First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
How about we not warp people's minds with pediophilia, better yet...
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/28/11

silentavian wrote:

man, do you guys have a little club where you get together and share arguments?
It seems like you don't understand. I really don't care what you think about me.
All ya'll can do is call names and come up w/ half bs arguments.

Really? did i say all anime are like this? Or, did I say that all Japan had to do
was get rid of this to become highly elevated (might've sounded like it, but there's
a lot more to "this mess"). If a girl doesn't have the capacity to process things until
she grows, why should she go ahead and have the experiences then deal with them
when she grows up? Why are you making the girls go through all the drama, when
before it's the predators fault? You shifted the blame to it's the girls fault since she needs
to make the mistake and grow from it. The reason we have the age limit is to protect the
younger ones from having to deal with some of these grown people.
No, in the West we say what we think and roll with we believe in. You have twisted the debate
to only focus on the smallest thing
(how girls dress (*(what you think) when the debate was on how girls are portrayed
in some of these animations.
So, I'll keep it movin and you keep trying to say underage girls should be able to dress
like hookers. By the way, Freedom is the freedom of traps. People use the word to mean
they can do whatever they want. How is it freedom when the next step is entrapped?
I dig that savage mind though, Savage minds, to the next.
LME



If you did not care, than you wouldn't have responded, but, as this is demonstratively false, it shows that you do care, at least enough to hope for some sort of victory over me, which is unlikely given the disparity between our level of intelligence. Of course, you then ask if I was ever part of a club dedicated to arguing, orations, rhetoric, and all that, a club that might be called a 'Debate Team', which, I suppose, is your shorthand for all people who are intellectually superior to you in the art of arguing, and with the implication of pretentiousness, snobbishness, and haughtiness. The answer to that is no, I was never part of any Debating Team, though my school had one, a very popular one, and I shall admit that I did have frequent intercourse with the members of that club, though I had no talent in that sort of thing myself. But, as you say, I do admit to relying to heavily on ad hominem attacks, though you engage in it frequently, and, I might add, with very limited success. It is, I think, fair to say that I am more successful in them than you are, otherwise, they would not wound you and make you howl as incessantly and nauseatingly as you do about them.

But, let us focus more on the point of this argument- I use the word argument rather liberally, as this is more of a beating and a thrashing than anything that resembles an argument- your first point is that you do not include all animes and mangas, only those that have paedophilic elements, which, I admit, was a gross generalization of your point, but, you say that they will be elevated should they remove these elements- a society isn't judged by its sickest and vilest member, it is judged as a whole, and this concept seems to escape you. No, Japanese society does not tolerate child pornography any more than people do anywhere else- anywhere that is, but those places where a girl of eight may, with the blessing of her parents and a good amount of money from the groom to be, she may be wedded to a man old enough to be her grandfather. I said I am in agreement with you concerning child porn, excepting those that may have some sort of artistic value, an allowance given to all forms of pornographic content in all civilized society.

Then, in your incoherent rambling about my opinion, which you grossly misrepresented, you say that the girl has to be mature to have the capacity to process thing, in that distant time of 'being grown'- yet you seem to think that maturity magically comes with age, and mental growth is synonymous with physical growth, which is completely untrue. An adult may have a mind of a child, as a child may be more mature than some adults. It is through experience that a person grows, but, by saying that, you seem to think that I want to feed them to the paedophiles, and that, by allowing them that freedom to dress, I am making it their fault for dressing up, and pushing the responsibility of their molestation onto them. I said before, I say it again, and I will continue to say it until you get it, that regardless of dress, if there is a paedophile the child is not safe, and, no matter what he wears, he still would be prey to the paedophile if the paedophile were lurking around the neighbourhood. You are saying that it is her fault, for dressing up in so and so way, so tempting the paedophile into assaulting her, I am saying that the paedophile will probably assault her regardless of what she is wearing. The solution, keep the paedophiles away from the children- we have several methods established for this purpose. When I said she needs to make her mistake and grow from it, I do not mean to include getting molested by dirty, vile, sick people- I established that the parents needs to include some sort of parenting, some form of protection from a certain degree of harm, but that she needs to make mistakes, to learn from her mistakes, and grow from those mistakes is absolutely essential, that is how everyone matures, as it is embodied concisely and lucidly in that old idiom, that a burnt child dreads fire. I am willing to let a girl go through the emotional pain of a break up of some sort of romantic relationship, of finding out her love have been false, because I know that, once she has seen the end of it, she would profit immensely from it- yes, she should be able to go through the drama, because she will mature from it. I may provide her emotional support to help her through, but, in the end, it is she, herself, that must come to that necessary realization.

