6
   

When has religion irked you personally and why?

 
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2004 09:48 pm
akaMechsmith wrote:
Craven, Specifically to your post. Please note and accept that I have never denied that "abuse" exists. It does, probably in all societies.


I'm not talking about society in general, but rather the case of the serial rapist whose harm you have denied.

Quote:
Sorry-- "The shame is part of the abuse". Yes it certainly is, and with it is societies convivance (unwitting probably, unthinking surely) in shaming the girl.

"IF" and a big IF nakedness was not deemed shameful by society the public spanking would not "harmed" the girl as much. This is an example of "society" making a bad thing (the spanking) worse.


And IF (big if) people didn't die from gunshot wounds, shooting someone would be less severe of a crime.

Quote:
The mere fact that a pediophile can use many of the same arguements does not mean that my arguements are invalid when used in support of objectivity.


It certainly doesn't. And I did not mean to use or imply any "guilt by association" arguments.

My comparison of your arguments to that of pedophiles is to place my accusation that you support pedophilia in context. It's evidence that you support pedophilia, not an argument intended to address the validity of the arguments you use to support it.

Quote:
"The act (of spanking) was performed in reality" Which I may point out has been determined for us by the Abrahamic religions which have a view of reality which has NO correspondence with either reality or fact.


You have no idea what society this occured in. Again, quit pulling things out of the air.

Quote:
P.S. "FORCIBLE" rape was not shown in the case of the boys. It was only alleged by Wilso, whose penchant for overstatement has already been documented on this thread.


Bullshit. He showed you articles that referenced the serial forcible rape. Now sure, you didn't get to watch the rape yourself, but the fact that a court had convicted for forcible rape was a fact brought to your attention at least twice that I witnessed.

Quote:

Personally I suspect it was more of a ritualistic type ceremony, and without societies approbriation would have damaged the boys not a wit.(other than public health considerations)


The serial rapist did try to tell the boys that it was a religious ritual to keep them silent.

Do you see ritualistic rape as justified? Rememer you try to question the competence of Australian law based on a ruling about "traditional" statutory rape.

You really need to get your facts straight. Jackie Pascoe Jamilmira (the aboriginal rapist) is currently incarcerated and his sentence is only less severe because the girl refused to speak to prosecutors.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2004 10:08 pm
Craven, One more post. You talk faster than I can.

One at a time from the top. I can't persuade my quoter to break things up.

I SAID "What MAY have been a pleasant experience" (note "MAY")

I am not supporting pedophilia. I am supporting objectivity.

I wasn't talking about your (Cravens) embarrassment but rather Adrians and dlowans.

Sorry it's not a red herring. It's very important.

Sorry, ANY 60 something male who is sexually stimulated (gets it up) for a boy isn't quite right in the head. ie mentally ill.

The court I question. Go to your "legal forum" or Bill Clintons famous quote " I did not have sex with that woman" despite the fact that she had his semen on her coat. Bill is a lawyer, a Rhodes scholar, and a past president of the United States. If he cannot define sex I'll be damned if I can.

Perp bears some blame, no doubt about it. Never denied it.

Seduced-- Of course not. Thats where we run into "statuary anal rape"

I did mention the perp. I suggested that," if guilty of FORCIBLE anal rape he should be castigated, perhaps terminally". (thats a polite way of saying executed)

"On what do you base----" First--- The priest had been transferred from other jurisdictions for similar behavior. Second, it is the responsibility of a superviser to be aware (check up on his employees). Third it is the responsibility of a human to protect children. (he should have at least tried counseling and should have consigned him to an adult monastary)

You said "I don't believe this is true". Look it up in your "legal forum" Trust me, it's there. I remember it from somewhere else also.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2004 10:58 pm
IF facts have come up that I am not aware of I possibly would change my stance. But based on what I was told, and considering the source, I preferred to defend objectivity.

That was sorely lacking!

The news clipping did not say (forcible). Wilso picked that out of thin air as far as I "KNOW".

