TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,442
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Nov 21, 2011 22:18:57 GMT -5
I see what ed's doing here, but that doesn't mean his prediction is all the crazy. The idea of age of consent being late teens is fairly new in the US and it is still early teens in several industrialized countries. That it could snap back the other way here when we seek everything from voting rights to the death penalty for 12-13 year olds and will sue a first grader for sexual harrasment for kissing a girl on the cheek isn't that nuts. So I get that ed is making an argument about moral leniency and I don't necessarily agree in the argument for the "good old days" but that doesn't really mean that at a fundamental level, ed's prediction can be completely dismissed. In the last 2 decades : - several states now support chemical castration for child molestors - virtually every state has a sexual offender registry and online database, with pictures - Megan's Law - sex offenders are now zoned out of neighborhoods and have restrictions on where they can live and work - tightened screening at virtually every place where kids are involved But hey, since there's a couple of kooks that formed NAMBLA, and Hillary Clinton wants kids to have health care and not to go hungry, this thing could swing either way, right? Every reason for kids to get married young has disappeared - it's not possible for them to support themselves anymore, family farms have disappeared, and the job options for HS-only graduates has shrunk.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Nov 21, 2011 22:35:50 GMT -5
I see what ed's doing here, but that doesn't mean his prediction is all the crazy. The idea of age of consent being late teens is fairly new in the US and it is still early teens in several industrialized countries. That it could snap back the other way here when we seek everything from voting rights to the death penalty for 12-13 year olds and will sue a first grader for sexual harrasment for kissing a girl on the cheek isn't that nuts. So I get that ed is making an argument about moral leniency and I don't necessarily agree in the argument for the "good old days" but that doesn't really mean that at a fundamental level, ed's prediction can be completely dismissed. In the last 2 decades : - several states now support chemical castration for child molestors - virtually every state has a sexual offender registry and online database, with pictures - Megan's Law - sex offenders are now zoned out of neighborhoods and have restrictions on where they can live and work - tightened screening at virtually every place where kids are involved But hey, since there's a couple of kooks that formed NAMBLA, and Hillary Clinton wants kids to have health care and not to go hungry, this thing could swing either way, right? Every reason for kids to get married young has disappeared - it's not possible for them to support themselves anymore, family farms have disappeared, and the job options for HS-only graduates has shrunk. Check out the trajectory of sentences for child porn offenses, too. Contrary to Ed's fears, no one finds this stuff acceptable.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Nov 21, 2011 23:11:39 GMT -5
Ed doesn't care about your pesky facts. All he cares about is using weak slippery slope arguments to smear people who are gay or have premarital sex as being child rapists. It's the old "my ideological opponents are monsters somehow" gambit, and given that Ed and I share an alma mater, you'd think he could come up with something better.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 22, 2011 1:19:45 GMT -5
Ed doesn't care about your pesky facts. All he cares about is using weak slippery slope arguments to smear people who are gay or have premarital sex as being child rapists. It's the old "my ideological opponents are monsters somehow" gambit, and given that Ed and I share an alma mater, you'd think he could come up with something better. I read this thread again. I fail to see where ed smeared gay people. Maybe you'd like to point it out.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Nov 22, 2011 10:53:36 GMT -5
Ed doesn't care about your pesky facts. All he cares about is using weak slippery slope arguments to smear people who are gay or have premarital sex as being child rapists. It's the old "my ideological opponents are monsters somehow" gambit, and given that Ed and I share an alma mater, you'd think he could come up with something better. I read this thread again. I fail to see where ed smeared gay people. Maybe you'd like to point it out. It's the point of this thread.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 22, 2011 11:16:26 GMT -5
I read this thread again. I fail to see where ed smeared gay people. Maybe you'd like to point it out. It's the point of this thread. Um, no it's not.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,599
|
Post by guru on Nov 22, 2011 11:22:43 GMT -5
It's the point of this thread. Um, no it's not. kc, how much does your company pay you to be the self-appointed social assassin of the hoyatalk board? You really are vigilant about poking the bears around here. It's not hard to read the original post and see the societal analogy that EasyEd (the most inapproriately monikered poster on the board, btw) is making — whether one agrees or disagrees with his theory. It's actually very hard not to see it - do you really not see it, or are you in Larry David mode?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 22, 2011 11:50:45 GMT -5
kc, how much does your company pay you to be the self-appointed social assassin of the hoyatalk board? You really are vigilant about poking the bears around here. It's not hard to read the original post and see the societal analogy that EasyEd (the most inapproriately monikered poster on the board, btw) is making — whether one agrees or disagrees with his theory. It's actually very hard not to see it - do you really not see it, or are you in Larry David mode? I simply fail to see how it is smearing gay people. How much does your company pay you to read and post on the internet? What does that even matter?
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,599
|
Post by guru on Nov 22, 2011 12:06:44 GMT -5
kc, how much does your company pay you to be the self-appointed social assassin of the hoyatalk board? You really are vigilant about poking the bears around here. It's not hard to read the original post and see the societal analogy that EasyEd (the most inapproriately monikered poster on the board, btw) is making — whether one agrees or disagrees with his theory. It's actually very hard not to see it - do you really not see it, or are you in Larry David mode? I simply fail to see how it is smearing gay people. How much does your company pay you to read and post on the internet? What does that even matter? You're right - Ed didn't explicitly smear gay people with his original post. I cheerfully withdraw my obnoxious question regarding your social assassin compensation.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Nov 22, 2011 12:48:03 GMT -5
You either are purposely ignoring the extremely obvious subtext, or you sincerely believe that Ed thinks pedophilia will be legalized in the near future. Your call.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Nov 22, 2011 13:34:50 GMT -5
I see what ed's doing here, but that doesn't mean his prediction is all the crazy. The idea of age of consent being late teens is fairly new in the US and it is still early teens in several industrialized countries. That it could snap back the other way here when we seek everything from voting rights to the death penalty for 12-13 year olds and will sue a first grader for sexual harrasment for kissing a girl on the cheek isn't that nuts. So I get that ed is making an argument about moral leniency and I don't necessarily agree in the argument for the "good old days" but that doesn't really mean that at a fundamental level, ed's prediction can be completely dismissed. In the last 2 decades : - several states now support chemical castration for child molestors - virtually every state has a sexual offender registry and online database, with pictures - Megan's Law - sex offenders are now zoned out of neighborhoods and have restrictions on where they can live and work - tightened screening at virtually every place where kids are involved And all it needs is one court decision to declare all of these unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Nov 22, 2011 13:44:58 GMT -5
In the last 2 decades : - several states now support chemical castration for child molestors - virtually every state has a sexual offender registry and online database, with pictures - Megan's Law - sex offenders are now zoned out of neighborhoods and have restrictions on where they can live and work - tightened screening at virtually every place where kids are involved And all it needs is one court decision to declare all of these unconstitutional. Yeah, because if there's one thing the Court has been known for, it's leniency towards criminals and sexual predators.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Nov 22, 2011 13:55:27 GMT -5
In the last 2 decades : - several states now support chemical castration for child molestors - virtually every state has a sexual offender registry and online database, with pictures - Megan's Law - sex offenders are now zoned out of neighborhoods and have restrictions on where they can live and work - tightened screening at virtually every place where kids are involved And all it needs is one court decision to declare all of these unconstitutional. If such a thing were remotely likely in the near term, the popularly elected Senate could take it upon themselves to screen appointees for their views on pedophilia.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Nov 22, 2011 17:58:09 GMT -5
This has to be a joke, right? At the time I entered Georgetown, had someone said that, in my lifetime, shacking up and gay marriages would be accepted as only alternate lifestyles and abortion would have been considered to be a right guaranteed by the Constitution, that generation would have shouted "this has to be a joke, right?" All it took was an advocacy, aided by support from the media and politicians, to bring about these changes. We have the beginnings of such an advocacy in the North American Man/Love Association (currently a fringe group) and we have a children's rights group in the Children's Defense Fund (of which Hillary Clinton was a key player). All you would need is smartly to pool these together in the future, calling for an end to discrimination against children in their "right" to engage in sex activity of their choice. Many will say this is far-fetched. My generation would have said the same thing, only to be proven wrong. It's impossible for you to predict what the generation after you will do but one thing is certain: you will be surprised. It is disgusting that you equate consensual sex between adults with child rape. Disgusting. And no amount of couching this opinion by blaming the general bigotry of your generation will make the heinousness of it less disgusting. Presumably even an old bigot knows the difference between violent crime and acts where both parties are willing adults. I won't even get into the fact that your bigotry was stoked by the very organization (I'm looking at you Rome) responsible for more organized child rape than any in history. In fact when it comes to Child Rape, nobody comes close. The Church is the 1927 Yankees of child rape. So naturally we should use their mid-evil teachings as a moral guide for Ed to tell adult homsexuals in the post-Enlightenment age what they are allowed to do and not do.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Nov 22, 2011 18:18:09 GMT -5