Then, you say that in the West, we think as we will...provided we do not force it upon other people and the whole of society. I am not saying you are not free to think like you do, reactionary as it is, but I am saying you are not able to hoist it upon all of society. It is a minor point, but one you are putting too much stress on, mainly because it shows your character in its darkest and truest light, as an authoritarian. Also, you have a strange conception of freedom- I take freedom in its libertarian sense, that is, that we all should be free to do what we will, so long as it doesn't affect anybodyelse's freedom to do the same without their consent. Modern Society is founded upon this libertarian principles, that is why Neo-Nazis and Racists are allowed to be neo-nazis and racists, and why you are allowed to be a authoritarian, and why little girls should be able to dress however they want. If you don't like that, then find another nation to your liking.
66778 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Lagrange, KY
Offline
Posted 12/28/11
going to get flamed for this but I do hope you all know what pedophilia means "it's not liking or having sex with some under the age of 18" The correct standard for the term is for a person with a mindset that prefers prepubescent,underdeveloped girls under the age of 13 or less. Say if some my age finds a girl attractive who is 16, that is not pedophilia just normal male hormones due to what men are attracted to "hips thighs,butt, boobs etc" A girl doesn't need all of these but this is a proven fact.

Now lets move on to toddler/pre-teen pageants...all I have to say is why?? That shit alone makes me sick to my stomach.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/28/11

Cecilthedarkknight234 wrote:

going to get flamed for this but I do hope you all know what pedophilia means "it's not liking or having sex with some under the age of 18" The correct standard for the term is for a person with a mindset that prefers prepubescent,underdeveloped girls under the age of 13 or less. Say if some my age finds a girl attractive who is 16, that is not pedophilia just normal male hormones due to what men are attracted to "hips thighs,butt, boobs etc" A girl doesn't need all of these but this is a proven fact.

Now lets move on to toddler/pre-teen pageants...all I have to say is why?? That shit alone makes me sick to my stomach.


Well, you are right in that Paedophilia does mean a person with sexual preference towards children, as another person, to whom I have the greatest respect, have also mentioned this, and, so, we must be clear to distinguish between Paedophiles, meaning a person with such sexual preference, and Child Molesters, meaning people who have acted upon those desires and have harmed the children. There is a bridge between having a desire and acting upon it, as such, there is a difference between Paedophiles and Child Molesters, and, I am afraid, I have not acknowledged that clearly enough, indiscriminately using the word 'Paedophiles' where I mean 'Child Molester', which is unfair to Paedophiles who are not Child Molesters. While I do not pretend to understand the 'why' of their psychology, not being very strong on that subject, we must acknowledge that it is not any fault of the paedophile that he does have a sexual preference towards children, it being diagnosed a psychiatric disorder. Thus, even if you find it sick and replusive, you have to take the fact that it is diagnosed as a psychiatric disorder into consideration.
66778 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Lagrange, KY
Offline
Posted 12/28/11

I don't find it per-say repulsive as long as people keep it to themselves, what I am talking about is the pageants that sexualize kids as young as six or seven with make up, mini skirts etc because their fat ass mothers couldn't do it themselves.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/28/11 , edited 12/28/11

Cecilthedarkknight234 wrote:


I don't find it per-say repulsive as long as people keep it to themselves, what I am talking about is the pageants that sexualize kids as young as six or seven with make up, mini skirts etc because their fat ass mothers couldn't do it themselves.


As I said before, while I am against the parents forcing children to dress up, I would not go so far as say that it sexualizes them, I have said, in my previous argument with the OP, that clothing does not make anyone any more sexual, and the clothing themselves do not have any sexual meaning in themselves, but what people interpret from them. Make-up doesn't sexualize, miniskirts do not sexualize, clothings are not sexual objects. It is people who apply the value of 'sexual' upon the clothing. Thus, while I agree that the pageants are detestable, it is only detestable in that they are forcing children to do, against their will, something that they may not want to do, with the additional parental pressure on their children to do this thing that they may or may not want to do.
Posted 12/28/11

longfenglim wrote:



As I said before, while I am against the parents forcing children to dress up, I would not go so far as say that it sexualizes them, I have said, in my previous argument with the OP, that clothing does not make anyone any more sexual, and the clothing themselves do not have any sexual meaning in themselves, but what people interpret from them. Make-up doesn't sexualize, miniskirts do not sexualize, clothings are not sexual objects. It is people who apply the value of 'sexual' upon the clothing. Thus, while I agree that the pageants are detestable, it is only detestable in that they are forcing children to do, against their will, something that they may not want to do, with the additional parental pressure on their children to do this thing that they may or may not want to do.
Indeed, sexual objectification has no power over the individuals, at least until said individuals internalized the dehumanization process through conformity. Therefore it's the very psychosocial process of perceiving people as mere objects of desire, that's the danger of corrupting humans as neurologically functional moral agents with the business ethics of amorality.
6078 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 12/29/11
I know everyone loves to argue; so this is more of a statement of where I'm at.