One thing that I may remark on without rereading this whole "train wreck"
again is that at least two people picked up on my assertion that society is making a bad thing worse. I "believe" that society makes it worse by it's generally Abrahamic (fantastic) view of life, sexuality, and physics generally. We probably will never get child abuse stopped. But by allowing someones fantasies to regulate our behavior as a society it will probably not get any better.

Remarking on your assertion that I did not know what society the girl or you were raised in. Yes I did, All western society is Abrahamic. Everything from Pakistan to Prussia, South Africa to Siberia, and Argentina to Alaska has been influenced by the guy who thought to serve his god by lopping off foreskins. The differences between that world view and reality is responsible for much of the worlds problems. Including the one that has entertained us here for the last couple of months. Of course I am by no means assured that the Chinese, Japanese, and Indian world view is any more accurate.

At least four other persons have posted (including you, inadvertantly perhaps) agreement with some of my points without assuming that I was supporting pediophelia.

That was (is) an erroneous assumption on your part, and perhaps incompetence on mine.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2004 10:59 pm
akaMechsmith wrote:
Craven, One more post. You talk faster than I can.


Same here, I have to go out in a bit.

Quote:
One at a time from the top. I can't persuade my quoter to break things up.


IF you need help with that you can start a thread on the testing forum and I can try to teach you how (it's very easy).

Quote:
I SAID "What MAY have been a pleasant experience" (note "MAY")


They were sufficiently disturbed afterwards to press charges. They didn't seem "pleased".

Quote:
I am not supporting pedophilia. I am supporting objectivity.


Actually you have directly and explicitly stated your support for pedophilia in the past.

But hey, I welcome this development. Very Happy

Quote:
I wasn't talking about your (Cravens) embarrassment but rather Adrians and dlowans.


I think you are projecting again.

Quote:
Sorry, ANY 60 something male who is sexually stimulated (gets it up) for a boy isn't quite right in the head. ie mentally ill.


You contradict yourself again. If it weren't for "society's illogical prohibitions" it wouldn't be considered ill at all.

This is why that society argument you use is flawed. It's like saying "if this weren't harmful it wouldn't have been harmful".

Here's a parody. If women did not deem strangers grabbing their breasts in an elevator to be inappropriate the act would be less harmful.

No duh!

Sure, if they dropped that "illogical" distiction between, say, those fleshy mounds and their hands (that are grappled and shaken frequently) the act would indeed be different.

But if I grapple another woman's breasts in the elevator I won't get much play out of the "gee, if society didn't have a hangup about breasts" argument.

Quote:
The court I question. Go to your "legal forum" or Bill Clintons famous quote " I did not have sex with that woman" despite the fact that she had his semen on her coat. Bill is a lawyer, a Rhodes scholar, and a past president of the United States. If he cannot define sex I'll be damned if I can.


I didn't ask you to define it. It was already defined.

Remember, this isn't about hypotheticals. This is about reality. Unless you are trying to obfuscate the distinction of anal sex as sex then this is irrelevant.

As to the "legal forum" case you keep citing I'll get to that again (addressed it in my last post).

Quote:
Perp bears some blame, no doubt about it. Never denied it.


Excellent. Laughing

Quote:
Seduced-- Of course not. Thats where we run into "statuary anal rape"


Please clarify.

Quote:
I did mention the perp. I suggested that," if guilty of FORCIBLE anal rape he should be castigated, perhaps terminally". (thats a polite way of saying executed)


You are, indeed, correct. That was a brainfart of mine. I recall your statement very clearly.

But let's be fair. I remember your statement and you did not say "forcible" at all. You said that if they can be shown to be "harmed". And when the case was cited to you in which a court determined said harm in a series of rapes you continued to say that Wilso had not illustrated any harm.

Again, your "harmless rape" theory is simply absurd. This wasn't even the are statutory rape grounds you occasionally cling to. It was a serial rapist.

So yeah, you said that if it could be shown to be "harmfull" (not "forcible") he merited punishment. But then you proceed to deny harm in absurd and obsessive ways.

I'll repeat the question, what would constitute harm to you?

Quote:
"On what do you base----" First--- The priest had been transferred from other jurisdictions for similar behavior. Second, it is the responsibility of a superviser to be aware (check up on his employees). Third it is the responsibility of a human to protect children. (he should have at least tried counseling and should have consigned him to an adult monastary)


Hold on, earlier you criticized society for it's "illogical prohibitions" in matters such as letting the minors bathe nude with a priest.

Then you cited it as an illogical societal sensitivity, despite the fact that, as dlowan said, it illustrates a worrisome lack of boundaries.

Now you want said boundaries to be quite different.

Please make up your mind.

Quote:
You said "I don't believe this is true". Look it up in your "legal forum" Trust me, it's there. I remember it from somewhere else also.


I know the case quite well, far better than you do. And as I said, you are wrong. Australia does not consider it "perfectly legal to take a girl, physically restrain her and make her submit to penile-vaginal insertion" as you alledge.

There was an uproar about a judge's comments but the perp (Jackie Pascoe Jamilmira) is currently doing time for that rape.

Not nearly as much as he deserves but the girl refused to talk to prosecutors and drastically weakened their case.

So again, I don't mind a difference of opinion at all. But please get your facts straight if they are to serve as the basis for the justification of said opinions.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2004 11:16 pm
akaMechsmith wrote:
IF facts have come up that I am not aware of I possibly would change my stance. But based on what I was told, and considering the source, I preferred to defend objectivity.

That was sorely lacking!


Wilso simply pasted a news article. You do not even remember what agency it was. Laughing

So tell me about the objections to the news source that you can't name. Laughing And skip the ad hominems about Wilso, baiting him is irrelevant to the news article being discussed.

Quote:
The news clipping did not say (forcible). Wilso picked that out of thin air as far as I "KNOW".


And again, your objection was not "forcible" but harm. And subsequent articles did, indeed, reference cases of "forcible" rape.

Quote:
One thing that I may remark on without rereading this whole "train wreck"
again is that at least two people picked up on my assertion that society is making a bad thing worse. I "believe" that society makes it worse by it's generally Abrahamic (fantastic) view of life, sexuality, and physics generally. We probably will never get child abuse stopped. But by allowing someones fantasies to regulate our behavior as a society it will probably not get any better.


Perhaps, and I think if we learn to love each other more and kill each other less this would be a better society.

I also think that has little to do with the validity of the perp's acts.

Quote:
Remarking on your assertion that I did not know what society the girl or you were raised in. Yes I did, All western society is Abrahamic.


Fair enough, but you do not know if it occured in western society either.

It didn't.

Quote:
At least four other persons have posted (including you, inadvertantly perhaps) agreement with some of my points without assuming that I was supporting pediophelia.


I agree with many of your points herein. It's not the end of the world.

My disagreements with you center on two things:

Refusing to cede that harm was caused in several clear cases of serial rapists.

Minimizing the possible harms caused through justification and rationalization (i.e. "illogical prohibitions").

Quote:
That was (is) an erroneous assumption on your part, and perhaps incompetence on mine.


Not really, first of all despite your frequent incoherence and inability to follow a discussion (or even extract the relevant information from the articles about the cases being described) I alledge that there is more.

More than just the attention-seeking baiting as well.

Under those negligible faults is a very real bias against the establishment of the harm caused by the serial rapists you champion. There is a clear desire to minimize and rationalize the harm caused by rape by saying it is an "illogical prohibition" and calling it "pleasurable".

That was not incoherence. You repeated that the rape of the children may have been "harmless sexual activity". And that "society's illogical prohibitions" were to blame.

So again I ask. Do you envision a situation in which having sex with an infant is "harmless sexual activity"?

I don't think you do. If only because the infant's genitalia would be savagely damaged.

It implies that even for you there is a age-based line.

