[quote]rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Wow! I have never read such heated, meaningless, ignorant words on this site before.
You are the go to guy for meaningless, ignorant words on this site.
Defense of pedophilic activity tends to make for heated discussions between those that are encouraging such behavior, or participate in such activities, and those that find the sexual, physical, and mental abuse of a child indefensible.
How is this a shock to you? [/quote]
dipshit, go back to page one and learn how to read. I said I agreed with Zap’s sentiment; however, I do not agree that this is rape because 1) you don’t even know if she has even been used in such a way and 2) it only counts as rape if it is forced. Sex is not inherently rape just because you disagree with the circumstances. Why does age matter with men but not monkeys?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Fucking an 11 year old is rape, period. It doesn’t take a metal giant to figure that out.
Let’s make this academic so as not to insult people’s sensibilities.
Let me pretend I am a child who is curious about such topic. Explain to me, as a child who has no understanding of “adult” conventions such as morality why this is wrong.
Suspend your disbelief that I am not a child and explain it like you would explain it to a four year old.[/quote]
I know of no 4 year-old that would be “curious” about such things.
Our jobs as adults is to protect and nurture the children we have, not sell them into bondage.
Your attempt is lame, and your premise is stupid.
You obviously have no children, or you would know this.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
dipshit, go back to page one and learn how to read. I said I agreed with Zap’s sentiment; however, I do not agree that this is rape because 1) you don’t even know if she has even been used in such a way and 2) it only counts as rape if it is forced. Sex is not inherently rape just because you disagree with the circumstances. Why does age matter with men but not monkeys?[/quote]
Because we are not monkeys. I have read the thread, thank you. Your point is that of defending pedophilic activities. You don’t have to build rocket ships on your day off to figure that out, ace.
Why don’t you go back and do some reading for yourself?
Is it against the cultural rules for that 40 year old man to have multiple wives?
I ask because if he possibly has an older wife his age maybe he is rich and the girlâ¿¿s father gave her away so that she could have better food, clothing, schooling, ect.
The old man may have “married” her so that he could raise her as a daughter not a wife? I have seen this before in poor countries where local traditions do not allow for adoptions so the only way a father could give his daughter the best opportunity was to merry her to a wealthy man.
The wealthy man never even looked at it as a marriage but rather that he had a daughter and did his best to give her all the opportunity he could for her to leave the village.
Now granted this was in Africa so that’s why I ask if there is a possible similar circumstance over there in the Middle East.
If this is a true marriage then that’s pretty F$@&* up if you ask me!
By the way in Africa it’s possible for a wife to have a wife of her own. A man’s wife is allowed to merry one other lady, but all that means is that the second wife is the first wife’s best friend. She marries the other lady to have someone to talk to and have emotional contact with since the cloture dictates that the man and women are for reproductive purposes only.
EDIT: I add this last point in there to show that marriages are not always what we think them to be.
I just wanted to make it clear that I do not support what the typical American imagine of marriage is if that’s the case here. That would be sick and I could not ever understand why a man would do that.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Am I to guess this part of the article?
[i]The image is startling �?? a 40-year-old groom sitting beside his 11-year-old future bride. Photographer Stephanie Sinclair, who took the photo last year in Afghanistan, asked the pre-teenage bride what she felt on the day of her engagement.
“Nothing,” said the girl, according to Sinclair. “I do not know this man. What am I supposed to feel?”[/i]
Now, my guess is that a kid who does not know a person isn’t terribly excited to have sex with him. [/quote]
That’s a fair assessment, but as far as I know nobody challenged that. You’ll have to explain the leap from “isn’t terribly excited to have sex with him” to “rape” because I’m having a hard time figuring it out.
In most arranged marriages, the bride and groom don’t know each other. Are they all cases of rape?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Fucking an 11 year old is rape, period. It doesn’t take a metal giant to figure that out.
Let’s make this academic so as not to insult people’s sensibilities.
Let me pretend I am a child who is curious about such topic. Explain to me, as a child who has no understanding of “adult” conventions such as morality why this is wrong.
Suspend your disbelief that I am not a child and explain it like you would explain it to a four year old.[/quote]
WHAT?! You need someone to explain how this is wrong to you??