I can't validate one little one getting hurt so that people indulge in their fantasies.
Morally right or wrong is irrelevant, our little ones are too precious to risk.
Posted 12/30/11

silentavian wrote:

I know everyone loves to argue; so this is more of a statement of where I'm at.

I can't validate one little one getting hurt so that people indulge in their fantasies.
Morally right or wrong is irrelevant, our little ones are too precious to risk.
The only one who's stuck in his own fantasy is none other than yourself, with your overgeneralized scaremongering and arbitrary moral high horse. You're just as likely to get children suffer from depression and/or worst, learned helplessness. Due to your overreaching high anxiety and witch-hunt.

And we perfect, most dangerously, our children. Let me tell you what we think about children. They're hardwired for struggle when they get here. And when you hold those perfect little babies in your hand, our job is not to say, "Look at her, she's perfect. My job is just to keep her perfect -- make sure she makes the tennis team by fifth grade and Yale by seventh grade." That's not our job. Our job is to look and say, "You know what? You're imperfect, and you're wired for struggle, but you are worthy of love and belonging." That's our job. Show me a generation of kids raised like that, and we'll end the problems I think that we see today. We pretend that what we do doesn't have an effect on people. We do that in our personal lives. We do that corporate -- whether it's a bailout, an oil spill, a recall -- we pretend like what we're doing doesn't have a huge impact on other people. I would say to companies, this is not our first rodeo, people. We just need you to be authentic and real and say, "We're sorry. We'll fix it."

But there's another way, and I'll leave you with this. This is what I have found: to let ourselves be seen, deeply seen, vulnerably seen; to love with our whole hearts, even though there's no guarantee -- and that's really hard, and I can tell you as a parent, that's excruciatingly difficult -- to practice gratitude and joy in those moments of terror, when we're wondering, "Can I love you this much? Can I believe in this this passionately? Can I be this fierce about this?" just to be able to stop and, instead of catastrophizing what might happen, to say, "I'm just so grateful, because to feel this vulnerable means I'm alive." And the last, which I think is probably the most important, is to believe that we're enough. Because when we work from a place, I believe, that says, "I'm enough," then we stop screaming and start listening, we're kinder and gentler to the people around us, and we're kinder and gentler to ourselves.
---- from "Brene Brown: The power of vulnerability"
6078 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 12/30/11
I know you're looking for reasons to refute anything I say.
My statement came from love. Not fear. Report after report
shows that if you feed an addiction you increase it.

If you try to apply the last two lines of the article to yourself maybe
we can come to a place where we can have a conversation.
Maybe something I know can help you, maybe something you
know can help me.

In every animal species that nurtures their children; they
teach, protect and grow them until they can fend for themselves.
None of them let their offspring walk into a trap knowingly.


2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/30/11 , edited 12/30/11

silentavian wrote:

I know you're looking for reasons to refute anything I say.
My statement came from love. Not fear. Report after report
shows that if you feed an addiction you increase it.

If you try to apply the last two lines of the article to yourself maybe
we can come to a place where we can have a conversation.
Maybe something I know can help you, maybe something you
know can help me.

In every animal species that nurtures their children; they
teach, protect and grow them until they can fend for themselves.
None of them let their offspring walk into a trap knowingly.




As expected, you added nothing new, nor have you refuted any points posited by anyone, but, you know, seeing as you want to talk about child pornography, which is still distinct from letting children dress as they please, and, as you have provided adsolutely no valid argument against it letting children dress as they please, let us talk about Child Pornography. You say that there are 'Report[s] after report[s]' which shows that 'if you feed an addiction[,] you increase it'. Irrelevent, you have no reports which substantiate your claims. On the otherhand, there is a certain scientific report that shows that the legalisation of Child Pornography actually reduces Child Sex Abuse:
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2010-porn-in-czech-republic.html
Do you hate children, do you want them sexually abused? Certainly a statement which, by its consequence, encourages more Child sexual abuse can never come from one who claims to love the little ones. So, where does the love factor into this equation? Or do you mean love where you actually mean hate?
Posted 12/30/11 , edited 12/30/11

silentavian wrote:

I know you're looking for reasons to refute anything I say.
My statement came from love. Not fear. Report after report
shows that if you feed an addiction you increase it.


