| 561Report |
at 25 May 2006: 02:53
Aye
|
| 562Report |
at 25 May 2006: 02:57
>>567
Manawolf's a pedophile waiting for an opportunity.
|
| 563Report |
Svansfall at 25 May 2006: 03:01
>>570
Instead of giving an insult, perhaps you could try and dissect and discuss the matters in Manawolf's essay you feel is not correct?
|
| 564Report |
at 25 May 2006: 03:14
>>571
Okay, how's this. Manawolf said that she thinks exploring sexuality with her future young daughter would be wonderful. She wants to explore sexuality with a minor. That means that, if she ever went through with it (which she said she would) she would be a pedophile. Ergo: Pedophile waiting for an opportunity.
It's not an insult when it's true right?
|
| 565Report |
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 25 May 2006: 11:01
>>566
In an effort to reach 600 posts ASAP, everyone who can _actually_ read a book AND understand more than 50% of it, say 'aye'. And anything from the childrens/juvinile section doesn't count.
You have trouble understanding anything that's not kid lit?
|
| 566Report |
at 25 May 2006: 13:28
>>573
He means to say that it doesn't count if you can ONLY understand the c/j section
|
| 567Report (sage) |
at 25 May 2006: 13:53
>>574 Score one for reading comprehension. Not sure what Juberu missed, but ah, well... No shame there tho, really, since studies show even college students only grok half of what they read at an everage reading speed.
|
| 568Report |
at 25 May 2006: 14:13
>>572 The idea of children asexuality is a cultural construct and is largely considered untrue by anyone who looks at it objectively. Despite that fact, the idea of an adult 'exploring sexuality' with a minor is generally seen solely as a nagative, exploitive thing, and even children themselves exploring sexuality has been stigmatized (even to the point of charging children with sexual offenses where the 'victim' is themselves).
In short, our cultures hysteria about anything related to children and sex has reached ridiculous proportions, so I don't blame you for your assumptions and bias. However, maybe you'll actually think about it one day and realize it's unfair and inaccurate.
Anyone who's interested might want to read Judith Levine's book "Harmful to Minors" just to get an idea of the 'state of the union' regarding children and sex and our cultural ideas about them from a perspecticve that isn't extremist or based in a knee-jerk cultural encoded response.
hxxp://www.upress.umn.edu/Books/L/levine_harmful.html
|
| 569Report |
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 25 May 2006: 16:45
>>576
The idea of children asexuality is a cultural construct and is largely considered untrue by anyone who looks at it objectively.
You do realize that it's hard to take anything you say credibly if you start out so verbose, right? Online, being o'erly pedantic comes off as trying to impress your readers.
That said, what's to say the cultural mores aren't actually right? Why couldn't the stigma be justified? I've never seen anyone who goes "It's just inbred societal norms" actually answer either of those questions. Please, be the exception.
|
| 570Report |
Juberu at 25 May 2006: 16:56
>>574
My bad.
|
| 571Report |
at 25 May 2006: 18:09
>>570
>>572
My CARL SAGAN BALONEY DETECTORS Are Tingling!
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric
* Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Any questions?
|
| 572Report |
at 25 May 2006: 18:11
>>570
>>572
Odd, in the essay she talks about how pedophilia is damaging to children and, thus, is always immoral.
|
| 573Report (sage) |
at 25 May 2006: 19:15
>>577 Being verbose and pedantic is an annoying habit of mine, I'm sure. I blame over-education, and being too smart/well read for my own good. Sorry.
And sorry to disappoint, but cultural mores *could* be 'right', and in this case they *are* certainly justified, but only to a certain extent.
I fully agree that protecting children from negative sexual experiences/influences is a good and necessary thing. I don't agree that all sexual experiences are _automatically_ negative for all children, or even most children. I don't agree that children are essentially asexual automatons until some magical age is reached, and I believe that treating them as such is unfair, and often damaging.
Objective observation of children left to their own devices lends support to the idea that children, even prepubescent children, DO experience an interest in, and curiousity about, sexual things. Denying that in favor of what cultural norms wants you to believe is foolish... Yet it's exactly what the 'authorities' in our society do.
