And you, apparently, are not a rocket scientist.
Then why do you think that it should be treated as a crime. I think we can agree you said that. Or by treated as a crime did you mean: directed to a wise and compassionate elder who would explain that while not being evil or bad or a “sin” or a “crime” is nevertheless potentially “dangerous,” but otherwise pretty much ignored unless serious problems develop? Is that what you meant? If so I stand corrected.
Because I was answering in the context of Australian law, and how it should be treated by the secular state. Reading my posts will go a long way to understanding what I write.
No that is not what I meant. I meant what I said. Please read my posts. The important issue is that I didn’t advocate treating it as a crime from my personal perspective. I’ve told you this several times. Am I writing in Swahili or something, or do you simply find terms such as ‘Australia’ and ‘secular’ difficult to understand?
No I don’t, bad luck. You’re really reaching the bottom of the barrel now, after having had every single post of yours identified as filled with factual and logical errors.
Good point. (Although arson is supposed to be a sign of sexual frustration…) So, how would you go about persuading foolish young lovers to obey the law?
Well, it’s birth control of last resort. Not so good for you, I’ll grant, but better than the alternative (an unwanted baby), and better than using state legal intimidation to enforce teenage celibacy.
For what it’s worth, academics rarely appeal to their academic credentials in order to win arguments. Oh, I suppose it might happen in the context of court cases or in political campaigning, but then the opposition can be counted on to trot out some equally-qualified academic with the opposite opinion.
Good point. (Although arson is supposed to be a sign of sexual frustration…) So, how would you go about persuading foolish young lovers to obey the law?[/quote]
Ah, good question. You need to start from the ground up, construct an entire epistemology in which delayed gratification actually makes sense to a teenager. This needs to happen from infancy, and is harder to achieve with a teenager without that background (though possible).
Agreed for the most part, though adoption agencies may disagree with both of us (many would argue that there’s no such thing as a complete unwanted baby, you can always find someone who wants it).
I agree. I haven’t appealed to anyone’s academic credentials, ever. I have only appealed to recognized peer reviewed literature, which is exactly what it’s there for. Appealing to recognized peer reviewed literature avoids pinning an argument on an individual’s academic credentials. That’s the beauty of the peer review process.
It’s a private forum. If you weren’t invited, you won’t be. A forum I frequent of similar rigor is here, and you’ll find that a lot easier to join.
[/quote]
Haha. God, that’s just awful. What kind of person would say that? How was that a proportional response to my remark? Is English not your first language?
I don’t know you irl, nor you me. WHY do you think you give off this impression of such intelligence on forumosa that you can be so ugly to those who don’t accept your nonsense online? What payoff does your ego get from being so superior, snobbish and condescending with nothing to back it up? Am I supposed to display false respect or deference to your writings so that you are not aggressive towards me? That’s just pack wolf behaviour. You are possibly interesting and cool irl. Benefit of the doubt. Shrug. However, online you are completely mad and vile, so you have to join my list of special people, I’m afraid.
Just to clear it up, that was just a silly aside in an incredibly silly, low-brow, low-class thread (don’t mean the OP). It did not ‘degrade’ what you grown-ups were trying to say in any way…
No, what I am having trouble getting my head around is why you would suggest that any state is to act in any manner that you do not personally advocate. Indeed, I wonder how it is possible. It’s a semantic thing.
No, I don’t imagine it was. Tell us then, what would be your policy in dealing with underage people having sex? Would you tell them it was a “sin” but that through faith in the guy on the cross they would be “forgiven” for possibly the most exciting, real thing in their lives? Is that an approach that is likely to “work” do you imagine? How many people would it drive absolutely insane, etc? These are the core issues. Thick dick there on the first page understands this and plays both ends against the middle.
I’m sorry you took it personally. You asked to be directed to the forum, and I explained why it was not possible to do so. I gave you a link to a forum of similar rigor. None of this is any reflection on you personally.
It is not my intention to give off any impression of ‘intelligence on forumosa’ (I am of nothing more than especially average intelligence, and do not have aspirations beyond my abilities), and it is not my intention to ‘be so ugly’, nor is it my requirement that anyone ‘accept’ my ‘nonsense’ online. It is not my intention to come across as ‘superior, snobbish and condescending’, and any statement I have made which required appropriate support has been supported. I do not require you to display any ‘false respect or deference’ to my writings, and I have never been knowingly aggressive to you.
I’m sorry I come across to you online as ‘completely mad and vile’. That is not my intention.
Well if you needed to say it, I have no objecting to you saying it.
Well bob that may be because you’re not capable of stepping outside your own view and looking at things from some else’s. The question was asked (as if it was some kind of insoluble conundrum), how this behaviour should be treated by the state. I answered, from the point of view of the Australian state (not my own point of view), giving the correct answer according to the point of view of the Australian state, as established by the Australian people. That is all I did. I have already made it clear that it is my personal point of view that they should act in another way entirely.
