Morals...

**khang** · 09-06-2010, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by HollyGoodhead

Originally Posted by khang

Originally Posted by HollyGoodhead

A couple of things for me would be cheating and abusing. I don't believe I would ever cheat on a partner because I can't stand the dishonesty. Also I can't imagine ever seriously abusing someone, be it an animal, child or adult. Do you think paedophiles can have morals? Maybe until they cross the line into actual molestation?

HG: For purposes of clarification, please define "abusing" and "paedophile" as used in the about sentences.

And I can see the need for this one coming already. Define "child."

Abusing could be beating, hitting, torture, manipulation/coercion (when the abused is not mentally capable of understanding their situation), forcing someone to do something against their will, mental abuse... off the top of my head

A Paedophile is someone sexually attracted to children... child I will describe as pre-pubescent (not taking into account mental maturity of pubescent children/teens).

Some interesting responses

Good responses.

So firstly, I cannot beat, hit or torture unless I AM SURE the perp has done harm to my family, and information from the perp is essential to the health and well-being of my family. And manipulation of the “unknowing” is morally forbidden, unless the safety of my family is involved. .

“Mental abuse”, however is too broad. If, on this forum, IF I call you a “stupid cnut,” is that mental abuse? No, it is not. The assumption of capability has the weight of nullification. “Mental abuse” is just an overused legal ploy.

Now, to your definition of “paedophile.” I totally agree with your definition. But I have repeatedly seen, on this very site, those that define the same as being sex with a “minor.”
A ‘minor” (i.e., not of the age of majority) and a “prepubescent” are in no way related. Those that maintain that mentality (sex with minor is paedophile) are merely sheep, blindly following the lure of political correctness and the promise of social acceptance, oblivious to the harm that they do by their stupidity.

A sexually mature adult that is attracted to a pre-pubescent child is ill. Nature provides that the normal response to a child is one of protection, not sex. If one is so sexually attracted, it goes against nature. But a sexually mature adult attracted to a mature person, even if she/he is only 15, it NOT against nature, regardless of the law. By nature, females are ‘sexually mature” by 15, and males by 17. So why all the rancor about some boy (e.g., 19) screwing his slightly younger girlfriend (e.g., 17)? POLITICS ! Not Nature. And all those screaming “paedophile” to such relationships are merely fools kissing the ass of a political agenda/machine.

**the dogcatcher** · 09-06-2010, 10:30 PM

I did plenty of under aged girls when I was 17.
The 16 year old girls were going out with 26 year old boys.
They had cars and money.
Nothing changes.

**November Rain** · 09-06-2010, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by khang

Now, to your definition of “paedophile.” I totally agree with your definition

But, isn't it a little simplistic? From what I've read, paedophiles 'love' children, whilst child molestors do not - but both are sexually attracted to them. Not that I can get my head round it, at all, but it sounds to me like paedophilia is a mental condition, rather than merely a sexual urge or an urge to do harm.

Are there things I wouldn't do? Yes. Have I ended up with problems because of my principles? Yes.

I largely agree with Attila, though

Originally Posted by Attilla the Hen

Until you have food, water, clothing and shelter, all morals are luxuries

**the dogcatcher** · 09-06-2010, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by the dogcatcher

I did plenty of under aged girls when I was 17.
The 16 year old girls were going out with 26 year old boys.
They had cars and money.
Nothing changes.

It's the sweetest of pussy, but off limits now.

**khang** · 09-06-2010, 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by November Rain

But, isn't it a little simplistic? From what I've read, paedophiles 'love' children, whilst child molestors do not - but both are sexually attracted to them. Not that I can get my head round it, at all, but it sounds to me like paedophilia is a mental condition, rather than merely a sexual urge or an urge to do harm.

The definition of "paedohiles" was originally "one whom desired and pursued sex with prepubescents." "Love" was irrelevant. It is only in more modern times that the definition has been expanded to include whatever age group the empowered politicians so deem. Many western societies would have everyone subscribe to their "fact" that a 17 YO is a sexual child. While medically, that is preposterous, politically, it is being accepted. But yet, the term "paedophile" still maintains the age-old meaning of "sex-with-the-prepubescent." It is a tool often employed by the western PC's, and it is working.