Where is that line for you? If this is all about "erroneous assumptions" feel free to clarify what you consider to be "harmless sexual activity" with pre-pubescent children.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2004 11:20 pm
Religious beliefs do 'irk' me. I believe they are false, and even more, patently ridiculous. These false beliefs profoundly affect my society and my life. It is in my best interests that these beliefs do not spread.

Peoples actions are informed, to varying degrees, by their religious beliefs. Those actions have influence on how we interact with one another and on the behavior of future generations. It is perfectly within reason for a person who rejects the religious grounding of people's actions to point out what flaws they see.

People's faith has a profound impact on others. It informs how they live their life: how they raise their children, how they approach ethical and political questions, how they spend their income, what they think is worthy of investigation, and so on.

Indirectly, these religious beliefs affect our entire society, including my everyday life. Case in point: George Bush and his evangelical fundamentalism.

It's a concern when all these subtle and pervasive beliefs and consequent behaviors are based in such implausible things.

To be fair, the vast majority of people don't really understand the technical reasons why they should believe electrons exist. The absolutely horrific reasoning of Joe Believer concerns me, but is not unique only to religious belief. It's the fact that, ultimately, the entire system of common theistic belief is irredeemably flawed, yet informs so much of how people think that bothers me. I have reason to desire religious belief not spread.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2004 09:03 pm
Now we are getting somewhere, hopefully.
To Cravens post Jan 16 12:16 AM

Who pressed charges, The children, The caregivers, the State, or the Church.
Don't think that I ever supported pediophelia, but I don't support wild accusations either.

Remark about 60 something male.
Whether it's ill or wierd doesn't much matter. The mating with a same sex child once past the age of sexual experimentation is abnormal. I don't think that a "normal" (no matter how we abuse the word) 60 year old male would be sexually stimulated by young male buttocks. Hell, it's difficult enough using the evolutionarily approved tools. :wink:

Statuary, A child cannot give consent to a sexual act with an adult. Thats why we don't KNOW if they were harmed. Any sexual contact is deemed to be harmful legally in most places. But IF the boys thought it was ritualistic then no guilt would have been percieved by the boys and any harm would have been physical. No worse than a football game.

What would constitute harm to me, or what is my definition of harm.
IMO it would be any action causing (note "causing") any mental or physical damage. Torn anus, broken arm, or psychological damages such as scornful defamation, (belittling) scareing, amongst many others.
BUT this is the point where IMO we need a subjective standard. What's harmful in one context may not be considered harmful in another. (remember my football analogy Smile ?)

"Please make up your mind"--- I wish I could, it's a complex question (where to draw the line, that is) but IMO it's one that needs to be drawn. I am reasonably certain that somewhere between the Iranian Ayatollahs and the "man-boy love society" There exists a standard of behavior that all reasonably normal persons could agree with.

"I am Wrong"--Perhaps but it looks from here (too far away) as though there was some trouble deciding whether she was raped or was ceremonially deflowered. If the judge was confused what hope for us Question

"It didn't" (happen in Western society) I would have expected it in an Abrahamic Society. I don't know much about the others.


"My disagreements center on two things----
No I was trying to stick to the case of the anally assaulted boys. The others I mentioned were merely peripheral, brought out in an attempt to illustrate the point of differing societal standards. Columns full of them.

Not trying to minimize the "possible" harms. I am trying to point out how we (society) tend to make things worse due to accepting a fantastic view of sexuality and objectivity. IF it's a "bad thing" we make it worse and IF it's a "harmless" thing we make it bad.


I am going to paraphrase one of my earlier posts.
There are good and adequate health reasons to censure the priest. It is not necessary to determine good or evil (That IMO is too subjective for any court to be able to determine but a court may be able to determine "harm" but frankly I am not absolutely sure about that either.) Confused
The movie "The Good Mother" has this as the subject. Worth seeing (IMO)

Perhaps I have been incoherent, I had no intention of being inconsistent. And I did want to pull some chains. Smile (make people think about all the contributing factors involved in child abuse). Perhaps not limited to only sexual abuse.

Perhaps a thread asking to define sexual abuse vis-a-vis children----women----Jews---Moslems---Christians---Athiests etc. would prove illuminating.

Have a good evening,
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2004 09:06 pm
ILZ

I have noticed that it is not only the theistic amongst us who "believe" more than they can show to be true or factual.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2004 09:21 pm
akaMechsmith wrote:
ILZ

I have noticed that it is not only the theistic amongst us who "believe" more than they can show to be true or factual.


Hence my comment:

"To be fair, the vast majority of people don't really understand the technical reasons why they should believe electrons exist. The absolutely horrific reasoning of Joe Believer concerns me, but is not unique only to religious belief."
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2004 09:37 pm
akaMechsmith wrote:

Don't think that I ever supported pediophelia, but I don't support wild accusations either.


To deny harm is to support it. While you do not deny the existential harm you make impossible criteria for it and question the harm in cases where there is little reason to do so.

Put it this way. Say you know a woman who was raped. What's your first reaction? Do you say "hold on there, let's reserve judgement on the rapist. I do not KNOW if you were harmed. Were you?"

You gave the serial rapist all the benefit of the doubt and when it came to the victims you help up the impossibility of certainty.

Quote:
Remark about 60 something male.
Whether it's ill or wierd doesn't much matter. The mating with a same sex child once past the age of sexual experimentation is abnormal. I don't think that a "normal" (no matter how we abuse the word) 60 year old male would be sexually stimulated by young male buttocks. Hell, it's difficult enough using the evolutionarily approved tools. :wink:


Dunno, to me "ill" is relevant to the issue of culpability.

Quote:
Statuary, A child cannot give consent to a sexual act with an adult. Thats why we don't KNOW if they were harmed. Any sexual contact is deemed to be harmful legally in most places. But IF the boys thought it was ritualistic then no guilt would have been percieved by the boys and any harm would have been physical. No worse than a football game.


I disagree that being told that your rape is ritualistic will, as a matter of course, relegate all harm to the physical realm.

Quote:
What would constitute harm to me, or what is my definition of harm.
IMO it would be any action causing (note "causing") any mental or physical damage. Torn anus, broken arm, or psychological damages such as scornful defamation, (belittling) scareing, amongst many others.
BUT this is the point where IMO we need a subjective standard. What's harmful in one context may not be considered harmful in another. (remember my football analogy Smile ?)


I agree that harm is a subjective issue. But can you give me any example of "harmless" statutory rape of pre-pubescent children?

I can understand saying that the statutory rape of an 18-year old by a 19-year old might not be harmful. But do give an example with an 8-year old*. I do not evision this.

We were discussing a serial rapist whose victims were around 10 years old.

Quote:
"Please make up your mind"--- I wish I could, it's a complex question (where to draw the line, that is) but IMO it's one that needs to be drawn. I am reasonably certain that somewhere between the Iranian Ayatollahs and the "man-boy love society" There exists a standard of behavior that all reasonably normal persons could agree with.


Ok, but you said the rape of the pre-pubescent boys (as young as 10 and 8) might have been harmless.

If you can't draw the line, can you at least give an example of a situation in which anally raping an 8-year old is "harmless and pleasurable sexual activity"?

Quote:
"I am Wrong"--Perhaps but it looks from here (too far away) as though there was some trouble deciding whether she was raped or was ceremonially deflowered. If the judge was confused what hope for us Question


She was raped. But the conviction on mere statutory grounds had the complication of the "traditional" values.

The girl refused to speak to prosecutors. That's what really complicated the judge's job. Nevertheless the man is iincarcerated for that act.

We, however do not have the same limitations as the judge. Frankly I think our judgement is an easier task.

Quote:
"It didn't" (happen in Western society) I would have expected it in an Abrahamic Society. I don't know much about the others.


Such things happen in any culture aka. I think you place too much value on culture in this equation and not enough on human nature and our base instincts.

