May they rot in hell for eternity
-
Shameel wrote:
I'm surprised the church did that.
Why? The Catholic Church is a man-made institution. And every institution, no matter how noble, holy, or altruistic its professed goals quickly determines that its most important function is to stay in existence and, as a concomitant, to increase its power. This is true for any religious group, political entity, charitable organization, or corporation. And the leaders will all, perhaps with great protestations of disliking what they do, lie, cheat, steal, and even kill to protect their organization - which, incidentally, maintains and increases their power, as well.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
-
It seems you got me wrong. Let me amend my statement. "I'm surprised the Church posted names of Boston clergy accused of child sex abuse."
-
jschell wrote:
For example those families are not tax exempt institutions.
I'm really not sure how that has anything to do with it, but for what it's worth, I don't think there should be tax-exempt organization - not the Catholic Church, not the Boy Scouts of America, not the Democratic party, not General Electric - and not all those families that use their mortgage interest as a tax-deduction.
jschell wrote:
Which is nothing but a very, very poor attempt to deflect blame.
It appears you have some trouble comprehending the words "This does not in any way excuse those priests - or the ones who have not been reported." Tell me which ones you have having trouble with and I'll attempt to rephrase.
jschell wrote:
Second is is common sense to see that the church is vastly more hypocritical.
Really? That's "common sense?" An institution not living up to its pronouncements is "vastly" more hypocritical than a mother pretending that there's nothing wrong with a father, her husband, raping a son or daughter? Really??? Wow :rolleyes:
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
Oakman wrote:
I'm really not sure how that has anything to do with it, but for what it's worth, I don't think there should be tax-exempt organization - not the Catholic Church, not the Boy Scouts of America, not the Democratic party, not General Electric - and not all those families that use their mortgage interest as a tax-deduction.
Which is hardly relevant since that is not the churches position.
Oakman wrote:
It appears you have some trouble comprehending the words "This does not in any way excuse those priests - or the ones who have not been reported." Tell me which ones you have having trouble with and I'll attempt to rephrase.
You posted the comparison. What exactly do you think your position is when you compare the two?
Oakman wrote:
Really? That's "common sense?" An institution not living up to its pronouncements is "vastly" more hypocritical than a mother pretending that there's nothing wrong with a father, her husband, raping a son or daughter? Really???
Obviously. Perhaps you need to look up the definition for hypocrisy.
-
Shameel wrote:
It seems you got me wrong.
Sorry.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
-
Oakman wrote:
I'm really not sure how that has anything to do with it, but for what it's worth, I don't think there should be tax-exempt organization - not the Catholic Church, not the Boy Scouts of America, not the Democratic party, not General Electric - and not all those families that use their mortgage interest as a tax-deduction.
Which is hardly relevant since that is not the churches position.
Oakman wrote:
It appears you have some trouble comprehending the words "This does not in any way excuse those priests - or the ones who have not been reported." Tell me which ones you have having trouble with and I'll attempt to rephrase.
You posted the comparison. What exactly do you think your position is when you compare the two?
Oakman wrote:
Really? That's "common sense?" An institution not living up to its pronouncements is "vastly" more hypocritical than a mother pretending that there's nothing wrong with a father, her husband, raping a son or daughter? Really???
Obviously. Perhaps you need to look up the definition for hypocrisy.
Look, I have no need to defend the Catholic Church or any other organization that has harbored pedophiles. But at the same time I have no desire to talk to someone who would exculpate incestuous parents in order to pursue a verbal witch hunt against predatory priests. Frankly, the thought makes my skin crawl. Have a nice day, but find someone else to display your weirdness to.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
-
Why don't you tell us first?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
I think we all just learned something about fat_boy. Was anyone surprised?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Just out of curiosity when did you lose your virginity, and when did you want to lose it? --edit-- I see very few here understand the reason for this question. It is about trying to establish at what age we became sexually active and how that relates to current law. For example it is illegal for a 15 girl to send her 15 year old boyfriend a picture of her that is sexual in nature. (It is illegal for BOTH of them, since it concerns the production, distribution, and holding of what the law sees as 'child porn'). So, is paedophillia an age issue or a difference of age issue? --edit 2 -- Oh, by the way, 14 and 13 for me.
============================== Nothing to say.
modified on Monday, August 29, 2011 10:48 AM
Is there any legal basis to prohibit a minor to take pictures of himself? I don't think you can call it porn in that specific case, unless it becomes public. Then every adult who comes across it is responsible and the parents of the child who posted it on the internet are the ones at fault. But there are a lot of these gray zones. I'm pretty sure that some Swedish movies would be not okay in the US because there are naked children in them. Family pictures with nudity in them are no big deal for some people, while others go completely batshit. It's all very subjective to what can be considered as sexually explicit. Another strange thing. In Belgium the legal age is 16, but only for minors. This implies that a 16 year old girl can have a relation with a 17 year old boy... but if the boy turns 18, then technically it becomes rape. But a 18 year old girl with a 40 year old guy is never a problem. :rolleyes: FYI: while legally it's considered pedophilia between 0 and 18. In psychology there are various degrees: Pedophilia: -11 years for girls; -13 for boys. Before puberty. Hebephilia: 11 to 14; for girls; 13 to 16 for boys. Early stages of puberty Teleiphilia: 15 to early 20's. In my opinion, the first two should be crimes punishable by castration the latter shouldn't be a crime unless the adult is a douchebag. Yes, I think douchebag should be an official juridical legal term; it could contribute to make laws a lot more effective.