**StrontiumDog** · 10-06-2010, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by November Rain

Originally Posted by khang

Now, to your definition of “paedophile.” I totally agree with your definition

But, isn't it a little simplistic? From what I've read, paedophiles 'love' children, whilst child molestors do not - but both are sexually attracted to them. Not that I can get my head round it, at all, but it sounds to me like paedophilia is a mental condition, rather than merely a sexual urge or an urge to do harm.

Paedophiles do not "love" children.

It is a "justification" utilised by them. A cognitive distortion, which they tell themselves (and others) to make it appear it is okay to do what they do. There are usually many of these "justifications", the being "in love with the child" is just one of them. I've heard hundreds. It's all total bullshit.

Alluding to any earlier point, a person is only really answerable to themselves. External factors (such as laws, societal norms etc) mitigate behaviour but are often only a minor deterrent in paedophilia (and many other behaviours too). If the "self" can justify the action, then the "self" will undertake the behaviour. If an opportunity arises.... Thus it is with many aspects of human behaviour. This "my behaviour is justified to the self" paradigm can be seen all around, every day, in many things. Even on this board.

That's in supposedly "normal" folks. Sociopaths/psychopaths and the severely personality disordered are often so far gone as to not feel a need for justifications for their behaviour.

**kingwilly** · 10-06-2010, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by khang

So why all the rancor about some boy (e.g., 19) screwing his slightly younger girlfriend (e.g., 17)? POLITICS ! Not Nature. And all those screaming “paedophile” to such relationships are merely fools kissing the ass of a political agenda/machine.

I don't think there is any rancor about a couple of teens fumbling around in the dark exploring their sexuality, rather tis when a 40 or 50 year old man/woman wants to jump in and substitute himself/herself into the equation that rancor exists. (and rightly so)

Originally Posted by November Rain

I largely agree with Attila, though

Quote:
Originally Posted by Attilla the Hen
Until you have food, water, clothing and shelter, all morals are luxuries

Rather, you agree with Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

**the dogcatcher** · 10-06-2010, 07:36 AM

If you wanna prosecute to the Nth degree of the law, then might as well bang up every 17 year old boy in the UK.
Also bang up their 13 year old girlfriends, cos they have broken the law as well.
I had a mate that is my age, I'm 47 now.
He married a 16 year old girl, she would be 22 now.
No one seemed to mind though, or say anything, but then again always hard to critisize a multi millionare isn't it?

**Humbert** · 10-06-2010, 09:42 AM

Morals are not absolute. All moral boundries are relative to the context. People can set moral boundries but they can always be comprimised given the circumstances.

**robuzo** · 10-06-2010, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by Humbert

Morals are not absolute. All moral boundries are relative to the context. People can set moral boundries but they can always be comprimised given the circumstances.

Like enough money.

What sort of moral boundaries transcend cultures? Two often cited are harming children and non-ritual cannibalism, but probably enough exceptions to both that they don't necessarily prove the rule.

**Rural Surin** · 10-06-2010, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by chassamui

Surprised butterfly has no comment on this. he is so full of shit on this kind of stuff.

He's in good company, as being full of shit could easily describe 65% of posters.

FarangRed · 10-06-2010, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by the dogcatcher

I was trying to think of the cruelest thing I've ever done.

My ex wife ran off with another fellow some years back.
I got the bastard back though...
I let him keep her.
Sadistic MF ein't I?

Thought you was going to say You miss him

**the dogcatcher** · 10-06-2010, 11:38 AM

She was madder that a yabaered up bargirl.
And more expensive.

**FlyFree** · 10-06-2010, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by HollyGoodhead

I wanted to know others opinions on what they hold as moral....ethical? right and wrong or whatever.

Thanks for your input Davis. lol

As social animals,it's a very bad idea to hurt others. Society would disintegrate. Therefore it is the only 'moral'. All the rest is a crock of subjective, ever-changing shit.

**The Ghost Of The Moog** · 10-06-2010, 12:01 PM

If you like the bit where she is dressed as a schoolgirl, then sorry, we have to cut your balls off.

