No, because that's already been established. I think he's trying, in a cowardly, roundabout way, to equate pedophilia to homosexuality. As in, "asking society to be tolerant of homosexuals is the same as asking society to be tolerant of pedophiles."
Crazy things famous Christians say
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
No, because that's already been established. I think he's trying, in a cowardly, roundabout way, to equate pedophilia to homosexuality. As in, "asking society to be tolerant of homosexuals is the same as asking society to be tolerant of pedophiles."
Why don't you respond to the questions I'm actually asking, instead of responding to questions I'm not?
jan.
You have been answered already, as far as this thread is concerned - yet you repeat the question. If you need a more detailed answer to your linguistics questions, there is subforum devoted to that area of inquiry - try posting your linguistics questions there.jan said:
iceaura,
I have given definitions of the two words, and nobody objected to them.So their meanings are not in question (to me).
jan.
I have given definitions of the two words, and nobody objected to them.So their meanings are not in question (to me).
jan.
Balerion,
In order to answer those questions, more understanding of the terminologies used, is required.
jan.
In order to answer those questions, more understanding of the terminologies used, is required.
jan.
You're just ducking the questions, as usual.
I and others have already answered those questions. Why are you lying now? What does this dishonesty serve? Subterfuge isn't going to help you out of this pickle, Jan.
You don't believe them? You think people actually choose to be attracted to children?
Please test this theory. Go ahead and choose to be attracted to a child. Report back here with your findings.
That's your opinion.
But I've made the statement, so are you prepared to respond to it or not?
jan.
I'm not in a pickle, Balerion. I've simply asked a few questions. You claim that they have been answered, but I beg to differ.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, because it's obvious you cannot answer those questions, honestly.
jan.
1 It doesn't matter what I believe or think. I'm going off what they say.
2 Same as above.
3 Maybe you misunderstand. My point is that they claim to not have the ability to choose.
jan.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
You want the word to mean something else? Then start your own language and define it as such. Otherwise, accept what Billvon and Balerion have already told you. Words are defined by the culture they originate in. It is what it is.
Last edited:
what is the purpose of this thread jan?
seems to be going in circles..
seems to be going in circles..
Several people have answered the questions you've asked, Jan.
At this point, you're just trolling. Make your point or go away.
And you've been asked several times why any of this is important. As usual, you've refused to answer.
Again, I can only assume this is because you're just here to troll.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Ah. So you don't understand the terminology and can't answer. No worries; perhaps a dictionary would help in the future.
Bells
Staff member
Actually, the question doesn't remain for the greater majority.
An answer, well, an analogy, that does answer the remaining question for you:
Bill Blankshaen has a post up comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. Apparently two adults deciding who to consensually love is indistinguishable, in his mind, from adults who want to be allowed to have sex with kids who have yet to reach puberty.
Oh boy.
Yes…how will we ever respond to that argument? It’s so novel and new that 30 seconds on google probably wouldn’t have provided an answer.
Well Bill, we don’t allow adults to date children for the same reason we don’t allow adults to sell them cars or alcohol: they are not at a point where they have their faculties sufficiently in place to enter into contracts and to make adult decisions. They are more easily coerced, and thus need protection.
Adults are not like that. If straight adults are capable of deciding who they wish to date, why not gay adults? The obvious answer (obvious to everybody but Bill Blankshaen) is that the difference between children and gay adults is that…wait for it…gay adults are…adults. Crazy.
Which is fine. The problem is where you demand that everybody else to organize their lives your holy book.
Yes, what a bummer people are allowed to not let you and your faith lord over them.
Or based on what causes harm, which is objective truth. And it takes a lot of balls to be the guy in the conversation who believes in someone rising from the dead, walking on water, and a global flood to chastise others for lack of concern for objective truth.