Quote:
"My disagreements center on two things----
No I was trying to stick to the case of the anally assaulted boys. The others I mentioned were merely peripheral, brought out in an attempt to illustrate the point of differing societal standards. Columns full of them.


Well the examples were, in fact, contradictory. For example, defending a priest who bathes nude with the boys but at teh same time faulting parents for allowing any priest access to their children are conflicting boundaries.

On the one hand when the boundaries as the parents see it has been crossed you minimize the situation.

On the other you fault parents for merely allowing their children to socialize with priests.

Quote:
Not trying to minimize the "possible" harms. I am trying to point out how we (society) tend to make things worse due to accepting a fantastic view of sexuality and objectivity. IF it's a "bad thing" we make it worse and IF it's a "harmless" thing we make it bad.


You made more sense when you talked of the sensational nature of sex. Sure, the sensational nature of sex can cause more harm. I suspect you are trying to say something similar here so I won't nitpick.

Quote:
Perhaps I have been incoherent, I had no intention of being inconsistent. And I did want to pull some chains. Smile (make people think about all the contributing factors involved in child abuse). Perhaps not limited to only sexual abuse.


Well, in the chain-jerking process I allege that you have contructed some indefensible arguments.

If you have been hyperbolic you should retract (as you did, somewhat, with teh football analogy).

I've long maintained that I agree with you on several points but there are also very clear points of difference.

For example, I am perfectly willing to cede that some legal definitions of rape are not harmful. Sometimes they are even common. The laws exist to deal with the cases in which a custodian's will is contrary to the act (and the custodian is tasked with preventing harm) and for the clearly harmful or compromising cases.

Now that's a horse of a different color.

What you did was argue that a serial rapist whose victims were prebubescent might simply ahve enganged in harmless and pleasurable acts with them.

So my oft repeated question is very relevant to determine if this is something you want to retract.

I do not ask of you to draw the line anymore. But to simply illustrate an example of a harmless statutory rape (anal) of an 8 year old boy by an old man.

By repeatedly giving the rapist the benefit of the doubt you frequently alluded to the possibility that some of the statutory rape was harmless.

So given all the lateral thinking you can muster, please cite an example of how a series of pre-pubescent rapes can have harmless occurances.

No line needed, just an example of the possibility that you repeatedly touted.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2004 09:39 pm
Craven, Thanks for the post. I just responded but it went into cyberspace. I'll try again tomorrow.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2004 09:40 pm
OOP's I found it Embarrassed

It could have been considered ritualistic.
The priest could have had a "pencil dick".
No penetration was or is shown to have happened due to the "statuary" part.
The priest could have been a "premature ejaculater".

If the boys were in a club and were persuaded that such an act, whatever it was, was necessary for whatever reason then they would not necessarily have felt "harmed". In this case, which seems possible, the harm would have been realized only when the larger society got wind of it.

And if in a worst case scenario the boys were held down and anally penetrated with attendent rectal damage and damage to their psyche. But I doubt this happened as apparently this was a club type deal and serious pain and physical damage known to other club members would most likely have had an adverse result on the the membership.
"Damned if I want to be in your club if the priest rams his dick up your ass" ( hypothetical naturally but thats what you asked for).

I do take minor umbrage with your assertion "to deny harm is to support it".

IMO it is not quite the same to ask if any harm (physically-mentally) befell the boys as to support an act which probably would result in harm (physical) or to deny that an action will most likely result in physical damage.

Re "the hypothetical woman who was raped".
It is not sufficient to accept the womens assertion. I would ask for further testimony.
Was she forcibly assulted? Did she tell him NO. Were they previously naked together alone in his bed or hers. Were they drinking together. (I am assuming adults here) When did she determine she was raped. Before, during? afterwards?when she woke up?when the check bounced?after she talked to her girlfriend? her lawyer? BUT I would not jail a man or a priest without finding out a little more.

"Ill is relevant to culpability" My point exactly.