**nidhogg** · 10-06-2010, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Originally Posted by chassamui

Surprised butterfly has no comment on this. he is so full of shit on this kind of stuff.

He's in good company, as being full of shit could easily describe 65% of posters.

Indeed. Now that you are apparently back anyway...

**Stinky** · 10-06-2010, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by The_Ghost_Of_The_Moog

If you like the bit where she is dressed as a schoolgirl, then sorry, we have to cut your balls off.

You had best have mine then TGoTMoog

**November Rain** · 10-06-2010, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Originally Posted by chassamui

Surprised butterfly has no comment on this. he is so full of shit on this kind of stuff.

He's in good company, as being full of shit could easily describe 65% of posters.

Flutters, Noods & your good self do not make up 65% of TD, RS. Sorry, but that's just the way it is...

**EssEffBee** · 10-06-2010, 11:55 PM

The word 'Moral' & derivations thereof, need to be stricken from the English langauge usage. Not only this but anybody who even thinks about 'morals' as being a 'good thing', needs to be de-programmed.

It appears that nobody has learnt anything from such things as 'The Spanish Inquisition' etc & et al.

**Stinky** · 11-06-2010, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by EssEffBee

The word 'Moral' & derivations thereof, need to be stricken from the English langauge usage. Not only this but anybody who even thinks about 'morals' as being a 'good thing', needs to be de-programmed.

So if morals have no place in our society how do we define ourselves and our actions in a society that demands a certain level of morality to be allowed to roam free in it?

**sunsetter** · 11-06-2010, 01:25 AM

Originally Posted by Nawty

I threw a helicopter out of a pig once....is that cruel ?

cant say ive heard better all day mate

**EssEffBee** · 11-06-2010, 01:29 AM

Originally Posted by Sdigit

Originally Posted by EssEffBee

The word 'Moral' & derivations thereof, need to be stricken from the English langauge usage. Not only this but anybody who even thinks about 'morals' as being a 'good thing', needs to be de-programmed.

So if morals have no place in our society how do we define ourselves and our actions in a society that demands a certain level of morality to be allowed to roam free in it?

You have answered your own question...or can't you see that?

**Stinky** · 11-06-2010, 02:10 AM

I know how and why I define myself. My own sense right and wrong and how to behave in society was firstly instilled in me by my parents and then mutated through life experiences, goals, expectations and coupled together with a good deal of self questioning and social conscience to what makes me who I am today. I think this can be called morals in the conventional sense of the word for most people.
Apart from this or blindly following some random religious doctrine what other way is there to judge and order one's own and others "moral" actions in a society that demands them.
On the one hand you seem to be wanting to cast all conventional morality aside while still advocating for conformity to society as a yard stick with which to gauge morality. I must admit you have me puzzled.

**November Rain** · 11-06-2010, 04:55 AM

Originally Posted by EssEffBee

Originally Posted by Sdigit

Originally Posted by EssEffBee

The word 'Moral' & derivations thereof, need to be stricken from the English langauge usage. Not only this but anybody who even thinks about 'morals' as being a 'good thing', needs to be de-programmed.

So if morals have no place in our society how do we define ourselves and our actions in a society that demands a certain level of morality to be allowed to roam free in it?

You have answered your own question...or can't you see that?

Sorry, sweetie (EssEffBee) you are talking bollocks. Would you kindly explain why you do not think morals are a good thing? Should we not have laws & societal expectations?

**Stinky** · 11-06-2010, 05:24 AM

Originally Posted by November Rain

Originally Posted by EssEffBee

Originally Posted by Sdigit

Originally Posted by EssEffBee

The word 'Moral' & derivations thereof, need to be stricken from the English langauge usage. Not only this but anybody who even thinks about 'morals' as being a 'good thing', needs to be de-programmed.

So if morals have no place in our society how do we define ourselves and our actions in a society that demands a certain level of morality to be allowed to roam free in it?

You have answered your own question...or can't you see that?

Sorry, sweetie (EssEffBee) you are talking bollocks. Would you kindly explain why you do not think morals are a good thing? Should we not have laws & societal expectations?

I was trying real hard to be polite in my answer to EssEffBee but I think your Direct aproach is much clearer and more entertaining

Thread: Morals...

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions