially youth, go without some kind of internet interaction in the normal course of their lives. So it would follow that whatever youth are becoming more interested in will be the object of much new content creation online.
Now, as we've seen in culture, youth are becoming more and more interested in sex. Or maybe, the interest of youth in sex is becoming more and more accepted by adults. I've read about middle-schoolers, well, experimenting. I've also read that when 7th-8th graders tell guidance counselors that "I'm in love" with someone they mean that either they're already physically active with someone, or they're very much considering it (obviously this is not always true, but hey, it got published in a book, so there must be something to it). Obviously, the sexual fascination among youth is intense.
Now, how does this relate to the internet, and then back to child exploitation? Since young people are so interested in sex, they will obviously go to the place they feel comfortable talking about it. Since it would be embarrassing to talk to actual people about this strange new thing, they go to the internet, where it's "safe" to talk about whatever they want. In the process, they meet people their age (or so they say) who are also interested in sex. Unfortunately, some of these people are predators. They ask the children to get them pictures of themselves, which gives the pedophiles more material.
In short, the shifting baseline of acceptable behavior for young people is making a pedophile’s work much easier, since the children are easier to lure into danger.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zolah on Apr 18, 2006 13:35:45 GMT -5
Flagg i must say that was quite a intresting read, could you maybe either pos the collage paper or PM it too me? pretty please with sugar ontop <3
|
|
|
|
Post by Flagg on Apr 18, 2006 15:54:20 GMT -5
Hee hee, thank you. : D
The paper actually isn't done yet, so I can't do much right now. It'll be 7 to 9 pages by the time I'm finished, so it'll take me a little while. ; )
I'm glad you liked that, though!
|
|
|
|
Post by Zolah on Apr 18, 2006 15:55:55 GMT -5
Ok ^^
But could you send it when its ready? I maybe dont say much but i do like reading these things, and when reading you can take longer on understanding certain words.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flagg on Apr 18, 2006 15:58:41 GMT -5
Sure thing, will do. : ) I'll just have to remember. It probably won't be finished until May at least, so hopefully I'll re-read these here posts and that'll remind me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zolah on Apr 18, 2006 16:00:37 GMT -5
Ok ^^
If you want oppinions from younger people you could go to Gaia, its there mostly ive seen such thing. Since its a quite big hang out you can see how the kids react and such, even if there are alot of trolls etc... maybe a bad idea XP
|
|
|
|
Post by antonious on Apr 18, 2006 19:08:55 GMT -5
I wouldnt mind reading that either. I remember in my psychology class back in high school we talked about this. I grew up in a smaller town so I wasent exposed to sex or nudity as much as those that lived in the city where they might see it daily. When I first moved to Milwaukee I was actually shocked to see how the girls were dressed and was actually embarressed. Even now at twenty years of age I'm still embaressed when I see girls like that.
I believe the reason adults are so offended by pedophiles is that they grew up in a different time where people didnt engage in sexual relations untill they were in the twenties and usually married. I personally believe in the old ways and feel that people are justified in their offence to pedophiles but in these new times sexual relations have been changing and that people believe that different things are acceptable. One example is that teacher who became pregnant by one of her students. This is a changing world and a few people finding offence isnt going to change it.
So who dose everyone think is to blame? Parents, teachers, or the role models in childrens lives?
|
|
|
|
Post by Flagg on Apr 18, 2006 21:57:42 GMT -5
How about all of the above? ; )
Oh, and add "the kids themselves" to that list. It amazes me how quickly some people (not anyone here, that I've seen anyway!) shift between saying "Children these days are more mature, they must be allowed to live their own lives!" and then, when the mature children do something incredibly immature and stupid, BAM!, "Oh my! The examples these children follow are terrible! We should blame them for the kid's mistakes!" But, um, if they children are mature, shouldn't they be able to think for themselves..? Oh, of course not, that's silly. That would imply someone is actually responsible for their own actions. What a foolish notion, right?
Seriously though. I do think all of the above is the best answer. Probably more the 1st and the 3rd, but since I really wasn't exposed to many teachers growing up, I can't really say.