Yes, without god telling Blankshaen that having sex with a child is bad, he’d be a-ok with it. It wouldn’t occur to him, on his own, that protecting children from being used by adults would be a concern. This is the man who presumes to call others immoral. It’s not a concern for harm that makes morality, but arbitrary rules handed down from god.
Oh boy.
No one’s being harmed. Not really. They can’t help it. Not really. And look at how many closet paedophiles may be out there — 1 in every 5 men! Maybe. Maybe that science is flawed. I’m just saying. And if two people love each other, who are we to say…. I would like to know how our culture can, let alone will, respond to such arguments.
Yes…how will we ever respond to that argument? It’s so novel and new that 30 seconds on google probably wouldn’t have provided an answer.
Well Bill, we don’t allow adults to date children for the same reason we don’t allow adults to sell them cars or alcohol: they are not at a point where they have their faculties sufficiently in place to enter into contracts and to make adult decisions. They are more easily coerced, and thus need protection.
Adults are not like that. If straight adults are capable of deciding who they wish to date, why not gay adults? The obvious answer (obvious to everybody but Bill Blankshaen) is that the difference between children and gay adults is that…wait for it…gay adults are…adults. Crazy.
For me, this issue is a simple one. As a Christian, I seek to see the world through the lens of our Creator’s written revelation.
Which is fine. The problem is where you demand that everybody else to organize their lives your holy book.
But we live in a post-Christian culture, one in which it is anathema to call upon a Biblical view of the word for fear of trampling someone else’s self-proclaimed right to autonomy. I don’t like it, but that’s where we are.
Yes, what a bummer people are allowed to not let you and your faith lord over them.
We seem to derive our moral standards these days based on public consensus rather than an appeal to objective truth.
Or based on what causes harm, which is objective truth. And it takes a lot of balls to be the guy in the conversation who believes in someone rising from the dead, walking on water, and a global flood to chastise others for lack of concern for objective truth.
As a pluralistic, post-Christian culture here in the US, what is our moral argument against legalizing paedophilia?
I’d like to hear the arguments against it. I’m having trouble imagining them, most likely due to my own narrow addiction to divine revelation and absolute truth.
I’d like to hear the arguments against it. I’m having trouble imagining them, most likely due to my own narrow addiction to divine revelation and absolute truth.
Yes, without god telling Blankshaen that having sex with a child is bad, he’d be a-ok with it. It wouldn’t occur to him, on his own, that protecting children from being used by adults would be a concern. This is the man who presumes to call others immoral. It’s not a concern for harm that makes morality, but arbitrary rules handed down from god.
"Well Bill, we don’t allow adults to date children for the same reason we don’t allow adults to sell them cars or alcohol: they are not at a point where they have their faculties sufficiently in place to enter into contracts and to make adult decisions. They are more easily coerced, and thus need protection."
Hopefully, that is the main reason but it is also because their bodies are not yet developed enough & are too vulnerable to injury.
"Yes, without god telling Blankshaen that having sex with a child is bad, he’d be a-ok with it. It wouldn’t occur to him, on his own, that protecting children from being used by adults would be a concern. This is the man who presumes to call others immoral. It’s not a concern for harm that makes morality, but arbitrary rules handed down from god."
IF most theists were somehow convinced there are no gods after all, according to them, they would then have no morals. How utterly depraved they must be if foolish faith in something they cannot know is all that prevents them from rampaging rape, murder, sex with children, etc etc.
Hopefully, that is the main reason but it is also because their bodies are not yet developed enough & are too vulnerable to injury.
"Yes, without god telling Blankshaen that having sex with a child is bad, he’d be a-ok with it. It wouldn’t occur to him, on his own, that protecting children from being used by adults would be a concern. This is the man who presumes to call others immoral. It’s not a concern for harm that makes morality, but arbitrary rules handed down from god."
IF most theists were somehow convinced there are no gods after all, according to them, they would then have no morals. How utterly depraved they must be if foolish faith in something they cannot know is all that prevents them from rampaging rape, murder, sex with children, etc etc.