If you try to apply the last two lines of the article to yourself maybe
we can come to a place where we can have a conversation.
Maybe something I know can help you, maybe something you
know can help me.


In every animal species that nurtures their children; they
teach, protect and grow them until they can fend for themselves.
None of them let their offspring walk into a trap knowingly.
You wanna talk about "report"? Then get this; there are pedophiles who were themselves victims of childhood abuse, caused by those who indoctrinated unhealthy sexual repression.

What Causes Pedophilia?

The etiology of pedophilia can be attributed to both biological and environmental factors. Case studies indicate that cerebral dysfunction may be a contributing or dominant factor of pedophilia (Scott, 1984), including problems with self-control, extreme urges, and cognitive distortions. Many experts also believe that disorders for sexual preferences emerge from childhood experiences during critical periods in human development (DiChristina, 2009). In many cases, child sex abusers suffer from traumatic experiences during their childhood.

More specifically, pedophiles tend to also have been molested as children. As children, they lacked the ability to control the situation. By sexually assaulting children, pedophiles attempt to re-live the trauma they experienced and they learn how to master it. A complete role reversal gives them the upper hand and prevents them from being victimized. Overall, through the impact of cerebral dysfunction and traumatic development, the sexual urges and desires for children can become ingrained within a person’s nervous system.(citation)
Sounds familiar? Because that's what's still happening within the Christian faith.

1.1. Internal Abuse of Priests - Abuse Leads to Abuse

Much of the sexual abuse within Christian churches is internal, for example between priests and student priests, including seniors ignoring and reprimanding juniors when they complained of sexual abuse, and widespread admittance that the seniors themselves had such experiences as juniors. "After reviewing 473 priests or histories of priests who have [abused children] seventy to eighty percent of [them] have themselves been abused as children, some by priests. Furthermore, a high percentage of those who later abused youngsters - whether or not they themselves were abused as children - were in effect given permission for such activity by a priest or religious superior who himself crossed the sexual boundary with the priest abuser during the time he was studying for ordination. Ten percent of priests report that they were approached sexually by a priest during the time of their theological studies". Many have theorized that Christianity's teachings result in a dysfunctional idea of sexuality.(citation)

So talk about your "feed an addiction", do you still feel like knowing more about your own faith? I love sociology, and I want to belong to a process of social healing for the victims of childhood abuse. And not to accuse them with unnecessary shaming and blaming stemmed from irrational fear. But that's what your thread is all about, isn't it?
So yeah, go ahead and excommunicate the sinners, when God Himself was the one who planted that tree in the first place as the "prime mover". Adam was right to say that it's a trap, but who ultimately responsible for building it in the first place? According to the laws of "cause and effect".

Don't feel like answering? That's fine, it was an rhetorical question anyway. But what to do with this stonewalling within the Christian faith regarding it's internal child abuse?

Cracks in the Stone-Walling, Or More of the Same?

The pope and a prominent Australian archbishop recently made unprecedented statements about the clergy abuse issue that appeared to be significant breakthroughs in the church’s wall of denial. It seems, however, that the pope’s words, at least, may have been too promising to be true.

The statements came after the recent spate of revelations about child abuse in Ireland, Germany and Italy and unusually strong criticisms of the pope. A Pew Research study found that this spring’s news volume about the church abuse issue almost matched the 2002 Boston coverage.

While not proclaimed as an official policy, the pope had said that “forgiveness is not a substitute for justice”, thus indicating a break from what has been the church mantra about forgiving the perpetrator but never mentioning justice for the victim. When had any church official, let alone the pope, spoken about justice for victims?

The pope also acknowledged that “the sin is inside the church”, admitting that the problem is real and not just created by accusations from victims or the media. Most Catholic spokespersons are still quick to label any criticism as unfounded and only coming from outsiders wanting to “hurt the church.” The pope even elaborated that “…we see in a terrifying way that the greatest persecution of the church does not come from enemies outside, but is born from the sin of the church.” The headline on this story in The New York Times read: “Pope Issues His Most Direct Words to Date on Abuse.”

A veteran observer, John Allen of the independent National Catholic Reporter, said that “This is as clear an example of the pope changing The Vatican’s public tone as you’re going to see.”

The pope made his next pronouncements in Rome at a celebration of the Year for Priests, with thousands of clergy present. The back-tracking didn’t take long. The pope begged forgiveness from God, but did not mention justice. Although it was only a few weeks prior that he had spoken about the sin of abuse being within the church, he told the priests that the enemy or the devil was behind the abuse scandal and that it had emerged somehow in this Year for Priests because the devil wanted to see “God driven out of the world.”

Representatives of the American advocacy group, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), were in Rome speaking out about the issue and urging the pope to follow up on his recent statements. After the pope’s words, SNAP’s executive director, David Clohessy, quoted an abuse victim who said: “No child in this planet is safer today because of what the pope said last week.”

It remains to be seen whether the pope will re-introduce the justice issue and, more importantly, what action he will take in that regard.

In Australia, Archbishop Mark Coleridge, who is based in the national capital of Canberra, also took an unprecedented step by saying that church culture played a significant role in the abuse by priests. Here, too, when had a church official acknowledged a role for the cultural factor? As a young priest, the archbishop said, he saw pedophilia as “tragic and isolated”, but later, and after serving five years at the Vatican, he came to regard child abuse in the church as “cultural.” (The culture of an organization has been defined as “the way things work”. In the case of child abuse in the church, this has included the cover-up of known offenses, for instance.)

In the news report from Australia, the archbishop indicated that the church’s culture of “discretion” and focus on ”sin and forgiveness rather than crime and punishment” ultimately led to the child sex abuse scandal and cover-up. He said that discretion, which has its proper place, “turned dark when it was used to conceal crime and protect the reputation of the Church or the image of the priesthood…”

While there have been statements from bishops in various places about the abuse matter, I doubt that any compare to this archbishop’s 4000-word open letter, in which he brought up the culture factor. In citing trust as a part of the culture, he observed that trust “…produced wonderful fruit in both priests and people, but it was the same trust which enabled the abuse to happen…” He said the …”urgent task is to go further along the path of understanding and action in a way that is deeply sensitive to the harm done to those who have been abused and determined to do everything possible to root the evil from the Church.”

In my view, the archbishop deserves a special thanks for addressing this matter. His sensitivity was also reflected in the title of his letter: “Seeing the Faces, Hearing the Voices.”

Part of the Catholic church culture has been the long-standing doctrine known as “Mental Reservation”. This allows a priest or bishop to use “misleading words…as long as a deliberate lie is not told.” When taking the Cardinal’s oath, one promises to keep secret “the revelation of which could cause damage or dishonor to the Holy Church”. That this practice has been widely used was brought out in the sickening reports about church child abuse from the Dublin Archdiocese in Ireland.

Interestingly, it was another clergyman, an American, who also brought the cultural factor to the public’s attention. That was Fr. Andrew Greeley, the well-known priest, novelist, sociologist, who promoted a scholarly book on this subject in one of his newspaper columns. The 2007 book was titled “Spoils of the Kingdom – Clergy Misconduct and Religious Community”, by Anson Shupe of the University of Indiana.

Shupe held that clergy misconduct “occurs in a systematic, or structured, context and is not merely the result of ‘a few bad apples in the barrel’, however discomforting that thought is to any religious apologists…”

Cultural conditions that contribute to abuse in religious organizations are also present in other denominations, of course. The public has learned, particularly since the Catholic scandal erupted in 2002, that any number of other religious groups, including Orthodox Christian, Protestant and Jewish, also have problems with denial, secrecy and cover-up in the abuse area, though their numbers may not match the Catholic experience.

Even though the pope retracted some of his words, the “justice” and “culture” issues have been placed on the table. Perhaps there is now hope that a form of “permission-giving” has occurred and church leaders will take the cue and pursue justice for victims and work toward changing the culture which enables the abuse. The increase in questions and criticisms this spring has included calls for strong action to be taken by the church and its people. One Catholic writer has urged that Vatican III needs to be convened in order to address changes. Certainly, the justice and culture statements should also prompt more of the laity to pursue changes, without waiting for church officials to act.

That seeking changes will continue to be an uphill battle seems certain. At this juncture in American society, we can observe how difficult it is to hold financial institutions and corporations accountable. (“Too big to fail”, “Must not be allowed to happen again”.) Holding religious organizations accountable to the larger society seems no less difficult. In addition, the Vatican, unlike “regular” religious bodies, has what it regards as a trump card in claiming immunity as a sovereign state. The advocacy group, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, has called this an”Unholy Immunity”. And, there is already enough disadvantage for the laity in judges shying away from “interfering” in church administration, as a number of court cases have shown.

Other Catholic writers have also had the courage to speak out, and in strong terms. The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit, wrote recently that “What needs to die is a clerical culture that long fostered power, privilege and secrecy. What needs to die is an attitude that had placed concern about a priest’s reputation above that of a child’s welfare.”