Unless they were Christians, I wouldn’t tell them anything about sin, God, forgiveness, or ‘the guy on the cross’. I would repeat to them (in as effective and sensitive a manner as possible), the same kind of information they already know, which they’ve been taught several times over at least four years in junior and senior high (and probably in elementary school as well), and try and convey to them in a more personal and accessible way the most important key elements of that information. I would place it in a wider epistemological context and a broader behavioural context, of social and personal responsibility, emotional maturity, and the benefits of delayed gratification.
If they were Christians, I’d do exactly the same, only including it within the appropriate religious context of sin and forgiveness, with the emphasis on ‘You made a mistake, that’s what kids do, the worst thing you can do is wallow in guilt, so think seriously about it, determine to do better next time, be mindful of consequences, and just get on with your life’.
You can’t say that stuff to kids, man! You will scare the shit out of them. Sounds like this:
“God is pissed off with you now. You better get it right or else you’re fucked. Flames, torture and excruciating pain for eternity. Don’t push it, kid. Oh and… don’t you wallow in guilt now. Get on with your life…”
At least, that’s what anyone who has ever talked to me with a religious approach ever did to me; scare me and make me feel like a bad person, like a sinner. And THAT, my friend, is to be taken very seriously. Trust me, you don’t want to be a sinner. Not where I come from, anyways.
marboulette
[quote=“Fortigurn”] Well bob that may be because you’re not capable of stepping outside your own view and looking at things from some else’s. The question was asked (as if it was some kind of insoluble conundrum), how this behaviour should be treated by the state. I answered, from the point of view of the Australian state (not my own point of view), giving the correct answer according to the point of view of the Australian state, as established by the Australian people. That is all I did. I have already made it clear that it is my personal point of view that they should act in another way entirely.
[/quote]
Well, so long as you have learned your lesson that is all we are concerned about. Shame yourself three times and no TV for a week. You are only human and humans make mistakes. That is what humans do. Most humans make fewer mistakes than you do, because most humans are not quite so fundamentally flawed as yourself, but what are we to do? Nothing, of course. Just muddle through as best you can. Try not to lose it completely. Accept that you are a demented little worm and that your pathetic fumblings in the back seat with Betty were not beautiful or meaningful in any way. Years later she and the other girls will laugh at you behind your back, etc. It is all about shame. “Never” forget that.
I can only speak for myself, but I started at 15, had a fair number of relationships (not as many as I’d have liked), lasting from one night to a couple of years, before finally settling down at 35 with a woman the same age, and have been faithfully and (reasonably)happily married ever since, while raising three kids.
The girl who started me off- mostly her initiative, I was too chicken- was one of my best friends for the next fifteen years, and we still keep in touch.
I’m sure I must have sustained some spiritual damage deep down in my soul for my casual approach to God’s wonderful gift (please use monogamously), but on the whole I can live with it- my punishment will have to wait for the life to come.
Well, said evangelist “Tony Alamo” is now under arrest on child porn charges.
What’s with the fake Hispanic-sounding name, anyway? His real name is Hoffman and he is of Jewish-Romanian descent, acc. to Wiki. Using a stage name makes him seem like even more of a snake oil peddler.
[quote=“Dragonbones”]Well, said evangelist “Tony Alamo” is now under arrest on child porn charges.
What’s with the fake Hispanic-sounding name, anyway?[/quote]
Isn’t Alamo a Texan name, not an hispanic one 
[quote=“KingZog”][quote=“Dragonbones”]Well, said evangelist “Tony Alamo” is now under arrest on child porn charges.
What’s with the fake Hispanic-sounding name, anyway?[/quote]
Isn’t Alamo a Texan name, not an hispanic one [/quote]
It’s a Spanish word, a kind of tree I think. And combined with Tony it makes it sound like his given name is Antonio Alamo. Very Hispanic sounding IMO.
EDIT: [quote]A poplar tree, especially a cottonwood.
ETYMOLOGY: Spanish álamo [/quote]
I always thought it was from Arabic al-amut, a fortress. (Like the Assassin’s hideout.)
And the Alamo is in San Antonio! Imagine that!
And now they’ve got him by the goliads.
cajones, mis hombres.
delete please
Damn! That’s his wife? I thought it was his mom!
Yes you can, and no you won’t. Take out the reference to God, and it’s what the average high school counselor will tell you.
[quote]Sounds like this:
“God is pissed off with you now. You better get it right or else you’re fucked. Flames, torture and excruciating pain for eternity. Don’t push it, kid. Oh and… don’t you wallow in guilt now. Get on with your life…”[/quote]
It sounded nothing like that. I don’t believe in ‘Flames, torture and excruciating pain for eternity’ in any case. And forgiveness is the opposite of ‘You better get it right or else you’re fucked’.
You’re projecting your experiences onto me. My views are very different to those you experienced.
You won’t have a life to come. You’ll die, turn to dust, and that will be it. You have nothing to worry about.
bob, that wasn’t the best attempt at retreating with your tail between your legs having been proven comprehensively wrong on all counts and caught out for not reading my posts. Next time try for something less humiliating and a little more coherent.