Giraffes are not real.
-
Slacker007 wrote:
What kind of question is that?
A creepy one.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
-
Is there any legal basis to prohibit a minor to take pictures of himself? I don't think you can call it porn in that specific case, unless it becomes public. Then every adult who comes across it is responsible and the parents of the child who posted it on the internet are the ones at fault. But there are a lot of these gray zones. I'm pretty sure that some Swedish movies would be not okay in the US because there are naked children in them. Family pictures with nudity in them are no big deal for some people, while others go completely batshit. It's all very subjective to what can be considered as sexually explicit. Another strange thing. In Belgium the legal age is 16, but only for minors. This implies that a 16 year old girl can have a relation with a 17 year old boy... but if the boy turns 18, then technically it becomes rape. But a 18 year old girl with a 40 year old guy is never a problem. :rolleyes: FYI: while legally it's considered pedophilia between 0 and 18. In psychology there are various degrees: Pedophilia: -11 years for girls; -13 for boys. Before puberty. Hebephilia: 11 to 14; for girls; 13 to 16 for boys. Early stages of puberty Teleiphilia: 15 to early 20's. In my opinion, the first two should be crimes punishable by castration the latter shouldn't be a crime unless the adult is a douchebag. Yes, I think douchebag should be an official juridical legal term; it could contribute to make laws a lot more effective.
Giraffes are not real.
0bx wrote:
Is there any legal basis to prohibit a minor to take pictures of himself?
Yes, it is very illegal in the UK for example. It is considered child porn, regardless of who takes makes it and who looks at it. The rest of what you say is interesting. In Holland the legal age of consent, if both sets of parents agree is something like 13 (or 14), biut anywqay, it is younger than in the UK. In the UK it is 16, period. So if you are 55 you can have sex with a 16 year old, both gay and hetro wise. Of course in parts of the U Syou can marry at 14, and I guess have sex. Does that mean those states officially support peodophillia? :) As you say grey areas, that vary alot country to country, which means that on analysis things are never quite as black and white. Part of the reason for my quesiton was also to elicit a kind of questionaire regarding at what age people wanted to have sex, because I am fairly sure (given how much underage sex goes on) that it is quite a bit lower then the law permits. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
-
What kind of question is that?
Just along for the ride. "the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
-
Slacker007 wrote:
What kind of question is that?
A serious one. Are you too prudish to discuss it?
============================== Nothing to say.
Eric_V wrote:
Are you too prudish to discuss it?
I think you are a troll and you are trolling the waters for an argument. Any further post or reply by you to me, will go unanswered no matter what you say.
Just along for the ride. "the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
-
You have never discussed stuff like this? It isnt creepy, it is normal. :) At least to those who aren't shy of such topics.
============================== Nothing to say.
Eric_V wrote:
You have never discussed stuff like this?
Anyone who wants to volunteer the information is welcome to do so. Anyone who, out of the blue, expresses a great interest in the sexual history of someone else is weird and needs to study up on boundaries.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
-
Look, I have no need to defend the Catholic Church or any other organization that has harbored pedophiles. But at the same time I have no desire to talk to someone who would exculpate incestuous parents in order to pursue a verbal witch hunt against predatory priests. Frankly, the thought makes my skin crawl. Have a nice day, but find someone else to display your weirdness to.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
Oakman wrote:
Look, I have no need to defend the Catholic Church or any other organization that has harbored pedophiles.
Your comment would suggest otherwise.
Oakman wrote:
But at the same time I have no desire to talk to someone who would exculpate incestuous parents in order to pursue a verbal witch hunt against predatory priests
Obviously a wildly ridiculous attribution. For starters you brought parents into the thread not me. And it was you, not me, that suggested that familial behavior was worse. While attempting to deflect entirely the central point of ignoring the large conspiracy that has existed for decades and perhaps even centuries. Basically your original statement was ludicrous. Either phrased so badly as to be be specifically offensive or a blatant attempt to deflect blame. Given how ludicrous the above statement is, it certainly seems possible that you again trying to deliberately trying to deflect from the original topic. Again.
modified on Monday, August 29, 2011 3:06 PM
-
Eric_V wrote:
Are you too prudish to discuss it?
I think you are a troll and you are trolling the waters for an argument. Any further post or reply by you to me, will go unanswered no matter what you say.
Just along for the ride. "the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
-
Eric_V wrote:
You have never discussed stuff like this?
Anyone who wants to volunteer the information is welcome to do so. Anyone who, out of the blue, expresses a great interest in the sexual history of someone else is weird and needs to study up on boundaries.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
-
Thought so, sex is a special subject for you and can't be duscussed like any other subject. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
-
How would he know when you lost your virginity? Or Slacker lost his? Unless he was there? Are you telling us something, digital man?
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von BraunSOL! (snort out loud)
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
Troll elsewhere.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein