MlledeLaPlumeBleu
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Posts
- 779
That is an image that shall ne'er be banished, scrawled in magic marker as it is on my pre-frontal lobes....
Just dropped in to spread the joy- have you seen this? (laughing)
- Thread starter MlledeLaPlumeBleu
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
but hey, I'm with Raphy
Yep, I'm also right with you on this one, Raph. You summed up my feelings on the matter extremely well, and prevented me from going off on one. Although, I do feel the need for a semi-rant.
Some people need to cut the PC shit and get with the real world. Of course it is wrong to *want* to do that sort of thing to kids. Hell, I can't even bring myself to say what that thing is. Nobody could convince me that anybody who has those kind of thoughts isn't a sick fuck.
Sancho, when you've grown up and had kids of your own, come back here and repeat everything you've said. I doubt you'd be able to.
Yeah, yeah, we should be free to have thoughts about anything. Mlle put it in a much more eloquent way than I ever could (great to see you again, btw). But those thoughts and desires, if compelling enough, often lead to actions. If I ever got my hands on a sick fuck that had ever had any 'thoughts' about my girls I'd mess with his fucking head so bad he wouldn't be capable of coherant speech, let alone rational thought.
Got to get out of this thread now, my blood is starting to boil.
Lou
sanchopanza
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2003
- Posts
- 433
Oi. I did not want to get into this but here we are. Yes it is wrong to fuck kids. No it is not wrong to want to. Those who say it is wrong to want to are obviously over-emotionalising the topic in hand. You cannot condemn somebody for their desires, exactly the same principal as the fucking Spanish Inquisition. Thoughts and desires are amoral only actions are moral or immoral. If you think that desires or thoughts can be morally judged then I'm not sure what the fuck you think about a lot of things - bring in the thought police? jail people for deviant thoughts?
OldnotDead
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2002
- Posts
- 498
sanchopanza said:
Sancho, there are others far more eloquent and well spoken than I that have tried to explain how wrong you are.
Legally, it is true, we do only have punishment and justice for actions. That is correct.
Psychologically, there are many that argue that fantasies, in and of themselves, can be escapes and do not necessarily result in the fruition to action. There is also lots of evidence that deviant behavior starts out in the realm of wishful thinking and is later translated to action.
My religious background has fundamental beliefs that bad thoughts are not acceptable, even without action. We are to try and expunge such thoughts before they turn us to action.
What you do not seem to 'get' is that most people are deathly afraid of the child predators that they know lurk throughout their lives. They are not easy to spot and even harder to catch. they do horrific damage.
Earlier, someone did make the point of faking evidence and danger of false accusation. I know of a colleague that lost a year of his career due to the false accusations of a babysitter. The Tawana Brawley case that received a great deal of coverage in the US is an example of how lives can be ruined. So, we do need to be careful.
Nevertheless, it is wrong to try to be pendantic and obfuscate the basic issue by participating in linguistic gymnastics. The energy should be directed at child safety.
raphy
Dum Vivimus, Vivamus
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2003
- Posts
- 4,257
Sancho, when you've grown up a little bit and maybe developed a touch of compassion, come back and argue the point again, eh?
You have kids? No, didn't think so.
Until then, shut up and go away and leave the safety of the children to those of us who apparently DO give a shit.
"Suffer the little children for it is only through them that we may see that which we have lost"
You have kids? No, didn't think so.
Until then, shut up and go away and leave the safety of the children to those of us who apparently DO give a shit.
"Suffer the little children for it is only through them that we may see that which we have lost"
Last edited:
sanchopanza
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2003
- Posts
- 433
This is my last statement on the topic. After this I will be unavailable for arguement.
Somebody suggested that because I have not children of my own I therefore cannot make statements on the ethics of anything pertaining to children. The assumption here then is that if you have children and are emotionally involved in this topic then you must be automatically more objective than somebody who is not emotionally involved. The fact that I don't have children does not impact on anyway on my ability to make statements about the ethics of thoughts and desires.
Another suggestion made here is that if somebody wants to do something then they may do it so therefore they should be locked up before having the chance to commit the act. If somebody proposed that anybody who gave signs that someday they may turn to crime of some sort should be locked up before they have the chance to commit these acts, there would be outrage at this suggestion.
This is another example of liberal fascism, certain people desire for everybody to have freedom of thought but not would-be paedophiles, and what makes would-be paedophiles different? Only the fact that children are involved and so great emotion is invested.
Touch of compassion? I have compassion, why don't you fucking grow up and learn a little logic - go on read some philosophy (Thouless is a good start) and in future when you believe yourself to be right you might actually be able to construct an arguement based in reality and an actual attack not on me but on my arguement. At the moment you are coming across as a real arsehole because you are suggesting that I don't have compassion because I am saying that we can't judge people by their thoughts or desires, only their actions - anybody with any fucking sense will tell you that I am being more compassionate than even you would like me to be. I'll talk to you again when you can construct an arguement based on something I have said not on something you believe I have said.
I'm not going to say anything else on the topic because I know that many people here lack the ability to remain objective when considering questions of morality.
P.S.
I know that since I have resigned from this topic it will continue and certain people may try to belittle my arguement with personal attacks on me. If thats what you want to do then go ahead because it simply shows a great lack of intellectual ability and maturity and a great inability to construct arguements or reason.
Somebody suggested that because I have not children of my own I therefore cannot make statements on the ethics of anything pertaining to children. The assumption here then is that if you have children and are emotionally involved in this topic then you must be automatically more objective than somebody who is not emotionally involved. The fact that I don't have children does not impact on anyway on my ability to make statements about the ethics of thoughts and desires.
Another suggestion made here is that if somebody wants to do something then they may do it so therefore they should be locked up before having the chance to commit the act. If somebody proposed that anybody who gave signs that someday they may turn to crime of some sort should be locked up before they have the chance to commit these acts, there would be outrage at this suggestion.
This is another example of liberal fascism, certain people desire for everybody to have freedom of thought but not would-be paedophiles, and what makes would-be paedophiles different? Only the fact that children are involved and so great emotion is invested.
Touch of compassion? I have compassion, why don't you fucking grow up and learn a little logic - go on read some philosophy (Thouless is a good start) and in future when you believe yourself to be right you might actually be able to construct an arguement based in reality and an actual attack not on me but on my arguement. At the moment you are coming across as a real arsehole because you are suggesting that I don't have compassion because I am saying that we can't judge people by their thoughts or desires, only their actions - anybody with any fucking sense will tell you that I am being more compassionate than even you would like me to be. I'll talk to you again when you can construct an arguement based on something I have said not on something you believe I have said.
I'm not going to say anything else on the topic because I know that many people here lack the ability to remain objective when considering questions of morality.
P.S.
I know that since I have resigned from this topic it will continue and certain people may try to belittle my arguement with personal attacks on me. If thats what you want to do then go ahead because it simply shows a great lack of intellectual ability and maturity and a great inability to construct arguements or reason.
Last edited:
Mhari
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2003
- Posts
- 445
Actually, I think they were saying that you are clearly clueless and uninformed, and that if you did have kids of your own, you'd never have opened your damned trap about the whole thing.sanchopanza said:
Glad you won't be saying anything else about it now. *waves*
raphy
Dum Vivimus, Vivamus
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2003
- Posts
- 4,257
No.
I'll say it again, and I'll try and use very small words so you'll be sure to understand.
You have said it's okay to want to rape kids.
That makes you both compasionless and heartless.
I'd say more, but I'm not going to lower the AH to the rant terms that I usually use.
But, I will say this. You disgust me. You sicken me. That you can even concieve of the desire to want to molest children turns my stomach. You think it's okay for someone to walk around with a picture in his head of the little boy he just saw bent over with his cock up the boy's arse.
You're a sick individual.
I'll say it again, and I'll try and use very small words so you'll be sure to understand.
You have said it's okay to want to rape kids.
That makes you both compasionless and heartless.
I'd say more, but I'm not going to lower the AH to the rant terms that I usually use.
But, I will say this. You disgust me. You sicken me. That you can even concieve of the desire to want to molest children turns my stomach. You think it's okay for someone to walk around with a picture in his head of the little boy he just saw bent over with his cock up the boy's arse.
You're a sick individual.
raphy
Dum Vivimus, Vivamus
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2003
- Posts
- 4,257
Warning. I'm going to rant here. Don't read it, if you don't want to see it.
Apologies in advance to everyone except Sanchodick. This is gonna get GB-like.
I think that's the point, jerkwad. We're not fucking discussing the ethics of thoughts and desires, we're talking about raping little fucking children. You might be talking about the ethics of thoughts and desires, but I personally couldn't give a shit what you're talking about because you're making less sense than a man in a padded cell.
You obviously didn't read Mlle's post on the differences between thought, desire, intent and all the other areas - Words too big for you? Or maybe you're just good at reading what you want to read, and seeing what you want to see. I'm glad you see that you've admitted by your words just how much value you place on children.
If you actually gave two shits about those little kids like you said you would, then yeah, you'd care that there are people out there running around that want to do mean and nasty things to them. Because I couldn't give a flying fuck about your 'ethics of thoughts and desires' .. I just want the kids I know to be able to walk home at midnight and be safe.
You see, I have a friend. She's a very close friend. We almost had a relationship once, that's how close she is. She has two daughters. She's raised them herself. One's called Catherine, and she's 7 years old, with long blonde hair and beautiful blue eyes, and the other one is called Rebecca, and she's a dark dusky mulatto with tight black afro curls and the biggest, cheekiest grin you could ever see.
I love her kids to death. They call me Uncle Dave. When I go over to visit them, they draw me pictures, and want me to tell them stories. They're wonderful, happy, smart children, and above all, they're loved.
So yes - I am going to get emotional about this fucking issue, and I am going to protect those children with every bone in my body, and I tell you this, if I found anyone that even dreamt about harming those kids, they'd have a very immediate conversation with me and my nail-studded baseball bat, and I would establish some very personal fucking ground rules. Personal. As in, up close and.
Because right now, those kids can't even play in the local playground with adult supervision, because slackass fuckmuppets like you worry too much about grammar tapdancing to focus on the real issue here, which is child safety.
I'll say that again, in case you missed it.
Child safety
Want I say in bigger letters?
I know you're not very bright, but the inference is obvious.
So, Mr Objectivity - Next time your kid is getting buttfucked by Mr Child Molester, you can tell me just how okay it was to let the thought grow into desire, and the desire grow into intent.
You make me sick. Your daddy should have rolled over and aimed at the wall.
Apologies in advance to everyone except Sanchodick. This is gonna get GB-like.
sanchopanza said:
I think that's the point, jerkwad. We're not fucking discussing the ethics of thoughts and desires, we're talking about raping little fucking children. You might be talking about the ethics of thoughts and desires, but I personally couldn't give a shit what you're talking about because you're making less sense than a man in a padded cell.
You obviously didn't read Mlle's post on the differences between thought, desire, intent and all the other areas - Words too big for you? Or maybe you're just good at reading what you want to read, and seeing what you want to see. I'm glad you see that you've admitted by your words just how much value you place on children.
If you actually gave two shits about those little kids like you said you would, then yeah, you'd care that there are people out there running around that want to do mean and nasty things to them. Because I couldn't give a flying fuck about your 'ethics of thoughts and desires' .. I just want the kids I know to be able to walk home at midnight and be safe.
You see, I have a friend. She's a very close friend. We almost had a relationship once, that's how close she is. She has two daughters. She's raised them herself. One's called Catherine, and she's 7 years old, with long blonde hair and beautiful blue eyes, and the other one is called Rebecca, and she's a dark dusky mulatto with tight black afro curls and the biggest, cheekiest grin you could ever see.
I love her kids to death. They call me Uncle Dave. When I go over to visit them, they draw me pictures, and want me to tell them stories. They're wonderful, happy, smart children, and above all, they're loved.