A professor and former priest, Anthony T. Padovano, questioned the hierarchical structure church, as well. He said that “True repentance demands the reform of the church’s structure of domination and laws of privilege. It requires the dismissal of all those who use children for their own gratification. It is possible to make the church a safe zone, a sanctuary where abuses of life and power become almost impossible. Such a possibility exists in a collegial church, not in a monarchical church; in a church of all God’s People, not in a hierarchical church with no accountability to those it serves. The church cannot be truly reformed in the form and under the legal code it now embraces.”

Padovano added that what leads to child abuse in the church has “something to do with domination, a sense that a child is property, an assumption brought to later development in the definition of lay people as inferior. A culture of privilege and elitism fosters the waste of life and the use of others for the sake of those in authority. The deep desire of some church leaders for deference and absurd titles of respect, for flamboyant attire and unquestioned obedience, creates an environment for the exploitation of the child and the denigration of the laity.”

The two oldest Christian churches, the Catholic and the Orthodox (they were one church until the “Great Schism” of 1054) like to say that change in the church only comes slowly over the centuries. Scholars have told us that the abuse issue has been part of Christian history since the days of the early church. For popes and patriarchs and other religious leaders to now be questioned and for their institutions to change must be a “culture shock” in itself, especially in the context of “24-7” news cycles.

One can hope that the former cozy relationships between bishops and police chiefs, for instance, and bishops and the press are history. There was a time, not all that long ago, when a bishop would call an editor and a negative story about the church would not be printed. Growing up in Massachusetts, I can recall that the Boston press and others would tread very lightly about any negative church stories, if they ran them at all. But, with the 2002 news explosion and subsequent revelations, it would appear now that there’s no turning back and that the churches must enter the new era of “transparency and accountability” to the public.

It may indeed be naïve to think that positive changes may result from the pope’s and the archbishop’s statements, but one must continue to work toward making such changes possible. The pope’s statement about justice and the archbishop’s about culture would not have been made had it not been for the pressure that has been applied.

The pope and the archbishop did not speak in some vacuum.

There must not be any let-up in this pressure. To insure that such abuse “never happens again”, what has been termed a “philosophy of persistence” should be adopted by lay-people seeking changes in their places of worship. They cannot trust the churches to police themselves. They must provide a watch-dog function as part of the “regulation” and “oversight” of this institution.

Let us not forget that, ultimately, we are talking about the rape of children, for God’s sake.(citation)

Do you know what a systemic process of abuse and oppression, which is justified/motivated by a cultural practice of corruption is called? The Lucifer Effect.

Overall motivations to justify the system

Individuals often justify the existing system, embracing the status quo, to fulfill various motivations (see Jost & Hunyady, 2005;; Jost, Ledgerwood, & Hardin, 2008). First, individuals embrace the prevailing system to instill a sense of certainty and stability. Second, the prevailing system can also confer a feeling of safety. Third, the prevailing system can also facilitate the formation of relationships;; that is, the social system provides opportunities or structures that enable individuals to develop relationships. Accordingly, when the system is justified, and these motives are thus fulfilled, anxiety, fear, and uncertainty tend to diminish in particular contexts (Jost & Hunyady, 2002;; Jost, Wakslak, & Tyler, 2008).(citation)

Philip Zimbardo shows how people become monsters ... or heroes
Philip Zimbardo knows how easy it is for nice people to turn bad. In this talk, he shares insights and graphic unseen photos from the Abu Ghraib trials. Then he talks about the flip side: how easy it is to be a hero, and how we can rise to the challenge.

Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer; nothing is more difficult than to understand him.
- Fyodor Dostoyevsky
6078 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 12/31/11
went into a whole different direction with that.
Seems like you're obsessed with religion. Has
nothing to do with me. If you weren't exactly like
the people you hate, you would see that I'm more
spiritual than dogmatic and work towards a free system of faith.
The catholic priest tragedy is exactly why we need to talk about this and deal
with it. Imagine how many people would have been
kept from getting hurt if we had dealt with this sooner.


There's a difference between healing people's
hurts and accepting the practice. Many resources
have suggested that child abusers were abused.
So, why continue the cycle? I've read the report on how
porn reduced rape and etc. It is interesting but there's
some conflicting reports (and definitely not enough to win
medical acceptance) The political upheaval in that
one is the main variable.

I think you're beating the dress part of the conversation to death.
Is it fair enough to agree that we don't want to see 10 year olds in leather?

http://www.mentalhealthlibrary.info/library/porn/pornlds/pornldsauthor/links/victorcline/porneffect.htm

And no, you're twisting it around "I care about our society and want to prevent people from getting hurt."
(which is debatable in that there is a case for a reduction, but there's also a case for escalation)
(also if you read the very first post I include the pediaphile in this too)
to "you're a authatarion that wants kids to dress in burlap sacks" or "I can't believe you would even mention
something like this. It's totally non-accepting and judgemental."