How about it would have a lasting negative effect on the poor girls brain. She would be terrified of men for the rest of her life for fear they may take advantage of her!
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Am I to guess this part of the article?
[i]The image is startling �?? a 40-year-old groom sitting beside his 11-year-old future bride. Photographer Stephanie Sinclair, who took the photo last year in Afghanistan, asked the pre-teenage bride what she felt on the day of her engagement.
“Nothing,” said the girl, according to Sinclair. “I do not know this man. What am I supposed to feel?”[/i]
Now, my guess is that a kid who does not know a person isn’t terribly excited to have sex with him.
That’s a fair assessment, but as far as I know nobody challenged that. You’ll have to explain the leap from “isn’t terribly excited to have sex with him” to “rape” because I’m having a hard time figuring it out.
In most arranged marriages, the bride and groom don’t know each other. Are they all cases of rape?[/quote]
we have no moral authority to change it by force or coercion.[/quote]
That does not sound like a true moral relativist as I understand it. YOU may believe we have no moral authority to change it “by force or coercion”.
Someone else may believe they do have, not only a moral authority, but a moral obligation to do so. If you are truly a moral relativist, you cannot say they are wrong to believe in such a obligation.
In fact, I’ll take it a step further and say that if someone decided to put a bullet in the husband’s head to rescue the girl, then as a moral relativist you have NO authority to say that person should not do that. As long as they view it as the right thing to do it should be okay in your book.
[quote]CrewPierce wrote:
How about it would have a lasting negative effect on the poor girls brain. She would be terrified of men for the rest of her life for fear they may take advantage of her![/quote]
How do you know it affects their brain negatively? Why do you assume she has a “poor” life? Is she not human enough to value that for herself or do you know what’s best for her? If so what should be done?
Her culture teaches her to fear men as it is…so what? That is the norm. If you took her away she would be more afraid because it is outside her norm.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
its all the same thing. relativity and relativism – same damn thing.[/quote]
Er, no.
Just because both words come from the same root doesn’t mean they’re synonyms.
Do you consider “Elections” and “Electrons” to be the same damn things because they differ only by one letter? Because equating Relativity with relativism makes about as much sense.
Anyway, since you’re now reduced to arguing about definition of words - and, sadly, still completely wrong - I guess we can safely assume that you’ve run out of arguments to support sex with children?
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Am I to guess this part of the article?
[i]The image is startling �?? a 40-year-old groom sitting beside his 11-year-old future bride. Photographer Stephanie Sinclair, who took the photo last year in Afghanistan, asked the pre-teenage bride what she felt on the day of her engagement.
“Nothing,” said the girl, according to Sinclair. “I do not know this man. What am I supposed to feel?”[/i]
Now, my guess is that a kid who does not know a person isn’t terribly excited to have sex with him.
That’s a fair assessment, but as far as I know nobody challenged that. You’ll have to explain the leap from “isn’t terribly excited to have sex with him” to “rape” because I’m having a hard time figuring it out.
In most arranged marriages, the bride and groom don’t know each other. Are they all cases of rape?[/quote]
It tells me that they represent the average human experience far better than Canada.
They are the norm, you are the aberration.[/quote]
Sadly, you are right. But the long-term goal of humanity should be to allow every member the possibility of a comfortable, happy and healthy living.
Correcting the aberration by dragging everyone down back to a “natural” state of savagery and brutal, short lives is not - at least in my opinion - the way to go.
I disagree. Those society change, evolve and progress; they don’t dwindle away.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Fucking an 11 year old is rape, period. It doesn’t take a metal giant to figure that out.
Let’s make this academic so as not to insult people’s sensibilities.
Let me pretend I am a child who is curious about such topic. Explain to me, as a child who has no understanding of “adult” conventions such as morality why this is wrong.
Suspend your disbelief that I am not a child and explain it like you would explain it to a four year old.[/quote]
Explain it? Hmmm…I think I would just bend you over and fuck your ass. Actions speak loader than words!
we have no moral authority to change it by force or coercion.
That does not sound like a true moral relativist as I understand it. YOU may believe we have no moral authority to change it “by force or coercion”.
Someone else may believe they do have, not only a moral authority, but a moral obligation to do so. If you are truly a moral relativist, you cannot say they are wrong to believe in such a obligation.
In fact, I’ll take it a step further and say that if someone decided to put a bullet in the husband’s head to rescue the girl, then as a moral relativist you have NO authority to say that person should not do that. As long as they view it as the right thing to do it should be okay in your book.
[/quote]
I agree. But only a relativist would agree with that. People that argue against me are not relativists.
Those that agrue against me absolutely believe coercion is wrong. If it is wrong then it is absolutely wrong in any circumstance – otherwise it is simply relative – to what one knows or believes. Which is it?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Fucking an 11 year old is rape, period. It doesn’t take a metal giant to figure that out.
Let’s make this academic so as not to insult people’s sensibilities.
Let me pretend I am a child who is curious about such topic. Explain to me, as a child who has no understanding of “adult” conventions such as morality why this is wrong.[/quote]
To keep it short: The adult will be the one who entirely controls the situation. His experience, maturity, knowledge, position of authority, etc. make it so that he is the one who dictates what happens and how. The child, not having the mental toolset - not to mention the physical ability - necessary to assert what she’s willing or not to do; unable to formulate why or why not, will end up victimized.
Even in a best case scenario, where the adult doesn’t take any advantage of the situation, it is an entirely lopsided relationship, with all the control residing in the adult “partner” (and I quote the term because there is no partnership here. It’s more a master-slave or boss-employee type thing.)
You cannot explain adult sexual relationships properly to a four year old.
How many good friends - not kids, you’re obviously childless - do you have that are under 10? Why?
The article never mentions that anyone had sex with this girl. How can even assume there to be a rape if there is no mention of even having sex?
You base your assumptions on what you understand about “western” marriage. If 11 year old girls are incapable of conceiving children what would make one assume she just isn’t being saved until she is?
Am I the only one who read the one paragraph article first without jumping to conclusions?
[quote]pookie wrote:
To keep it short: The adult will be the one who entirely controls the situation. His experience, maturity, knowledge, position of authority, etc. make it so that he is the one who dictates what happens and how.
[/quote]
Does this not happen regardless of age in this society?
Would she understand if she wanted a pony instead of marriage?
One can only be considered a victim if one considers what is happening to them to be hurtful. How do you know what she believes?
Again this happenes to all women regardless of their age in this culture – what difference what the age is? This is all they know? It would be different if she were raised in western society and learned differently and then was sold into marriage.
That’s because it requires a knowledge of concepts. This is precisely the point I am trying to make about morality. One who does not understand the concepts you are trying to explain does not view it as a conscious moral decision or not to have relations with an 11 year old.
Why do you make assumptions about what I am able to do based on an academic discussion on the internet? That seems beneath you based on your other posts I have read.
Oh, I forgot, children are the holy grail of protection…
How about you protect your own and let others protect theirs – that is what marriage used to be about except we never used to get uppity about what age it happened at.
You make assumptions that she wasn’t sold because her parents couldn’t afford to take care of her anymore. Would it be more moral to send her into the streets to become a prostitute? You cannot judge this marriage based on the limited information the article states. When did UNICEF become the voice of authority on parenting?
[quote]pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
its all the same thing. relativity and relativism – same damn thing.
Er, no.
Just because both words come from the same root doesn’t mean they’re synonyms.
Do you consider “Elections” and “Electrons” to be the same damn things because they differ only by one letter? Because equating Relativity with relativism makes about as much sense.
Anyway, since you’re now reduced to arguing about definition of words - and, sadly, still completely wrong - I guess we can safely assume that you’ve run out of arguments to support sex with children?
[/quote]
No one said sex has taken place in this instance – only marriage. Regardless, as long as this girl does not believe she is a victim there is nothing inherently wrong here. We are not talking about coercion as we understand it but rather a cultural practice. If you think that coercing a child into marriage is wrong then you also must think that coercing them to go to school is wrong – otherwise you are a relativist.
Relativism and relativity are conceptually the same. Relativity, by definition, may only have physical implications but it is the concept we are talking about that is exactly the same as relativism. There is no universal truth independent of the observer.
Electron and election are not even conceptually related so why would I assume they are related because they sound the same?
Concepts come from our ability to define the world which requires language. It is a mistake to assume definitions themselves do not require a certain amount of subjectivity since it requires observation to understand them.