So yes - I am going to get emotional about this fucking issue, and I am going to protect those children with every bone in my body, and I tell you this, if I found anyone that even dreamt about harming those kids, they'd have a very immediate conversation with me and my nail-studded baseball bat, and I would establish some very personal fucking ground rules. Personal. As in, up close and.
Because right now, those kids can't even play in the local playground with adult supervision, because slackass fuckmuppets like you worry too much about grammar tapdancing to focus on the real issue here, which is child safety.
I'll say that again, in case you missed it.
Child safety
Want I say in bigger letters?
I know you're not very bright, but the inference is obvious.
So, Mr Objectivity - Next time your kid is getting buttfucked by Mr Child Molester, you can tell me just how okay it was to let the thought grow into desire, and the desire grow into intent.
You make me sick. Your daddy should have rolled over and aimed at the wall.
G
Guest
Guest
Hope this can be my last post here. I know that free-speech or thought should not be disregarded lightly, but I believe there are times when one must weigh the greater need, or peril. Enough people know that one of my sons was molested when very young and I admit it is difficult to discuss such a topic as on this thread, I cannot afford to rant like Raff, but I am he grateful he does.
Still, I cannot be silent, not for myself, my son, nor any child. It is extremely difficult to protect children today, I'm sure most people know this for themselves, even those without children. My son's molester was a family friend, his father and I had no clue and did not find out about it until my son was a grown man and told us. It was no less devastating to "know" this years later.
I am grateful for laws and their enforcement, but when a child is at risk a parent, or anyone who cares, might be desperate, not even for justice, merely for preventing a too far-reaching crime. Any issues about liberal, individual rights for adults on the site Mlle. provided weigh less for me than the site's mission and intent.
Perdita
Still, I cannot be silent, not for myself, my son, nor any child. It is extremely difficult to protect children today, I'm sure most people know this for themselves, even those without children. My son's molester was a family friend, his father and I had no clue and did not find out about it until my son was a grown man and told us. It was no less devastating to "know" this years later.
I am grateful for laws and their enforcement, but when a child is at risk a parent, or anyone who cares, might be desperate, not even for justice, merely for preventing a too far-reaching crime. Any issues about liberal, individual rights for adults on the site Mlle. provided weigh less for me than the site's mission and intent.
Perdita
Parklife
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 21, 2002
- Posts
- 949
Wow... I didn't think it would get to this...
I think you're all being a bit harsh on Sancho here.
There is a problem with saying that thoughts, any kind of thoughts against the moral majority, are wrong in and of themselves. Perhaps the constraints of language get in the way when 'thought', 'want', 'desire' and 'action' seemingly are used inter-changably.
I'm sure we would all agree that they aren't the same thing.
This whole conversation keeps bringing up the Marquis de Sade in my brain. A man that was prisoned (perhaps rightfully so, perhaps not) because he chose to express thoughts in writing. He always claimed that the mere fact that he could express them in writing, he believed, exorcised those thougths so that the worst of them would never manifest into action.
I tried to make the dinstinction between 'want' or 'desire' and actual 'pursuit' in my post above. I didn't make the distinction clear that I actually agreed with Sancho on the thought part.
I think we can also agree that some thoughts/desires are twisted and reprehensible to most of us. But I believe that what Sancho is saying is that those thoughts inherently, of themselves, carry no morality but rather the expression or action (with the expression being a debateable point).
It is a very fine line and obviously from this thread a very emotional one. But we all hang out in a very large glass house here at Lit. and we need to be careful when deciding who gets to make the 'thought-rules'.
Park~
I think you're all being a bit harsh on Sancho here.
There is a problem with saying that thoughts, any kind of thoughts against the moral majority, are wrong in and of themselves. Perhaps the constraints of language get in the way when 'thought', 'want', 'desire' and 'action' seemingly are used inter-changably.
I'm sure we would all agree that they aren't the same thing.
This whole conversation keeps bringing up the Marquis de Sade in my brain. A man that was prisoned (perhaps rightfully so, perhaps not) because he chose to express thoughts in writing. He always claimed that the mere fact that he could express them in writing, he believed, exorcised those thougths so that the worst of them would never manifest into action.
