Ted Hoffman

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

HelenM

Half-hearted? What was my response lacking? Should I have been more angry at the idea of sexually exploiting children? What was missing?

Ok, I have already admitted I didn't read the whole thread. Nevertheless thanks for addressing this anyway, in this post, even if you had once before.

No, because this is only part of the argument, which is in its entirety, that children's physical lack of readiness for sex combined with their immaturity of outlook which compromises their ability to give true 'consent', make it immoral to have sex with them.

Adults can give consent. But also, this is not just an argument about 'dimensions' - it's about developmental issues also. Adults have different bodies - different hormones etc.

Concerning childrens bodies not being designed for sex, what are children designed for?

Future sex.

Amongst other things

These are atheistic semantics, in my opinion.

So rephrase it and say children's bodies are not yet ready for sex.

Don't be distracted by the 'design' word. I admit that it was an unwise choice of phraseology on a Secular board!

Well a) I am sorry that some male felt compelled to have sex with a five year old girl (I haven't read the details you posted earlier but it seems that must have happened) and b) that she was able to bear a child doesn't mean she was able to consent to the sex and I also tend to think it probably was not good for such a small body to go through the rigors of pregnancy and labor. I doubt she was done any favors by it.

It was an aberration that she could conceive at that age. It is not normal and you know it. I would categorize that as abnormal physical development and I'm sure she was not emotionally developed enough that it was a good experience for her.

That doesn't mean their bodies are really ready for pregnancy, yet.

Irrelevant.

I disagree but even if I agreed, while it is a real consequence, it ought not be ignored or denied.

Am I still being half-hearted?

take care
Helen

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: HelenM ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Helen,

Half-hearted? What was my response lacking? Should I have been more angry at the idea of sexually exploiting children? What was missing?

This is what I call "half-hearted". You did not seem eager to make a commitment to whatever you said, or express your conviction that you beleive what you are saying is correct.

Ok, I have already admitted I didn't read the whole thread. Nevertheless thanks for addressing this anyway, in this post, even if you had once before.

You are welcome.

No, because this is only part of the argument, which is in its entirety, that children's physical lack of readiness for sex combined with their immaturity of outlook which compromises their ability to give true 'consent', make it immoral to have sex with them.

Adults can give consent. But also, this is not just an argument about 'dimensions' - it's about developmental issues also. Adults have different bodies - different hormones etc.



You are taking me back. I have addressed this "consent" problem before Helen (but I can do so again - a mod threatened to close this thread if it gets repetitive). Do you want to advance an argument about developmental issues Helen? Because you seem unsatisfied even with adult consent and you are saying this is not an argument about dimensions.

What is your argument? You seem to have covered all bases without making a commitment to one particular argument.

Try to narrow down on one, or lay it out so that I don't have to assume what you are saying.

Future sex among other things

What is that smiley supposed to mean? Are you joking? Because if you are, then you give me no reason to take your arguments seriously.

These are atheistic semantics, in my opinion.
So? Does that make them invalid?

So rephrase it and say children's bodies are not yet ready for sex.

Its not me saying children are not ready for something. Realise that I was not the one arguing that children are not designed for certain things.

Don't be distracted by the 'design' word. I admit that it was an unwise choice of phraseology on a Secular board!

Fine, so is it okay to have sex with children whose bodies are ready for sex? Because there are those who are fully developed by 12. Would it be okay according to this "ready body" argument?

Well a) I am sorry that some male felt compelled to have sex with a five year old girl (I haven't read the details you posted earlier but it seems that must have happened) and b) that she was able to bear a child doesn't mean she was able to consent to the sex and I also tend to think it probably was not good for such a small body to go through the rigors of pregnancy and labor. I doubt she was done any favors by it.

The thing is, her story refutes this "ready body" argument. And her's is a story that hit the news. Numerous others do not probably not as young, but numerous (I think).