I understand healing and how it works. There is some case for having a release valve; but that's all it is
a release valve. It does nothing to address the issue or the individual (btw when you validate an alcoholic by
saying it's ok to have a drink you are really saying "it's ok to be addicted to this i know it hurts you, but don't worry
most people can drink and it doesn't hurt them at all). Some might even say that by accepting it we are encouraging the cycle.

One thing learned from an old man. Imagine yourself twenty years older, looking back do you still agree with your position of
today?




2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/31/11 , edited 12/31/11

silentavian wrote:

went into a whole different direction with that.
Seems like you're obsessed with religion. Has
nothing to do with me. If you weren't exactly like
the people you hate, you would see that I'm more
spiritual than dogmatic and work towards a free system of faith.
The catholic priest tragedy is exactly why we need to talk about this and deal
with it. Imagine how many people would have been
kept from getting hurt if we had dealt with this sooner.


There's a difference between healing people's
hurts and accepting the practice. Many resources
have suggested that child abusers were abused.
So, why continue the cycle? I've read the report on how
porn reduced rape and etc. It is interesting but there's
some conflicting reports (and definitely not enough to win
medical acceptance) The political upheaval in that
one is the main variable.


I think you're beating the dress part of the conversation to death.
Is it fair enough to agree that we don't want to see 10 year olds in leather?

http://www.mentalhealthlibrary.info/library/porn/pornlds/pornldsauthor/links/victorcline/porneffect.htm

And no, you're twisting it around "I care about our society and want to prevent people from getting hurt."
(which is debatable in that there is a case for a reduction, but there's also a case for escalation)
(also if you read the very first post I include the pediaphile in this too)
to "you're a authatarion that wants kids to dress in burlap sacks" or "I can't believe you would even mention
something like this. It's totally non-accepting and judgemental."


I understand healing and how it works. There is some case for having a release valve; but that's all it is
a release valve. It does nothing to address the issue or the individual (btw when you validate an alcoholic by
saying it's ok to have a drink you are really saying "it's ok to be addicted to this i know it hurts you, but don't worry
most people can drink and it doesn't hurt them at all). Some might even say that by accepting it we are encouraging the cycle.

One thing learned from an old man. Imagine yourself twenty years older, looking back do you still agree with your position of
today?






There is no end to your stupidity, is there? First off, the document I cited was from a University, and not only a University, but a Public University and published in an established, Peer-Reviewed Academic Journal, Archives of Sexual Behaviour, whereas your site is definitely a partisan site, seeing as the words 'Latter-Day Saints'(LDS) are plastered everywhere. This, of course, is from a group of people who thinks that Homosexuality is a mental disorder, which, I would imagine, is something that you yourself accept. You say that pornography is an addiction, and we should not feed into it- not all use of pornography is addiction, pornography is not a drug, and, while pornography addiction is officially stated to exist, its existence is controversial and debatable. You have managed to have three fallacies bundled up in one statement. But say it is an addiction- certainly, there is a consistent correlation between the increase of pornography addiction, and the decrease of sex crimes, would you rather there be more porn addicts or more sexual deviants? Further, you say you want to heal these poor souls, lead away by the wicked images of sex- that you are trying to heal them, rather than perpetrate it further, the poor sods. Stop the cycle, of sexual abuse, that starts from their abuse and leads a grown life of abusing. That is completely irrelevant- it does not have anything to do with either porn or girls dressing up as they will. If they are highly susceptible to child molestation, then clothing does not matter.

Then you ask if I agree that allowing kids to dress in leather is appalling. No, not at all. I am not at all appalled, nor do I care enough to be appalled. I am wholly indifferent to ten years olds dress in leather, or in any clothing you find revolting, but, I am only concern in that they should have the right to dress however they want unless there is good reason to abridge those rights, which there isn't any. It doesn't, as I have shown, somehow make Child Molesters target them for their sexual deviency any more than if they dress in regular clothing, it does not somehow load emotional burdens that they are not ready for, it does not do any of the horrible things you promise that it would do. You find their clothing sexual, and I have said before, it is you who applies the value 'sexual' on the clothing, rather than it being inherent in the clothing itself. If a man finds the world in completely darkness, with not a whit of light anywhere to lead him through, it would be foolish of him to curse the world for its sudden darkness, because it is not that the world somehow lost its lumination, but that the man, himself, lost his sight- he is fallaciously blaming the world for his own condition, just as you are fallaciously blaming the world for your condition.