"Being told your rape is ritualistic" Society condones ritual circumcision. The boys society (club) could easily have condoned ritual rape. What's the difference? We still are damaging children. Ritual disfigurement is acceptable, ritual cannibalism is acceptable, ritual debasement is acceptable. This is why I think that the priest was probably getting away with it as far as the boys were concerned.

Yes, example are contradictory. When I was growing up (western Mass.) we were not allowed to wear swimsuits in the "Boy's Club" pool. I suspect sanitary reasons and an ongoing dermatology campaign (head lice etc) may have had something to do with it. This was in 1948 to about 1954. The nudity was not offensive to me or to any of the other kids. All male. Thats the way it was in that society (the Boy's Club). The lifeguard wore a suit. Our impression was that that was his uniform, no big deal.
I don't remember anybody being sexually stimilated by the sight of fifty little butts in the pool, or even thinking it possible for that matter.

But I reiterate again. Unisex nudity in an appropriate setting is not necessarily culpable, nor even "sexy" except in an Abrahamic type setting.
Without the concept of sin even multi sex multi age nudity is quite innocent. Hence my comment to Phoenix about the "Naturist Societies". Yes, I have investigated that myself.

A place where I come up against many of the respondents of this thread is in the absolutism expressed.

As far as I am concerned the priest (the one who allegedly "raped")has not been shown to have harmed the boys. But society (Abrahamic, homophobic, genitaliaphobic, sexually repressed, fantastic and absolutic in nature) MAY have caused more damage to them that the priest ever did.

Maybe the priest did cause harm. If indeed he did and knew that he probably would (cause harm) I'd buy the rope to hang him. But frankly I figure he is sick and should simply be removed from children. But we need to use the rope on his supervisor. He has no excuse (IMO natch) for approving that behavior which is very contrary to what the parents had a right to expect. If the adherants to a homophobic religion send their children to a religious school then they have a right to expect homophobic behavior from their priests, despite the FACT that some religious orders have a certain attraction for those who have fantastic views as to sexuality. That IMO would account for the parents possibly being upset. They paid for homophobia and got homosexuality. Hell I'd be upset too if I sent my kids to a math school and they spent their time learning blessings and incantations Smile
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2004 06:45 am
"If the boys were in a club and were persuaded that such an act, whatever it was, was necessary for whatever reason then they would not necessarily have felt "harmed". In this case, which seems possible, the harm would have been realized only when the larger society got wind of it."

I cannot believe I am posting here again - but here goes.

What is your definition of "harm" aka?

I ask especially in the face of your amazing meanderings here:

"It could have been considered ritualistic.
The priest could have had a "pencil dick".
No penetration was or is shown to have happened due to the "statuary" part.
The priest could have been a "premature ejaculater"."

Please, a really full definition of what you consider harm to be in this sort of context.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2004 10:33 am
aka,

Can you please clarify something?

I asked for an example in which you think the statutory rape of an 8 year old is not wrong.

Do you really mean to assert that the size of the rapist's penis is a factor in your example? Or the time it takes him to ejaculate?

Seriously aka, I can support your position better than that. Even though I think the position is demented.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2004 08:24 pm
Remember now we are getting rather hypothetical, As if we weren't for the last month or so. So please read the "IFs"and "necessarilies".


If the boys thought that they were involved in a "club type ritual" and all the boys had a similar experience then they would not necessarily feel as though they had been harmed.

If the boys were not forcefully assulted and physically hurt, resulting in bruises, shame, and damaged body parts then they would not have been harmed within the context of their society (the "club").

The "shame" or "damage" or "harm" would have come only when the larger society discovered it. The boys, if left to themselves, would have probably chalked it up as a learning experience.