It was an aberration that she could conceive at that age. It is not normal and you know it. I would categorize that as abnormal physical development and I'm sure she was not emotionally developed enough that it was a good experience for her.

The rest of her life had no aberrations. Was it also an aberration that a man made her pregnant?

That doesn't mean their bodies are really ready for pregnancy, yet.
Huh, huh.

Irrelevant.

Huh, huh. It was just a question.

I disagree but even if I agreed, while it is a real consequence, it ought not be ignored or denied.

You must know that its inconsequential whether or not you agree. What is significant is whether or not you can refute my arguments.

No one is ignoring or denying it.

Am I still being half-hearted?

You are assertive and a bit forceful, but unwilling to get into a serious debate on this issue (too much preconceptions perhaps?). Make your arguments.

HelenM

Thanks for your reply...the smily was not intended to convey I was not serious.

I can't really give a good reason for it - I guess it just struck me as funny that my response to what are they designed for, if not sex, was, 'future sex'. I can't exactly explain why it seemed funny to me.

I'll consider whether I have any further arguments to make beyond what I've already said.

If I seem unwilling to get into a serious debate on this it's more because of the perennial problem of lack of time to do it, than because I have too many preconceptions. Or at least, that's my perception anyway...

take care
Helen

The Other Michael

Intensity,

it appears that your last two posts are duplicates. If that is the case, please delete one of them.

Just as a general courtesy, let me remind people that if you go back and edit a message to delete all the text, please just go ahead and delete the message instead. It helps keep the forum a bit neater and easier to read.

thanks,
Michael
MF&P Moderator, First Class

HelenM

But the 'delete' option doesn't work, even on my own posts!!!

(Or at least, not the last few times I tried it)

Helen

MOJO-JOJO

~~~~~~~~~~

Just an fyi, I felt that my response to Amen-Moses here was inappropriately deleted. It was meant as a tongue-in-cheek historical analogy to his calling me a bigot, pointing out to him that it's all a matter of perspective I suppose.

I was rather suprised that our respected moderator, and Dan Barker-look-alike , would censor me like "Clint Kritzkrieg" at the BaptistBoard. But then, that is his perogative I guess.

However, I then noticed this remark by 99percent at the '99%-HelenM discussion' regarding making a point about censorship of posts in the 'christian-only' forum;

"I am not the one deleting posts, they are the ones who deleted one of my own posts. Has anyone explicitly deleted any one of your posts here without reason or warning? I certainly have not,neither your posts nor anyone's."


I realize that this probably belongs in the rants & raves thread, but I don't feel that it was necessary for my post to be deleted as irrelevant to the discussion. I think this was an example of over-censorship and an unecessary deletion of my post.

It was my response to Amen-Moses' derogatory remark against me, and I don't want to believe that the SecWeb is actually beginning to slide away from free speech and expression like the thought-control freaks at the christian forums.

I think deletion of posts should only be made in the extremest of situations where it is most obvious that the intent was to be 'trollistic', not simply because, in one person's humble opinion, it didn't belong there.

Please don't take this as anything personal against 99percent. I respect him as I do others, but I want to feel free to express myself here in a reasonable, free-will fashion, as others do, without concerns about stepped-up censorship.

Anyway, that's my 2cents...

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: MOJO-JOJO ]</p>

99Percent

MOJO JOJO, your post was saved in the moderators room. I am posting it here for public opinion. If any of the other moderators of admins feel it was unappropiate to delete it, I freely resign my moderator post.

"Minister Churchill....you're DRUNK!!"

"That may be true Madame....but YOU are ugly, and at least I shall be sober in the morning!"


[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: MOJO-JOJO ]

HelenM

Fwiw, I support any efforts to keep this a serious discussion forum; if that means that some posts get deleted, which threaten to derail a thread, so be it...

(I apologize to Intensity for this being off-topic; I daresay he'd agree with wanting this thread to stay serious though)

Helen