I tried to make the dinstinction between 'want' or 'desire' and actual 'pursuit' in my post above. I didn't make the distinction clear that I actually agreed with Sancho on the thought part.
I think we can also agree that some thoughts/desires are twisted and reprehensible to most of us. But I believe that what Sancho is saying is that those thoughts inherently, of themselves, carry no morality but rather the expression or action (with the expression being a debateable point).
It is a very fine line and obviously from this thread a very emotional one. But we all hang out in a very large glass house here at Lit. and we need to be careful when deciding who gets to make the 'thought-rules'.
Park~
raphy
Dum Vivimus, Vivamus
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2003
- Posts
- 4,257
You know what, I don't care.
I just want the kids I know to be safe.
That's all I care about on this issue. You all can go ahead and discuss whatever philosophically erudite topics you want about thought, desire, want, need, intent, action and all that stuff in your ivory towers.
Juggle concepts, be intellectual. I'm happy for you.
Me, I'm just gonna make sure those two kids I talked about in my earlier post are safe.
I just want the kids I know to be safe.
That's all I care about on this issue. You all can go ahead and discuss whatever philosophically erudite topics you want about thought, desire, want, need, intent, action and all that stuff in your ivory towers.
Juggle concepts, be intellectual. I'm happy for you.
Me, I'm just gonna make sure those two kids I talked about in my earlier post are safe.
raphy
Dum Vivimus, Vivamus
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2003
- Posts
- 4,257
MathGirl said:
Aaah, my dear MG. I wish it were so, but unfortunately, I don't think you'd be able to get Sancho to agree to that, since his head's stuck up so far up his own ass I'm surprised he can see to type. Oh wait, I bet he can't, which is probably why the words coming out of his fingers don't make any sense..
But I digress..
I doubt you'd be able to get Sancho to agree to it, and since he's the one doing 99% of the arguing in this thread, I think that does put something of a problem in the way of your admittedly well-meant plan.
gauchecritic
When there are grey skies
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2002
- Posts
- 7,076
First, not 99%, second, I, It seems, am one of a very small contingent on this thread that understands what Sancho is talking about.
Raphy seems to have Pure sussed so I'll trust he would've spotted if Sancho was Pure.
The arguement it seems has boiled down entirely to semantics and intent.
Personally, I believe that abuse is the last resort of anyone on any subject. In RL I've been the subject of fists and worse because I can argue. The arguee in those cases were incapable of thinking in a straight line. If there is no meeting point in an arguement, then people should realise and withdraw before the violence, verbal or physical reaches it's culmination.
This subject is as bad as religion, best left alone.
If it makes you that mad then shut the fuck up.
Gauche
Raphy seems to have Pure sussed so I'll trust he would've spotted if Sancho was Pure.
The arguement it seems has boiled down entirely to semantics and intent.
Personally, I believe that abuse is the last resort of anyone on any subject. In RL I've been the subject of fists and worse because I can argue. The arguee in those cases were incapable of thinking in a straight line. If there is no meeting point in an arguement, then people should realise and withdraw before the violence, verbal or physical reaches it's culmination.
This subject is as bad as religion, best left alone.
If it makes you that mad then shut the fuck up.
Gauche
MlledeLaPlumeBleu
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Posts
- 779
An unrelated (and maybe galactically unimportant) thing: It just struck me as interesting, how people respond to a third-party disagreement that has reached what they deem to be a certain critical mass.
You'll either get the visceral "Everyone cut it out now!!" or the plaintive "can't we just agree to disagree", if not "can't we all just get along". Why all the great discomfort- is it like Mom and Dad fighting?
I never understand when someone believes that the proper response to anger is dismissal- or for that matter, when someone seeks to chastise someone for being passionate- and yes, dear god- even upset, about something.
Unfortunately, people who have the courage to be outraged are often the ones who cause the changes that save the asses of everyone else on the planet- all the while suffering the slings and arrows of their passive furrow-browed brethren who would rather hide in a cave and suck condensation from a rock than bear a moment of strain and disquietude.
mlle
You'll either get the visceral "Everyone cut it out now!!" or the plaintive "can't we just agree to disagree", if not "can't we all just get along". Why all the great discomfort- is it like Mom and Dad fighting?