Once society discovered it (the activity) the dynamics of the situation would change. The boys (who may have liked the priest personally) became unwitting parties to a crime. At best they would have to bear witness against their friend, at worst they would bear a feeling of guilt for participating in an abominable activity. (Leviticus, I am sure you know the passage)

Due to the vagaries of laws, the sexual euphemisms of Abrahamic society, and the varying definitions of rape, all of which I have attempted to point out "We do not know IF the boys were harmed". I have offered a scenario in which the boys would not have felt harm, or been harmed.
I certainly don't know if that was the case in this specific instance but before I hung the priest I would find out a little more. IMO the most likely scenario is that he has a screw a little loose. He has violated any oaths, abdicated his responsibilities to the parents (homophobic or not, they hired him) and committed an abomination within the society (the Catholic Church) in which he and the boys live. That should be enough for the Church to at least remove him from children.

But as a member of a still larger society I need to KNOW if the boys were harmed in other than a religious context. I do not agree that the State should take it upon itself to enforce religious doctrine. Personally I have a sneaky suspicion that this is what happened but I hope that we could all agree that it is possible for a religious society to attempt to force its views upon society as a whole. Need examples? Very Happy

Craven, "Wrong" is a religious term in this context.
Yes a child can easily be wronged (violation of the laws of God) without necessarily being "harmed" or "damaged". A child can also be harmed without necessarily violating "Gods" laws. Child labor, failure to nuture, and to be made frightened of Gods, Devils and Hells immediately come to mind.

dlowan,
I think I understand your objections and I will admit that perhaps I am being too obscure. I hope the foregoing helps clear it up. It is a hard arguement to follow because of the far ranging effects of our concepts of legal, moral,scientific, governing, and religious societies all encompassed within the society of humankind.

I hope that if you are still interested enough to attempt to make my arguement ridiculous you'll stick around. (costs nothing to hope) If nothing else it will help me hone my arguement that Abrahamic societies can inflate any damages done to anybody past all reason. Often to the detriment of the victim and society itself. This may not be your goal Confused .

Not to change the subject but a little closer to home (Boston MA) Cardinal Law has allegedly shifted parish priests around when they were accused of pederastity. He has apparently shirked any notion that as the priests supervisor he bears some personal accountability. The diocese has paid money to settle claims for its employees wrongdoing but IMO a few years in the pokey would perhaps sharpen the whole religious hierarchies sensibilities. Admittedly that may make him a martyr to religious freedom Sad .

Another reiteration-- There are good and sufficient reasons to castigate the priest without going into religious matters of right or wrong. Public health reasons alone should suffice to remove him from a job with potential harm involved.

But before we (the State) jail him or execute him I think it only fair that we determine if any one was harmed by his actions as opposed to some members of society percieving harm mostly due to the homosexual nature of his activities acting upon a perhaps virulent case of homophobia.

In this often arcane world there are quite a few things that are legal but potentially harmful. There are also quite a few things that are illegal but potentially harmless. Just like the algebra, you can flip the equation any way you wish. I would like to see that equation bear some semblance to reality. If that reality includes ruptured anuses or fanciful speculations we should be aware of it.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2004 03:16 pm
aka,

Upon what do you base your assertion that had society not "dicovered" it the children would never "realize" harm?

I assert that that is false.

The children could easily grow up to learn that the preist had been deceptive about the "ritual" and that he had used them for personal gratification while using the "ritual" as a pretext.

I posit that they might be angry upon this discovery without having shared the information with others.

I posit that their "shame" does not have to be predicated upon disclosure of the even and that it can be a "perspnal shame".

Do you negate the existence of "personal shame"?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2004 04:13 pm
Does the expression "pissing into the wind" have significance for anybody in this thread? :wink:
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2004 04:20 pm
Okay, Frank, no need to belittle this 'serious' topic.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2004 04:24 pm
Frank,

If you are trying to suggest it's futile I understand.

But much of our debates are futile "pissing".

Entertainment is ultimately a different criteria.

I do this because I enjoy the discussion. I do not seek other material benefit or even a progression of the other guy's position. Only my entertainment and my own progression.

<shrugs>

Discussing politics seems futile to anyone who doesn't enjoy it.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2004 04:28 pm
And, pissing into the wind doesna 'ave such 'orrid consequences for we wimmins.....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/06/2022 at 02:40:23