Afterwards, you say you care for society, and want to protect people from getting hurt, and to do this, you decide the most efficient method is to impose your moral judgement upon everyone, and you accuse me of making you seem like an authoritarian for it. You are authoritarian. You want to restrict the all rights of children because, according to you, they are not mature enough to make their own decision, including their right to dress up however they please- in Oriental Theocracies, the same logic is applied by the men upon the women, and in Third World Dictatorships, that idea is applied upon all people by the leader. Truth is, you do not care for society or for anybody's health and weal, and, if it were not so, it would mean you actually hate the society and want to work ill upon the people. Truth is, if you do not want the the children to grow and mature mentally, and assume body matures with mind, you would cast them off to the world as fresh and unsuited to the world as if they were still a child and leave them prey to every infirmy and ill that the world may wrought upon them. Truth is, if you put your values upon everyone else, you are stymying intellectual freedom, which destorys a society based entirely upon that value. No, you do not understand healing, I doubt you understand anything at all, you may be more aged than I am, you may be superior in that respect, but, as age does not produce mental maturity, age likewise does not make a man any more wise. If I were to age twenty years, I may change my views, but that does not make my current views any more wrong, and that would not make you any less right.
Posted 12/31/11 , edited 1/1/12

silentavian wrote:

went into a whole different direction with that.
Seems like you're obsessed with religion. Has
nothing to do with me. If you weren't exactly like
the people you hate, you would see that I'm more
spiritual than dogmatic and work towards a free system of faith.

The catholic priest tragedy is exactly why we need to talk about this and deal
with it.
Imagine how many people would have been
kept from getting hurt if we had dealt with this sooner.



Do learn to use multiple-quotations function on this forum, whenever you're trying to address multiple post. You're inconsistent with your reply as is, please don't make this unnecessary difficult. That said however...

You're not being "spiritual" whenever you're accusing someone being "obsessed" and "hateful" without sufficient justification. So you can stop your passive-aggressive behaviors, 'cause you're just sabotaging the process with more stonewalling. I'm a neurologically functional moral agent, who's capable of feeling regrets. That's the Yin and Yen of human morality which I embrace, but you're desperately trying to numb it.

And I think there's evidence -- and it's not the only reason this evidence exists, but I think it's a huge cause -- we are the most in-debt, obese, addicted and medicated adult cohort in U.S. history. The problem is -- and I learned this from the research -- that you cannot selectively numb emotion. You can't say, here's the bad stuff. Here's vulnerability, here's grief, here's shame, here's fear, here's disappointment. I don't want to feel these. I'm going to have a couple of beers and a banana nut muffin. I don't want to feel these. And I know that's knowing laughter. I hack into your lives for a living. God. You can't numb those hard feelings without numbing the other affects, our emotions. You cannot selectively numb. So when we numb those, we numb joy, we numb gratitude, we numb happiness. And then we are miserable, and we are looking for purpose and meaning, and then we feel vulnerable, so then we have a couple of beers and a banana nut muffin. And it becomes this dangerous cycle.

One of the things that I think we need to think about is why and how we numb. And it doesn't just have to be addiction. The other thing we do is we make everything that's uncertain certain. Religion has gone from a belief in faith and mystery to certainty. I'm right, you're wrong. Shut up. That's it. Just certain. The more afraid we are, the more vulnerable we are, the more afraid we are. This is what politics looks like today. There's no discourse anymore. There's no conversation. There's just blame. You know how blame is described in the research? A way to discharge pain and discomfort. We perfect. If there's anyone who wants their life to look like this, it would be me, but it doesn't work. Because what we do is we take fat from our butts and put it in our cheeks. Which just, I hope in 100 years, people will look back and go, "Wow."
---- from "Brene Brown: The power of vulnerability"
Please do follow-through with the entire 20+ minutes of presentation, no more stupid pick and choose your way out of this jam.

Moreover, you didn't address the unhealthy sexual repression within the Christian dogmas. You're making up superficial rhetoric like "a free system of faith", but what that really means is you pick and choose which of God's rules you wanna follow. Now is that how you respect your supernatural and metaphysical superior? It's more like you're trying to deal with your own equal. And that is rather pathetic for a person of the faith.
6078 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 1/1/12
LMAO, it's you who try to control people with your words, it's you who brought
up Christianity in this conversation and it's you who chooses to be hateful.
You also choose not to stay on topic, rather constantly bring the conversation
back to a topic you love to hate; religion.


I see you're trying to hold the dogmas in place so you can continue to hate them.
Try again, even though you only have one tactic, hate.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.