I never understand when someone believes that the proper response to anger is dismissal- or for that matter, when someone seeks to chastise someone for being passionate- and yes, dear god- even upset, about something.
Unfortunately, people who have the courage to be outraged are often the ones who cause the changes that save the asses of everyone else on the planet- all the while suffering the slings and arrows of their passive furrow-browed brethren who would rather hide in a cave and suck condensation from a rock than bear a moment of strain and disquietude.
mlle
gauchecritic
When there are grey skies
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2002
- Posts
- 7,076
Except of course when the arguement is being fought by logic v. stubbornness (passion) or semantics v. visceral feelings. 'If you strike the first blow, then you have already lost.'
The government and opposition commons seats in the the Palace of Westminister are divided by two sword lengths, so as to promote debate rather than debacle.
There is no response to anger in arguement, it's the end of the contest.
Being outraged is a reason for arguement, not an end.
The action heroes who 'take matters into their own hands' are generally tools of those condensation suckers who's weaponry is the mind and tongue (and often soft bits unnavailable elsewhere).
Rather than being unable to bear any sort of emotion these thinkers that use other's hands cause strain and disquietude in order to attain other simplistic pleasures which don't involve personal pain, a voyeuristic 'second' in the corner of the ring.
Wondered away from the point a bit there, but there is reasoning.
I'm also not fond of ganging up.
Gauche
The government and opposition commons seats in the the Palace of Westminister are divided by two sword lengths, so as to promote debate rather than debacle.
There is no response to anger in arguement, it's the end of the contest.
Being outraged is a reason for arguement, not an end.
The action heroes who 'take matters into their own hands' are generally tools of those condensation suckers who's weaponry is the mind and tongue (and often soft bits unnavailable elsewhere).
Rather than being unable to bear any sort of emotion these thinkers that use other's hands cause strain and disquietude in order to attain other simplistic pleasures which don't involve personal pain, a voyeuristic 'second' in the corner of the ring.
Wondered away from the point a bit there, but there is reasoning.
I'm also not fond of ganging up.
Gauche
raphy
Dum Vivimus, Vivamus
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2003
- Posts
- 4,257
I think, Lauren, that on the whole, people *are* afraid of upsetting the 'status quo'.
You hear things such as "Let's calm it down before things get said that I'll regret", which I find pretty funny, since I've never once said anything in anger that I've later regretted. In fact, it's usually only when I'm worked up that my true feelings come out - Everything else is just intellectual tap dancing, one step removed from true passion.
As for ganging up - If, out of 5 people, 4 think one thing, and only 1 thinks another, are 3 of those 4 to remain quiet?
You hear things such as "Let's calm it down before things get said that I'll regret", which I find pretty funny, since I've never once said anything in anger that I've later regretted. In fact, it's usually only when I'm worked up that my true feelings come out - Everything else is just intellectual tap dancing, one step removed from true passion.
As for ganging up - If, out of 5 people, 4 think one thing, and only 1 thinks another, are 3 of those 4 to remain quiet?
gauchecritic
When there are grey skies
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2002
- Posts
- 7,076
raphy said:
Argueing with 4 out of 5 people is exhilarating, 4 people argueing with only 1 of 3 or 4 other people is ganging up.
Gauche
Icingsugar
peas o kayk
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2003
- Posts
- 2,051
One short stand
I'll say this once. I'm not here to alienate anyone, so I'll keep it short and to the point. There have been so much ranted back and forth here that I really don't have anything to add, but I'll say this:
Ask three questions and answer them...
1.- Is it healthy to hurt someone else, let alone a child, you your own amusement or pleasure? (rape because you're horny, kill because you're angry...)
No. Short and simple. No. Anyone who disagrees, I'll hunt down and kill. Not for my own pleasure, I'd detest myself, but for the benefit of the human gene pool, it'd be worth it.
2.- Is it healthy to have a specific desire against someone specific to do that, without acting on it?
No. Destructive action is terrible, destructive desires are not as terrible, but dangerous enough. I wouldn't trust even the meekest of person with those desires. Hell, I wouldn't even trust myself.
3.- Is it even healthy to harbor such behavior in the form of private fantasies?
I don't know the ratio of desire-intent-action and that is beside the point. The point is that that is where it starts. And I know people enough to know that anyone can snap. You, me, the pope, anyone. Besides, and this may sound pretencious as hell, but even fantasies of abuse are abuse, of ones imagination, ones own inner child.
Those are my opinions. They may not matter to anyone but me. But the moment that I find myself having child molesting fantasies, I'll lock myself in and call a shrink. And the moment that I find myself wanting to kick people because it's fun, I'll go hug someone until it goes away.
/Ice
I'll say this once. I'm not here to alienate anyone, so I'll keep it short and to the point. There have been so much ranted back and forth here that I really don't have anything to add, but I'll say this:
Ask three questions and answer them...
1.- Is it healthy to hurt someone else, let alone a child, you your own amusement or pleasure? (rape because you're horny, kill because you're angry...)
No. Short and simple. No. Anyone who disagrees, I'll hunt down and kill. Not for my own pleasure, I'd detest myself, but for the benefit of the human gene pool, it'd be worth it.
2.- Is it healthy to have a specific desire against someone specific to do that, without acting on it?
No. Destructive action is terrible, destructive desires are not as terrible, but dangerous enough. I wouldn't trust even the meekest of person with those desires. Hell, I wouldn't even trust myself.
3.- Is it even healthy to harbor such behavior in the form of private fantasies?
I don't know the ratio of desire-intent-action and that is beside the point. The point is that that is where it starts. And I know people enough to know that anyone can snap. You, me, the pope, anyone. Besides, and this may sound pretencious as hell, but even fantasies of abuse are abuse, of ones imagination, ones own inner child.
Those are my opinions. They may not matter to anyone but me. But the moment that I find myself having child molesting fantasies, I'll lock myself in and call a shrink. And the moment that I find myself wanting to kick people because it's fun, I'll go hug someone until it goes away.
/Ice
raphy
Dum Vivimus, Vivamus
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2003
- Posts
- 4,257
gauchecritic said:
Mate, that didn't answer my question.
If I'm witness to an argument, and I agree with what one side believes, should I not say that, for fear of 'ganging up'?
I'm sorry, but if I believe something, I'm going to say it, whether that turns out to be the minority side or the majority side. You won't see me favouring the underdog any time soon, just to 'make it fair'... (and vice versa as well - You won't see me jumping in on mob mentality if I believe in the minority's cause)
Either way, I'm going to say my piece, and if that means I'm 'ganging up', because I happen to be on the majority side, then so be it. I'm ganging up.
Mhari
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2003
- Posts
- 445
I'm afraid I'm still with raph on this one. Using epithets such as "Thought Police" is an effort to make people shut up and go away with their tails between their legs. Is accusing folks of "ganging up" just another attempt at that? For someone who appears to be advocating free speech, that's a pretty piece of hypocrisy. Why should I be silent simply because I happen to agree with other people? I was silent in this case for a good long time, until I finally became pissed off enough to say something.
But now I'm just ganging up on a poor brainless sod, eh?
Oh, to clarify one possible objection you might have: Yeah, raph and I happen to be friends. But if you think I wouldn't unleash on him with both barrels if he pissed me off, you'd better think again. Just ask him.
No, I'm not gonna be silent on an issue if I feel like saying something. "Thought Police" or no, "ganging up" or no. That is, after all, what free speech is all about.
But now I'm just ganging up on a poor brainless sod, eh?
Oh, to clarify one possible objection you might have: Yeah, raph and I happen to be friends. But if you think I wouldn't unleash on him with both barrels if he pissed me off, you'd better think again. Just ask him.
No, I'm not gonna be silent on an issue if I feel like saying something. "Thought Police" or no, "ganging up" or no. That is, after all, what free speech is all about.