Originally posted by bilbIm not sure exactly who on the scale of deities died and named you the next god.. but you need to chill out.. instead of saying "these people are sick" yadda yadda.. you could add something constructive to the thread instead of bossing everyone around
why on earth are we quoting NAMBLA?? serioulsly those people are just sick.. if you have no other refernces to quote to state your case than what a bunch of depraved pedophiles have to say then move along.. please
I wasnt 'quoting' nambla persay, to clarify things, I was just mentioning that when gayiety no longer becomes taboo, it may make way for other things that are also unacceptable in todays society, which is why nambla came to mind
Originally posted by SaTsuJiN
I was pretty certain namblas argument was that if the child gives consent to the relationship then it should be allowedI wasnt necessarily trying to say they were related, but the thing they have in common is that they are taboo in current society (in terms of sexual orientation issues)
Well Nambla is pretty shitty though
And so is Rape...but no one says when homosexuality is allowed so will Rape eventually....and you know why people don't say it cause it doesn't make any sense...much like Chewbacca living on endor.....but neither doe s pedophilia.....
Its not really about it being allowed (since people do it regardless)... its about unacceptance.. unacceptance keeps homosexuality in check so that control is maintained (I'm not sure 'who' wants to control it or what the goals of controlling it would be, but it seems society is on the bandwagon of controlling other orientations, while praising heterosexuality).
(and lol @ peter.. he's always bustin' lois' chops)
SaTsuJiN, I am going to explain this to you again, because you obviously do not get it:
This argument committs the logic fallacy of Slippery Slope; In order to show that a proposition is unacceptable, a sequence of increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from it. This however, is an illegitimate use of the "if-then" operator.
There is no reason to believe that a relationship exists between the two propositions you have presented, let alone that accepting one proposition will lead to the acceptance of the other.
Furthermore, the Girls Gone Wild video franchise has been in existence for nearly ten years, and I have yet to see its success spur the franchise Preteen Girls Gone Wild. So much for your argument.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[b]SaTsuJiNFurthermore, the Girls Gone Wild video franchise has been in existence for nearly ten years, and I have yet to see its success spur the franchise Preteen Girls Gone Wild. So much for your argument. [/B]
Thats simply because they choose to keep their late night TV advertising, whereas if they start dishing out preteens, they lose their advertisement privaledge altogether.. a typical case of 'comply or get out'.. this really trashed my argument btw.. /end_scarcasm
do you choose to give an opinion towards the topic? or just bark "fallacy" for the remainder of the thread?
Originally posted by SaTsuJiN
Im not sure exactly who on the scale of deities died and named you the next god.. but you need to chill out.. instead of saying "these people are sick" yadda yadda.. you could add something constructive to the thread instead of bossing everyone aroundI wasnt 'quoting' nambla persay, to clarify things, I was just mentioning that when gayiety no longer becomes taboo, it may make way for other things that are also unacceptable in todays society, which is why nambla came to mind
something constructive .. oh like what? lets all sing KumBahYa & praise Nambla for its enlightened stance on ushering young boys out of sexual innocence simply because they were clever enough to develop an acronym?? err.. dont think so
you were the one who used NAMBLA as an example.. i simply pointed out MY opinion as to how sick they are..
point is... if you are going to debate homosexuality there are FAR better ways to get your point across than to use this wretched organization as your reference point
Re: Ancient Homosexuality
Originally posted by silver_tears
What happened through the ages?I mean if you think about it, homosexuality or bisexuality was greatly accepted early on in history....ancient Greece, and Rome for example....
So what changed that?
Wouldn't it be safe to assume that in that time and age, even one of the apostles could have been gay stemming from the lack of females around them and such?
Why do you think now something is so taboo, when once it was so widely accepted?*In no way am I being sacreligious here or whatever, I was just using that as an example.
Doesnt mean that great civilisations like Rome and Greece accepted homosexuality.
The Romans and Greeks documented history, unlike other civilisations. Thats why we know of Ancient Homosexuality cause it was DOCUMENTED not cause it was accepted.