|
|
|
|
Post by antonious on Apr 19, 2006 14:27:37 GMT -5
lol, Yea well. Americans are always messing up with their laws and rules for life. If you look at Japan, children there are exposed to some degree of sex or nudity on a daily basis and they can handle it. While most americans think that nudity is an offensive wrong thing and that it should be hidden. I feel that americans just arent ready for nudity to be exposed at all. Heck, I dont think that the adults here in the states are mature enough to handle nudity. Did you notice how many grown men got excited during that superbowl mess up? Frankly I find it disgusting that people cant handle little things like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daggertooth on Apr 19, 2006 20:39:29 GMT -5
lol, Yea well. Americans are always messing up with their laws and rules for life. If you look at Japan, children there are exposed to some degree of sex or nudity on a daily basis and they can handle it. I would agree with you on the nudity, I wouldnft on the sex. Japans tends to allow some degree of nudity but I have not ever seen it in a sexual context. This tends to be the reason the US tends to censor Japanese shows that are typically made for children. I think that one reason being over looked may be biological. Children are maturing earlier in the biological sense. Not physical. I am not certain as to the extent of this and how far the research has gone into this, but if hormonal changes occur earlier it may be part of the issue. Daggertooth |
|
|
|
Post by Zolah on Apr 20, 2006 4:34:56 GMT -5
And you should also know that they are quite strict, there are many 'hidden' rules. To call someone hantai or ecchi is not like a joke ( like here in swe ) there it is a real big insult - so I guess why they show such so freely and over exxagrated(?) is that it is something they supresses in ordinairy case.
But now i should stp before i start to talk about anime and manga... *sweatdrop*
I think one if the problem in america is that people starts to be so open about it, 'did you get anything last nigth? ' - ' no sorry, but i could make out with a really cute boy ' - and i think such behavior is rubbing back at young ones, just think about TV series like sex in the city ( I havnt seen it but i heard a little about it ). Sorry if I sound like nationalising america, it happens here in sweden also. ever heard of big brother? - all they do now is getting young blondes and weird personalitys, they even show when they have sexual activitys in normal sending hours so children watching it could see and they show quite intimate pictures in the news papers.
....just re read my lines, it sounds like this in my ears - Blame the media O.o and those who think its time for some sort of sexual revolution - X_o
|
|
|
|
Post by Flagg on Apr 20, 2006 10:45:40 GMT -5
I would definitely agree that the gradual increase in sexual content plays a large part in the situation with children today.
Have all y'all heard the boiling frog analogy? Well, just in case, here goes. If you take a frog and drop it into a pot of boiling water, ZIP!, it'll just right out. But if you put a frog in a pot of normal water and then slowly, slowly bring up the heat until the water boils, the frog will just sit there and let itself burn to death. Why? Because it lets itself get used to the rising heat.
In the same way, I think that if "Sex in the City," or a whole lot of other shows out these days, were released 10, 20 years ago, everyone would have been shocked and outraged (but still probably would've watched them, heh...). But today? No big deal. Why? Because we've let ourselves become numb to sex.
|
|
magicklorelai
Full Member
"Who told the wall to jump me!?"
Posts: 232
|
Post by magicklorelai on Apr 20, 2006 10:46:32 GMT -5
I think one of the reasons that kids seem to be maturing physically younger is that, at least for girls, more people are becoming obese as kids. Fat has a similar chemical to estrogen, which can trigger, ah, "changes" earlier. Which makes confused boys confused earlier. xD
I do, however, agree that our culture is influencing our children to seek out both empowerment and a connection in being "sexy". That standard has always been their for guys, but they couldn't do as much about it before the girls started getting it implanted in their minds that THEY need to be sexy to be "pretty". If you watch television, just try to analyze how many times something "sexy" happens: Clothes that are revealing, close up shots of body parts, suggestions, make-out sessions, etc. Make a note of them. There are a LOT. You can almost not watch five minutes of television without at least ten references to sex. Any female figure on kid shows always has some kind of sex appeal. Kids see this and believe that THAT is how one becomes attractive.
I also think that it's because adults cling so tightly to their children. In the past three years, I have not seen any children playing in the street, with or without supervision. I remember running around in my neighborhood with all the kids and having so much fun...but we can't do that now, because there might be someone dangerous in the neighborhood. We can't trust anyone or anything around our kids, except for television.
|
|
|
|
Post by antonious on Apr 20, 2006 15:47:22 GMT -5
I think its lucky that I still live in a fairly decent neighborhood. As far as I can tell I'm the creepiest person living around here. There are tons of children playing around outside and the parents seem responsible enough to have their children dress apropriately. Even the teenagers dress like how they would if their parents had a say. I'm pleseantly surprised that there are still people with morels.
Anyways, I do beleive that cartoon network and Nickalodeon have been doing a fair job with cendorship. Except that Cartoon network has adult swim. The only time I've seen scantly clad girls on tv is late night on adult swim and on the saturday night lineup for cartoon network. I just hope that children learn that they dont need to be sexy or pretty in that way until their older. I plan on raising my children when I get some with as much modesty as possible.
|
|
I havent read any of the most recent posts. I'll get back eventually, but I have no time right now. You guy's can survive without my explosive anger for a while. I look forward to being offended some more on this topic in the future ;D
oh, and Zolah saying you confused her. Youfre far from being ganged up against here, especially if most of it is over misunderstandings.