Our culture finds it comforting to believe all sexual behavior among children is the result of 'evil', outside influences, and as such, that all incidences of child sexual behavior is immoral and 'wrong'. This is contrary to observed reality, and contrary to the personal experiences of almost ever person who's honestly considered the idea (at least if we can believe all written accounts of child sexual activity aren't writen by sneaky, evil pro-pedophillia advocates...).
Our culture has chosen to uphold this contrary-to-reality belief even to the extent of punishing children themselves for things they had no moral understanding of, nor even any moral association with. In short, our culture takes what is natural, innocent behavior for sub-adult humans and deemed it as evil as any adult who's ever raped a child is. It's normalized extremist behavior - Cultural hysteria at it's finest.
I can't support that idea, nor believe it's 'right', but maybe you can. I'm not going to try to convince you one way or the other, nor can I seriously give the discussion all the time and space it'd require to even try - At the very least it's 'off topic' and at root I just can't be bothered. I'll be happy if I can think I made even one person reconsider the idea of 'children and sex' in any way outside of the culturally constructed paradigm that may or may not be 'right'.
I believe it was Einstein who said "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
(And sorry about any spelling errors, I tend to be a sloppy typer when I'm thinking, and my spellcheck isn't installed yet...)
|
| 574Report |
at 25 May 2006: 19:17
>>579
I don't care about the points she makes about bestiality one way or another. I just truly despise the woman.
>>580
She also said she wanted to explore sex with a minor/her own daughter. She just twists the definition so that she's in the clear. In my mind, any adult engaging children in sexual activity is a pedophile. She isn't a pedophile, cause she hasn't done it yet. I hope she doesn't get the opportunity.
Besides, I don't think the zoophiles in this thread would appreciate having someone who was pro child molesting coming in on their side, even through association. It gives too much ammo to the anti-zoos.
>>576
Yeah, I'm closed minded... that's it. You can't possibly be the one who's wrong, so it must be everyone else. Everyone who thinks I'm right is a kneejerk culturally brainwashed drone, and everyone who think's your right is being reasonable and objective. No.
|
| 575Report (sage) |
at 25 May 2006: 20:25
>>582
"She also said she wanted to explore sex with a minor/her own daughter."
Talk about deliberate misinterpretation... I guess when your Mom/Dad/Sex Ed teacher "explored sex" with you, they were actually abusing you?
|
| 576Report |
at 25 May 2006: 20:59
I'd rather Manawolf be left out of this.
|
| 577Report |
at 25 May 2006: 21:23
>>585 Hey, she posted it on the net,
|
| 578Report |
at 25 May 2006: 21:37
>>585
Yeah, I agree. Everybody knows she's she'll sleep with anybody (man, moman or beast, married or not, or what ever), especialy at a con. What good does it do us to berate her character further. We already know she's an odd one, even for a furry.
Seriously, this should be about her essay on zoophilia, not her sexual querks and deviancies, entertaining, though they may be.
|
| 579Report (sage) |
at 25 May 2006: 22:01
>>582
"Yeah, I'm closed minded... that's it. You can't possibly be the one who's wrong, so it must be everyone else. Everyone who thinks I'm right is a kneejerk culturally brainwashed drone, and everyone who think's your right is being reasonable and objective. No."
Nope, but if you think that's what *I* said, you're just obtuse. Unfortunate, but there's not much I can do about it.
|
| 580Report |
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 25 May 2006: 22:28
>>579
They're actually talking about Manawolf herself, not using it to discredit her essay. So, no, not ad Hom.
>>581
I fully agree that protecting children from negative sexual experiences/influences is a good and necessary thing. I don't agree that all sexual experiences are _automatically_ negative for all children, or even most children. I don't agree that children are essentially asexual automatons until some magical age is reached, and I believe that treating them as such is unfair, and often damaging.
Actually, I believe that the philosophy behind the age of consent is that a reasonable portion, if not all, children have reached maturity by said age. There may be some who are mature earlier, but it's *assumed* that most children can handle sex by then.
I'm speaking out of the top of my head. Anyone with sources, feel free to correct me.
Our culture finds it comforting to believe all sexual behavior among children is the result of 'evil', outside influences, and as such, that all incidences of child sexual behavior is immoral and 'wrong'.
Well, sexual maturity is considered one of the criteria for being an adult. So if a kid has (consentual)sex, they're not a kid. Something of a circular argument.
There are plenty of cases, however, where an adult had sex with someone under the AOC, did time, then went back and married them upon being released from jail.
In short, our culture takes what is natural, innocent behavior for sub-adult humans and deemed it as evil as any adult who's ever raped a child is. It's normalized extremist behavior - Cultural hysteria at it's finest.
Point. Though I do think the cultural meanings and associations of sexual maturity are far oversimplified by both sides.
(And sorry about any spelling errors, I tend to be a sloppy typer when I'm thinking, and my spellcheck isn't installed yet...)
http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/
Also, open a new tab, and type "dict wordYouWantToCheck" in the address bar, in FireFox.
|
| 581Report |
at 26 May 2006: 00:30
590. Also, >>583 has a definite point here. My parents "explored" sex in terms of explaining it to me, and I've heard that term used more than once in my (now-past) experiences in College in the form of "Let's explore this topic further, shall we?" So who is to say that explore, in this context, without asking the writer herself, doesn't mean discuss?
|
| 582Report (sage) |
at 26 May 2006: 01:07
>>589
Actually, I believe that the philosophy behind the age of consent is that a reasonable portion, if not all, children have reached maturity by said age. There may be some who are mature earlier, but it's *assumed* that most children can handle sex by then.
I have my doubts, and if it *is* ostensibly a factor in the idea behind the law, then it's reality is much different, given how many 'adults' (people well past the age of majority) seem incapable of handling sex - Ergo unwanted pregnancy stats, STDs spreading despite greater education and awareness, etc.
Plus, there's been psychological studies (not that I'm a fan of psych and it's 'science') that suggest many adults aren't much more emotionally mature than the average 12 year old - Essentially, we're a culture of children with adult responsibilities and adult bodies.
Point. Though I do think the cultural meanings and associations of sexual maturity are far oversimplified by both sides.
Agreed. And thanks for the spellcheck link as well.
|
| 583Report |
NotaGnome at 26 May 2006: 01:29
Hey, I went to quote her essay on pedophilia and it's gone. Ah well, probably for the best.
|
| 584Report |
at 26 May 2006: 02:52
>>589
Is somebody paying you to be a contrarian, because you seem to argue the most usless points.
|
| 585Report |
at 26 May 2006: 04:21
>>593
Yeah Juberu, quit cluttering everything with those trivial points. We're trying to have a super serious dicussion about something extremely important here.
|
| 586Report |
at 26 May 2006: 04:47
No matter which 'side' you are on, try to lift out the actual main issues of each well-worded post, instead of focussing on every little tiny detail that can be attacked.
Even people who cannot express themselves well can have valid points in their posts. But it is so much easier to attack pointless mistakes.
|
| 587Report(capped) (sage) |
Xenofur at 26 May 2006: 08:51
locking this for a bit while i'm editing something.
|
| 588Report |
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 26 May 2006: 14:19
>>593
He seems well-informed, and I'm willing to talk about sexual maturity as a tangent discussion. It migfht actually help the main discussion to get a better handle on that.
>>594
I'm sorry. I'll let y'all get back to talking about boning your dog.
/see what I did there?
>>595
Talking to anyone in particular?
|
| 589Report |
at 26 May 2006: 15:46
>>598
This thread is about the morality of zoophilia and beastiality.
It is not an oportunity for closet furry half-wits from 4chan to troll and spam us.
|
| 590Report |
NotaGnome at 26 May 2006: 16:28
>>597
I saw wut u did thar! Sorry dude, was trying to be funny. I look at it now... I was tired, not funny. X(
>>595
Anyhow, good point there dude, but as Juberu and Dragon Flame (opposite sides of the same coin there sorta... almost... not really) said before, a lot of these good points have already been brought up, disputed, agreed on, disagreed on, and moved past. So a lot of these are kinda "refer to earlier post" points.
On the other hand, it's better than the posts that don't mean anything at all.
|
| 591Report |
NotaGnome at 26 May 2006: 16:30
>>598
Hey yeah, this thing's starting to lean dangerously close to a pedophilia discussion. Maybe that line should go in a new thread.
|
| 592Report |
at 26 May 2006: 16:42
>>600 600 posts and we're branching off into other threads! I so win for creating this one...
|
| 593Report |
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 26 May 2006: 18:41
>>598
You're replying to yourself?
|
| 595Report |
at 26 May 2006: 20:01
>>602
no there was a desu post that got deleted and it screwed up the numbering
|
| 596Report |
Svansfall at 27 May 2006: 03:09
>>599
I think some of the good points have just been ignored, and the discussion moved away from them without barely touching them. Especially some of the good points by the pro-zoo guy who wrote long posts, and provided links. A lot of the best points in what he wrote was completely ignored, and the only points touched upon was the mistakes he did in the posts. Also, he sadly used completely unnecessary insults, that does not belong in a discussion like this.
Another point that no one who's against zoophilia has replied to is the question I asked, how you can justify that you do anything at all together with animals, if you cannot give animals sexual stimulation, when the animals clearly show they enjoy it and come back for more. I'm starting to get repetetive now, and I apologize for that, but as long as I don't get a good reply, I am starting to think that none of those against zoophilia have a good reason for why we can use dogs for dogsledding (when they seemingly want to), but we cannot bring them to orgasm (when they seemingly want to).
Or why it is okay that we can do things animals obviously find extremely distressing, such as removing newborn calves from their mothers, when it shouldn't be okay to give sexual pleasure to the same cow.
Unless all of you are vegans, but I think it is fair to guess that most of you are not. So... I wonder: Why is it okay to do things that are distressing to the animals, but why is it not okay to do things that the animals enjoy? (And show they enjoy it by coming back for more.)
|
| 597Report |
at 27 May 2006: 05:23
>>605
It's been said before dude. None of it's okay. Forcing animals to pull a sled is bad too, but some people need to do that to survive where they live. If you don't need to do things like that you shouldn't, because it's demeaning.
|
| 598Report |
Svansfall at 27 May 2006: 10:15
>>606
Do you also feel that horseback riding is wrong?
|
| 599Report |
DragonFlame at 27 May 2006: 10:52
>>605
Hi Svansfall.
-Quote-
Another point that no one who's against zoophilia has replied to is the question I asked, how you can justify that you do anything at all together with animals, if you cannot give animals sexual stimulation, when the animals clearly show they enjoy it and come back for more.
-Quote-
I have a question for you and you may have answered it before but I will ask it anyway, when you sexualy stimulate your animals have they been learnt to use you as a sexual relief or did it just naturaly happen.
-Quote-
I am starting to think that none of those against zoophilia have a good reason for why we can use dogs for dogsledding (when they seemingly want to), but we cannot bring them to orgasm (when they seemingly want to).
-Quote-
It true that as Human's we force animals to do things that they would not want to do but we also know that sometimes things have to be done even if you dont want to do it. Animals serve a purpose for farmers and in return they are hopefuly treated well and looked after for their service. This should not be accociated with sex, even with human to human sex it is considered wrong to have sex for profit.
I really think the argument you should be making instead of this one is if having sex with an anmial is hurting it or not. Can the animal have Physical or mental damage from the encounter. Can it get some type of virus from the human.
Dont make that accociation of work and sex because they are two different things.
|
| 600Report |
at 27 May 2006: 12:21
>>610
look around >>50 or >>80 or so, we've already established that animal pedophilia is wrong, it is wrong and bad to have sex with an animal before it is sexually mature. when it attains such maturity though, sky's the limit.
|
| 1003Add Reply |
This thread is threadstopped. You can't reply anymore. |