Ed doesn't care about your pesky facts. All he cares about is using weak slippery slope arguments to smear people who are gay or have premarital sex as being child rapists. It's the old "my ideological opponents are monsters somehow" gambit, and given that Ed and I share an alma mater, you'd think he could come up with something better. I read this thread again. I fail to see where ed smeared gay people. Maybe you'd like to point it out. You couldn't possibly be that obtuse. Are you really going to play dumb and avoid the blindingly obvious insinuation Ed's intentionally provacative post conveys? Let's be clear for the disingenuous out there: he is saying that it is valid to continue to say homosexual or pre-marital sex is as disgusting as child rape and should be treated as such and that the rest of us who are not bigoted like he is are on a slippery slope to legalizing child rape. There is no escaping that conclusion if you are at all paying attention. What exactly do you think he meant? You can't toss a bomb out there like that and then pretend you didn't mean what is so obviously implicated. That's rhetorically both weak and cowardly and nobody is buying it. Let that massive back-peddling begin.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Nov 22, 2011 18:36:26 GMT -5
Best decision of my life: Georgetown over University of Pennsylvania. Second best decision of my life: Avoiding this thread like the bubonic plague.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Nov 22, 2011 19:56:42 GMT -5
Best decision of my life: Georgetown over University of Pennsylvania. Second best decision of my life: Avoiding this thread like the bubonic plague. You have created a paradox!
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Nov 22, 2011 20:00:59 GMT -5
For those of you putting words in my mouth, let me use crayon so you can see what I'm saying and what I'm not saying. I am equating nothing with anything. I am merely saying that in the lifetime of some on this board I expect to see sex with youth become an acceptable way of life. I do not support sex with youth. I repeat, I do not support sex with youth.
Many of you are failing to recognize that you are judging whether or not such a thing would be acceptable 50-60 years from now based on current public opinion, not based on what might transpire in the interim.
As for the smear that I hate gays, that is 100% inaccurate. I honor and respect every human being, including a couple of my relatives who are gay. This thread has nothing to do with gay people, the Catholic Church or any related item. It is merely a statement that I believe the culture will change such that sex with youth will be acceptable by the 50-60 year time frame. If you disagree with my prediction, fine, but don't smear me in the process. I have the benefit of a certain perspective of changing mores that few of you have - obtained by observation over many years.
On an unrelated note, in another thread some time ago I predicted that, in the lifetime of some HoyaTalk posters, football would be outlawed based on safety considerations. And I'm not anti-football as my Redskins car sticker will attest.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Nov 22, 2011 20:23:51 GMT -5
And so the coy back-peddling begins.
Let's be clear, you put your own words in your mouth. Tell me ed, what is the moral difference in your opinion between homosexual acts and pedophilia? Can you tell me what legal and moral rights you believe homosexuals share with heterosexuals? All of them?
1000 years ago it was bad form both to murder someone and to believe the sun was at the center of the universe....does it follow that we will all revert to thinking the earth is at the center of the universe and that murder is OK?
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Nov 23, 2011 11:26:37 GMT -5
For those of you putting words in my mouth, let me use crayon so you can see what I'm saying and what I'm not saying. I am equating nothing with anything. I am merely saying that in the lifetime of some on this board I expect to see sex with youth become an acceptable way of life. Why on earth do you think this? Do you have any reason for thinking this other than "the gays"? Seriously, make a Editeding argument, old man.
|
|