First  Prev  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next  Last
Can a meaningful romantic relationship exist between an adult and a child?
7431 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / United States
Offline
Posted 10/13/12

funnyginsan wrote:


crazyfirefly wrote:

Thank you and I agree. My reply started out simple enough but somehow I was sucked into this madness. Thanks for putting it back into perspective. :)


IKR?? It's just such a simple concept. You shouldn't be wanting to have sex with children.

I mean there is a lot of grey areas out there in life but this certainly isn't one of them.

Love how the debate turned into a battle of semantics ROFL.

Also got a kick out of getting called close-minded for it. Some people man ....


All people. but C'est la vie.
7431 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / United States
Offline
Posted 10/13/12

funnyginsan wrote:


crazyfirefly wrote:

Thank you and I agree. My reply started out simple enough but somehow I was sucked into this madness. Thanks for putting it back into perspective. :)


IKR?? It's just such a simple concept. You shouldn't be wanting to have sex with children.

I mean there is a lot of grey areas out there in life but this certainly isn't one of them.

Love how the debate turned into a battle of semantics ROFL.

Also got a kick out of getting called close-minded for it. Some people man ....


On another note someone secretly does want to partake in pedophilia because two of your post were reported to the moderators.....
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/13/12 , edited 10/13/12

funnyginsan wrote:


crazyfirefly wrote:

Thank you and I agree. My reply started out simple enough but somehow I was sucked into this madness. Thanks for putting it back into perspective. :)


IKR?? It's just such a simple concept. You shouldn't be wanting to have sex with children.

I mean there is a lot of grey areas out there in life but this certainly isn't one of them.

Love how the debate turned into a battle of semantics ROFL.

Also got a kick out of getting called close-minded for it. Some people man ....


So you are saying that it is wrong to have such natural inclination? Are you seriously blaming the diseased for habouring that disease?



This is one of the reasons why no one can take you seriously. The other reason is that you are intellectually incapable of holding a debate.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/13/12 , edited 10/13/12

crazyfirefly wrote:


funnyginsan wrote:

dear lord these walls of text are pointless.

Romantic/sexual love between a child and an adult is disgusting.

If you're stroking some 9 year olds hair thinking "Oh I'd love to make out with you and for you to love me for doing it."
Go get your head checked.


Thank you and I agree. My reply started out simple enough but somehow I was sucked into this madness. Thanks for putting it back into perspective. :)


Your initial reply was vague and meaningless- it is about as simply as saying the word 'bad', and expecting people to infer the meaning without the context. I have aptly critiqued your response, and, judging by your hesitance to answer them, I assume that you have acknowledged the truth of them, and, instead, feign air of superiority to save face, hence the 'madness' bit of your quote.

However, I would argue that, given your insistent denial of reality, your inability to be bound by any form of reason or rational thought, your utter contempt for science, your love of the imaginary, it is more apt to apply this title on to you. Would we not call a man who claims to have seen fairies, to murmur in unintelligible gibberish, and claim to be beyond this reality as 'mad', why then, should we not call you mad for doing the same thing, you claim that there exist an undetectable soul, give out vague answers, and then, when faced with reality, close yourself up to it, and claim that reality has its limits.

Slap yourself, Ah Q, if it makes you feel any better, you still are wrong, and no amount of self-deception will ever change that.
7431 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / United States
Offline
Posted 10/13/12

longfenglim wrote:


crazyfirefly wrote:


funnyginsan wrote:

dear lord these walls of text are pointless.

Romantic/sexual love between a child and an adult is disgusting.

If you're stroking some 9 year olds hair thinking "Oh I'd love to make out with you and for you to love me for doing it."
Go get your head checked.


Thank you and I agree. My reply started out simple enough but somehow I was sucked into this madness. Thanks for putting it back into perspective. :)


Your initial reply was vague and meaningless- it is about as simply as saying the word 'bad', and expecting people to infer the meaning without the context. I have aptly critiqued your response, and, judging by your hesitance to answer them, I assume that you have acknowledged the truth of them, and, instead, feign air of superiority to save face, hence the 'madness' bit of your quote.

However, I would argue that, given your insistent denial of reality, your inability to be bound by any form of reason or rational thought, your utter contempt for science, your love of the imaginary, it is more apt to apply this title on to you. Would we not call a man who claims to have seen fairies, to murmur in unintelligible gibberish, and claim to be beyond this reality as 'mad', why then, should we not call you mad for doing the same thing, you claim that there exist an undetectable soul, give out vague answers, and then, when faced with reality, close yourself up to it, and claim that reality has its limits.

Slap yourself, Ah Q, if it makes you feel any better, you still are wrong, and no amount of self-deception will ever change that.


You know for two seconds I was about to be sucked into this circular, pointless, semantic bullshit of yours yet again and then I was reminded that I am your senior both in age, time on CR, intellectual capability, and general common sense so....

Why waste my time?

2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/13/12 , edited 10/13/12

crazyfirefly wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


crazyfirefly wrote:


funnyginsan wrote:

dear lord these walls of text are pointless.

Romantic/sexual love between a child and an adult is disgusting.

If you're stroking some 9 year olds hair thinking "Oh I'd love to make out with you and for you to love me for doing it."
Go get your head checked.


Thank you and I agree. My reply started out simple enough but somehow I was sucked into this madness. Thanks for putting it back into perspective. :)


Your initial reply was vague and meaningless- it is about as simply as saying the word 'bad', and expecting people to infer the meaning without the context. I have aptly critiqued your response, and, judging by your hesitance to answer them, I assume that you have acknowledged the truth of them, and, instead, feign air of superiority to save face, hence the 'madness' bit of your quote.

However, I would argue that, given your insistent denial of reality, your inability to be bound by any form of reason or rational thought, your utter contempt for science, your love of the imaginary, it is more apt to apply this title on to you. Would we not call a man who claims to have seen fairies, to murmur in unintelligible gibberish, and claim to be beyond this reality as 'mad', why then, should we not call you mad for doing the same thing, you claim that there exist an undetectable soul, give out vague answers, and then, when faced with reality, close yourself up to it, and claim that reality has its limits.

Slap yourself, Ah Q, if it makes you feel any better, you still are wrong, and no amount of self-deception will ever change that.


You know for two seconds I was about to be sucked into this circular, pointless, semantic bullshit of yours yet again and then I was reminded that I am your senior both in age, time on CR, intellectual capability, and general common sense so....

Why waste my time?




The answer to your question is simple, because you may be able to become wiser by basking in the light my infinitely superior intelligence. I have, in my kindness, condescended to favour you with the apocalypse of the sublime sophia of my logos, child of my nous, that you may, via my profound gnosis, grow to be more than the moronic thing you are now.



林龍峰說:"我就是道路、真理、智慧。若不藉著我,沒有人能到知識那裡去。"
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/13/12 , edited 10/13/12
I have taken precious time away from the productive because I pity you, dear, wallowing in willful ignorance, and so, being the generous and kind hearted fellow that I am, I have decided to correct all your error with clarity. Because you hate beyond the 'simple', most likely because they are beyond your childish Liberal-Arts mind to understand, my answer shall be stript of anything resembling complex:


crazyfirefly wrote:

Firstly let me just say that I took the time to weed out what you actually said from the passages of books you've been copying and pasting since the beginning of the discussion. Now that that is out of the way your first point . And yet there you are, defending something that you claimed to be "tangible" and not "symbolic", all the while you claimed it to be beyond the scientific methods This would only be viable if you were living your life under the assumption that all things tangible are within the methods of science to understand which is naive at best. For instance the subject of our universe expanding. Yes there is the initial momentum of the big bang but supposedly there is another force, "dark matter" at work that makes up some 80% of the known universe. However science has yet to be able to even find such said particle. I would say that the nature of dark matter at the moment is quite out of reach of our current technology. Also lets not forget science is still trying to tackle what's on the bottom of our oceans, let alone where life began and understanding human behavior.





1. All things are, in fact, material (which is what I am guessing you mean by 'tangible') and within the reaches of Science to understand, you make the mistake of thinking that because there are some things that science do not understand, given various limitations, technological or otherwise, does not invalidate the scientific method altogether. You confuse our current inability with impossibility.


crazyfirefly wrote:
Secondly For a self-proclaimed agnostic, your own superiority/god complex is unmistakable yet you some how have mistaken my "complex." I find the idea of someone openly denying the existence of a higher power without any concrete evidence just as nauseating as someone who shouts from the rooftops that we either go to heaven or hell. The core to anyl agnostic's approach is that you can not know. Now you must be thinking, "How can you denounce religion and then in the same breath defend love and the human soul?" The answer to that is simple, the soul makes it's existence known. Every rule we know concerning biology tells us that humans creating art, music, and literature is not part of the basic instincts to survive. Yet we do. There is no other species on this earth that kills something for no other reason than to kill it. Yet we do. All other species on this earth adapt to the environment around them yet we adapt the environment to fit our needs. A conscience and the ability to make distinctions between what is "right" and "wrong" is an entirely human trait that has no "scientific value." How do you explain that? Yeah a lot of people like to think that society shapes morals and it does to a degree, but the "instinct" the feeling one gets when they've wrong someone is something science can't explain. (Yeah and don't give me that crap about people without a conscience, serial killers and the like because honestly this circular discussion is exhausting enough without adding criminal pathology to the mix.)


2.
Your Agnosticism is simply an admission of ignorance and a stubborn unwillingness to be anything but ignorant. Your agnosticism says- Lo! I am ignorant, but so is everyone else, it is an imposition of your own self upon others. I, however, am not deluded, I know that there is no God as there is no Soul. You say that the soul is manifested, and it is manifested in the form of 'Art'. 'Art', you claim, has no evolutionary advantage, and so, have no reason to exist, just as blondness have no evolutionary advantage, and should cease to exist, or having green eyes offers no evolutionary advantage. You display you ignorance of the Evolutionary theory, as expected of student of the Liberal Arts. Just because something does not have an evolutionary advantage, it doesn't mean that it would automatically get filtered out, it is only if it does serve an evolutionary disadvantage it will not pass down. Other species adapt to their environment, we adapt our environment to fit us- that is a highly inaccurate statement, and it does not serve to manifest the mysterious soul, it can be explained away by the fact that we have a more evolved brain, which allows us the intelligence to 'adapt nature'.Additionally, studies of animals show that animals, in fact, do have some semblance of 'right' and 'wrong' based upon the need of the community, as DomFortress will, no doubt, be happy to show you, it being a hobby-horse of his. Furthermore, no one kills without reason or 'for the sake of killing alone'- killing something else is usually done for a perceived advantage.


crazyfirefly wrote:
. Well your "logic" has a contradiction, and it goes like this: while you condemned pedophilia on the scientific discipline of psychology, you rejected the very same discipline that you based your condemnation, from explaining on what makes us fall in romantic love relationship.

Ok first of as I stated in a previous post I can see and recognize the value in science as well as the liberal arts due to my education however the idea that you accept all theories from any given discipline shows a very obvious lack of critical thinking on your part. Also I have no idea where you get the idea that I'm hiding behind anything, and being willfully blind considering your the one that is only looking at a view point from one particular discipline whereas I have formed my opinion after taking into consideration multiple viewpoints and opinions. As far as "conflict avoidance" is concerned I think throughout this discussion I have done anything but that. You might ask, "then why haven't you given a direct response to the countless passages I've posted that are the intellectual property of other people?" Well simply put, because they are the intellectual property of individuals and without reading the entire publication I can hardly decide whether I disagree or agree with them based on an excerpt of your choosing.


3.
All your post seems to be showing is that you have no education, whatsoever. You call constant disparagement 'respect', there is nothing respectful in your ignorance or your hatred of science! You say you are not willfully blind? Why then, are all your arguments so contrary to common sense? Why, even your attempts to prove the existence of the soul would make even the creationist blush. The only thing that can be gathered from this whole affair is that you completely reject of concept of reason and reality.



crazyfirefly wrote:
And you were wrong through sheer sin of omission, and for someone who's into liberal art, you are hiding behind agnosticism so that you won't have to change. Because you're actually afraid of being hurt, that to you change through conflict is actually painful

As far as not having any "data" is concerned I thought I covered that in one of my very first post. That love is not something you can analyze but that you must experience. Of course I could have taken five minutes on google and given you a million and one famous intellectuals that agree with me but I'm sure you already knew that. Also I have no idea where this idea of "being afraid to be hurt" is coming from. As far as conflict goes it is the only means by which we can better ourselves, progress society, and arrive at truth so I embrace it wholeheartedly. However intellectual conflicts only prevail if both parties move forward and unfortunately you have not. Instead you keep circling around science says and posting random excerpts from books instead of providing any proof of your own critical thinking. Instead your letting other people's intellectual property do it for you. So after your last post which pretty much consisted of you disregarding my viewpoint based on your assumptions that I am somehow scared of thinking any other way I would consider this intellectual discussion dead because regardless of how logical and rational my reasoning is you are undoubtedly going to come back with someone else's intellectual property sprinkled with your own assumptions of my "fear."

However I will leave you with several quotes on several quotes from people you find "valuable" that share my outlook.


4.
Love is, in fact, analysable, and, in fact, has been analysed, by biologist, psychologist, neuroscientists, etc. A quick perusal of Wikipedia is enough to prove you wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love#Interpersonal_love
You display your ignorance of science once again!

As far as conflict goes, you have been the perfect image of a reactionary, fighting progress at every turn, stubbornly refusing to free yourself from your adherence your irrational beliefs, and, worse, falsifying science to justify your irrationality! If you love truth, why then do you continually seek to deny it? You have not moved a whit from your initial ignorance, and you dare say that others 'unfortunately' have not moved? Why should those that are ahead move backwards?






How does the opinion of these people add any validity to your haze of anti-scientism, irrationality, and utter stupidity? The opinion and collective cowardice of others to follow through with their results does not make your opinion any more true.
7431 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / United States
Offline
Posted 10/14/12 , edited 10/14/12

longfenglim wrote:

]I have taken precious time away from the productive because I pity you, dear, wallowing in willful ignorance, and so, being the generous and kind hearted fellow that I am, I have decided to correct all your error with clarity.



No you apparently aren't very productive and have plenty of time to spare on typing an ungodly amount of junk just in an attempt to insult someone over the internet. Junk that I, being a full time college student and working a thirty hour a week job don't have the time nor the patience to read let alone respond to.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/14/12 , edited 10/14/12

crazyfirefly wrote:


No you apparently aren't very productive and have plenty of time to spare on typing an ungodly amount of junk just in an attempt to insult someone over the internet. Junk that I, being a full time college student and working a thirty hour a week job don't have the time nor the patience to read let alone respond to.


Yes, I am, just because you are intellectuality incapable of answering my arguments, does not mean that you 'do not have time to answer the ungodly amount of junk' that I have posted. In fact, by my own reckoning, my post is a much briefer and more polite than the piece of ignorance to which it was a response.Reading it again, I admire the amount of restraint and the politesse that has gone into responding your unfathomable ignorance. On the charge that you are a working student- what does it matter, unlike you, I am actually a student of the more productive studies, studies that require a bit more than sleeping through classes and bullshitting through essays, unlike your tuppenny ha'penny Liberal Arts education. Secondly, you say that you do not have the time or patience to read or respond to my post, which was, itself, a response to one of your post, of greater length, greater vituperation, and greater senselessness. Either you have greater time before to respond so lengthily and stupidly, or you know that you are dealing with your intellectual betters, and want to save face.
4302 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
forgot where
Offline
Posted 10/17/12
Yes, it can. But not in cases like slavery, human trafficing, ect. But it can, like in the form of a mother and her child. and by meaningful, do you mean genuinely romantic? Sure, thats possible to. But its just extremely rare and it is a mental disease. And by children i do mean 10-12 yrs old. Any lower, and its dealing with mental illness-which may be genuine, but not really practicle. Any higher, and yes, it can be. peace over war
45475 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Offline
Posted 10/25/12
Because people develop at different rates it's hard to say.


I went through puberty really early... so I understood romantic feelings at a very young age. But some people are still confused about their sexuality even at 20.

It all depends on mental maturity and physical development.

I do believe that a meaningful relationship can exist between an adult and a child who has matured mentally. Age is just a number.

[Providing the relationship was mutually consented and no money/gift was used to persuade the child]
8443 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
ici
Offline
Posted 10/26/12
how old is a "child"? 5 yr old, hell no... 17 meh maybe depending on conditions.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/26/12 , edited 10/26/12

iammmmee wrote:

how old is a "child"? 5 yr old, hell no... 17 meh maybe depending on conditions.


Paedophilia is usually taken to mean those that prefer, or whose main or sole interest, is in a prepubescent child. (1-10)

Hebephilia is taken to mean those who have a primary preference for a pubescent child.(11-14)

Ephebophilia is such for an adolescent child. (15-18)

A Teleiophile is one one who has a primary preference for adults. (18 and over)

Gerontophilia is a sexual preference for the elderly.
8443 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
ici
Offline
Posted 10/27/12

longfenglim wrote:


iammmmee wrote:

how old is a "child"? 5 yr old, hell no... 17 meh maybe depending on conditions.


Paedophilia is usually taken to mean those that prefer, or whose main or sole interest, is in a prepubescent child. (1-10)

Hebephilia is taken to mean those who have a primary preference for a pubescent child.(11-14)

Ephebophilia is such for an adolescent child. (15-18)

A Teleiophile is one one who has a primary preference for adults. (18 and over)

Gerontophilia is a sexual preference for the elderly.


thanks for clearing that up for me...i hope you didnt spend time memorizing that, though.
121 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 10/27/12
My answer is simply NO. Already a child is vulnerable and at a disadvantage compared to an adult. They are more likely to have less freedom, less choice, less independence, less means for supporting or defending themselves, less experience, and are not fully developed emotionally or physically. Often a child is still dependent on adults for a lot of their needs and that puts most adults in a position of power over that child. To make sure that power isn't abused there are lines that must never be crossed. To explore a romantic relationship with a child is to put that child in danger and at risk of harm emotionally as well as physically. It completely disregards the child's developmental and emotional needs and puts too much expectations and responsibility on a child when on the other hand they are not expected to be able to support themselves, make life decision independently, fully understand the consequences of action or be held accountable for them.
First  Prev  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.