True, true, although it has been shown through areas of cognitive archaeology that homosexuality was quite common to the point of acceptance in certain periods of Greek history. There is alot of solid evidence, such as artwork, pottery decoration and so forth that shows scenes of homosexual affection. Now these scenes weren't locked away, but shown prominently on high class artifacts, mosaics on the walls of homes, on pottery in burials and so forth. So granted, on higher levels it might not have been approved, but socially there was a degree of acceptance, and as the world moves beyond the limiting scope of history written with Christian morals forced over the past like a mask we can hope that in perhaps some ways the modern world might be able to truly learn from the past.
Originally posted by bilbI'm not sure exactly where you got the idea that I asked everyone here to praise nambla, but whatever.. I'm not one to feed the fuel your attitude needs.. noone else here found me to be exhalting nambla except you, so what can I say..
something constructive .. oh like what? lets all sing KumBahYa & praise Nambla for its enlightened stance on ushering young boys out of sexual innocence simply because they were clever enough to develop an acronym?? err.. dont think so
Originally posted by bilbI did use them because I felt it was along the lines of something that is repressed in todays society and can possibly one day be deemed OK in the view of the public (you never know)... I never bashed you for thinking they were nasty
you were the one who used NAMBLA as an example.. i simply pointed out MY opinion as to how sick they are..
Originally posted by bilbI bet there are. so why dont you help the topic out 😛
point is... if you are going to debate homosexuality there are FAR better ways to get your point across than to use this wretched organization as your reference point
Logical Fallacy? Logic need not make an appearacnce in a thread where the correlation between gay sex and pedophilia are made.
The reality of the situation is that there was a much greater acceptance of homosexuality in the ancient world. It wasn't approached from the standpoint that it was weird or sick. In their opinion it was simply a part of the natural urges and practice of a human being.
Perhaps the better question would be: "Why are homosexuals considered deviants and freaks now, when homosexuality was more common in the ancient world?" Now, anyone who would openly compare being gay with being a child molester would likely prefer the original question, since it implies that civilization and society only began after god said that being gay was a sin.
The course that western society has taken since it was corrupt by the christian religion reflects exactly what I'm talking about. Now, I understand that your point is that both of these things(homosexuality and pedophilia) were more common in the ancient world. It was common for a Roman gentleman to actually carry on a long term relationship with a younger boy. These relationships weren't simply sexual in nature. In all honesty, the practice is something more akin to Big Brothers/Big Sisters, than with NAMBLA. These ancient relationships were a total relationship. There were sexual aspects of it. There were military aspects of it and there were social aspects to it. These older men weren't just having the kid over for sex and then sending him home. These relationships were meant to be exercises in maturity, rather than sexuality. These relationships served to answer the younger mans questions about the world around him. They were truely COMPANIONS. Then, once the older man had passed all his knowledge and insight on to the younger man, the younger would go out and live his life. He'd marry, he'd join the militia, he'd raise children of his own...and eventually he would develop a relationship of his own.
Let's not forget that these weren't babys with which these men had relationships. These "children" were in their mid teens. It seems weird to our modern sensability, but in the ancient world, things weren't a lot different. I know I was in my early teens when I started to masturbate. Started to grow into an adult. Started to question the world around me. The nature of these relationships was as a teacher/student, not some deviant that stole the kid from the marketplace and kept him chained in the basement.
Two very long surviving empire that at one point or another technically "ruled" the world. That and the fact that much of todays society is influenced by those past empires, Grecian democracy, arts, drama, Roman law, mixed ideologies of both, the basics of philosophy etc, etc. Indeed, they are immortal, and left a lasting mark on the world, one that is very much present in many societies today.
Even the Renaissance had a large aspect trying to replicate the "Golden Age" of Roman superiority. So yes, I'll say it worked out pretty great for them.
Originally posted by SaTsuJiN
I wasnt 'quoting' nambla persay, to clarify things, I was just mentioning that when gayiety no longer becomes taboo, it may make way for other things that are also unacceptable in todays society, which is why nambla came to mind
Gotcha' What SaTsujiN is saying is that once a certain taboo has been breached and accepted, it becomes a stepping stone for a broader base of immoral activities. Basically the same old old..oppurtunists siezing the moment to gain momentum and acceptance for their own agendas.
I get that.. and I am not taking sides on homosexuality here only pointing out some oddities in this thread.. but if you use that 'slippery slope' logic it gets VERY dangerous.. i mean had we never changed our beliefs/values/laws/etc.. thru the years then slavery would still be acceptable (i mean in the west), women would have way less rights & options than they do now & so on..
so using that logic on this issue really holds no water