Why is sexual attraction to children considered a 'disorder', but homosexual attraction isn't? It all seems so arbitrary.

File: 192 KB, 700x900, Familyneedhelp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:00:41 2011 No.2421303 [Reply] [Original]

Why is sexual attraction to children considered a 'disorder', but homosexual attraction isn't? It all seems so arbitrary.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:02:41 2011 No.2421314 People of the same sex are mentally competent and mature enough to give free and informed consent to engage in sexual activity. Children are not. QQ more pedo.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:02:41 2011 No.2421315 consensual

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:02:41 2011 No.2421318 File: 43 KB, 318x472, 1293221363204.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] They both serve no benefit to the community.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:03:41 2011 No.2421322 For much the same reasons that patting a friend on the back is fine, but smushing squirrels with a sledgehammer is not.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:03:41 2011 No.2421328 To be perfectly fair, homosexuality was considered a disorder until the PC movement. Also; consent. Children can't.

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:04:41 2011 No.2421337

consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:05:41 2011 No.2421339 because 20 years ago the NEA decided to normalize homosexuality, and you are just a product of your education. or a pervert. Whatever.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:05:41 2011 No.2421341 >Also; consent. Children can't. What does this have to do with sexual desires? We are talking about 'disordered' urges, not acting on these urges.

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:06:41 2011 No.2421345

They cant give consent.
Well, they give consent to guys their own age left and right, sluts running around high schools and all that, but a 15 year old girl isn't capable of giving consent to someone over 18.

Homofagsex is consensual, not really an issue.

>>	The Government Wed Jan 26 22:06:41 2011 No.2421349 >>2421303 homos can vote, children cant, therefore if we pretend to like the idea of them buttfucking we can get their vote.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:07:41 2011 No.2421356 >>2421341 >I want to have sex with something that can't consent seems like a pretty disordered urge to me.

>>	None !j9b1nEwFag Wed Jan 26 22:07:41 2011 No.2421359 >>2421314 >sexual attraction >engage in sexual activity faggot, op talks about the desire, not the action

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:07:41 2011 No.2421363 >>2421345 >a 15 year old girl isn't capable of giving consent to someone over 18. how did it come down to that conclusion. was there some research done or something.

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:08:41 2011 No.2421366

I my opinion, pedophilia is similar to homosexuality in that the pedophile cannot be blamed for it. He can, however, be blamed for acting on his pedophilia. It is termed a disorder so that pedophiles are (theoretically) able to seek psychological help in dealing with their forced abstinence and the guilt brought on by their condition.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:09:41 2011 No.2421372 >>2421359 Yes, the desire to have sex with something that cannot consent. >faggot Funny you should be the one to question someone's sexuality.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:09:41 2011 No.2421376 >>2421363 it's the age where all young persons have completed high school and are now considered by society to be independent.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:09:41 2011 No.2421385 >>2421345 ... statutory rape laws are more about providing legal recourse for families of knocked up girls when the man is over 18, and beholden to no one.

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:09:59 2011 No.2421383 [DELETED]

Its consensual.Pure and simple.
But even if it was a consensus that pedo was OK you shouldn't try children.They will probably get confused and traumatized.
Note: what a good part of moralist people consider "children" aren't really.Hebephilia (attraction for 11-14 yo) is not considered a disorder by psychiatrists.

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:10:41 2011 No.2421390

lol at the slew of retards who confound behaviour with attractions.

OP\s question was about why would a sexual orientation be considered normal and another be considered abnormal. sexual orientation is first and foremost attraction and then, depending on others' conditions, can be behaviour.

a guy who is mostly attracted to men but feels constrained by the environment to fuck women is not straight because he acts straight. similarly a pedophile who is attracted to kids, but fucks women is not a straight man either.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:11:41 2011 No.2421400 >>2421359 if no one acted on their desires, then pedophilia wouldn't be considered a problem you dolt. but people DO act on their desires, creating the issue.

>>	None !j9b1nEwFag Wed Jan 26 22:11:41 2011 No.2421401 >>2421372 funny you dont deny you're a faggot

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:11:41 2011 No.2421402 shit, if a little girl has tit's like that fuck it. literally.

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:12:41 2011 No.2421405

Im interested in why people think children cant consent. What makes a 14 year old saying "please fuck me" less of consent than a 19 year old saying "please fuck me"?

Hell, pets cant do that much, but there are entire enterprises devoted to letting people marry pets.

http://www.marryyourpet.com/

What specifically happens between 17 and 18 years of age to make the same words with the same meaning different?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:12:45 2011 No.2421407 That pic says that I need help? Help for want? I fucking love little girls.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:13:41 2011 No.2421415 That pic says that I need help? Help for what? I fucking love little girls.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:13:41 2011 No.2421419 >>2421390 I mean, a guy who is attracted to kids and fucks adults is not a teleiophile.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:13:41 2011 No.2421422 it is arbitary. the fact that one can give a consent or not doesn't mean fuck when it comes to assigning it the status of disorder or not, it just means if it's okay or not.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:13:41 2011 No.2421423 A disorders causes demonstrable distress or harm. There is ample evidence that premature sexualization of children causes psychological harm. Two beautiful women 69ing is just fun.

>>	None !j9b1nEwFag Wed Jan 26 22:14:41 2011 No.2421425 >>2421400 feeling sexualy attracted to your sister or cousin is not incest, and its not a problem as long as you dont tell (or rape) anyone. Of course ppl act on their desires, but the problem are the acts, not the desires by themselves

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:14:41 2011 No.2421427 >>2421405 Yeah, the age thing is arbitrary. The line had to be drawn somewhere, and 18's an (arbitrary) age recognized as the beginning of adulthood.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:14:41 2011 No.2421432 >>2421349 >>2421349 >>2421349 >>2421349

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:14:41 2011 No.2421433 >>2421405 Little kids would also eat cookies for every meal and drink antifreeze because it's sweet and comes in cool colors. Kids are notoriously bad at knowing what's good for them.

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:17:41 2011 No.2421453

>>2421405

Well the line has too be drawn somewhere. We know that at certain ages people have less developed brains and as such can not make as good decisions. It was deemed that around the age of 18 the great majority of people have developed to the point where they can make logical, thought out decisions.

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:17:41 2011 No.2421455

>>2421433
So now youre saying that these children cant do what they want? DISCRIMINATION STOP THE PRESSES WHAT A CHILDPHOBE HOW DARE YOU NOT THINK IMMORAL BEHAVIOR IS OKAY GODDAMMIT THIS IS 2011 AND IM STILL BEING DESCRIMINATED AGAINST!!!!!!

sounds silly when a pedo does it, sounds perfectly logical when a fag does, amirite?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:19:41 2011 No.2421481 >>2421455 Again, gay people can make rational decisions. Children cannot.

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:20:41 2011 No.2421485

>>2421453
why does the line have to be drawn? I as a 14 year old deserve every right you as an adult do, THIS IS 2011 THIS IS DISCRIMINATION I THOUGHT WE WERE PAST THIS EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL!!!!!!!!! LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL NOT JUST OLD PEOPLE ALL GODDAMMIT IM PART OF ALL!!!!!!!!

Sounds silly when a 14 year old says it, but a fag 4 years older thats completely justified today.

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:20:41 2011 No.2421490

>>2421366
>I my opinion, pedophilia is similar to homosexuality in that the pedophile cannot be blamed for it
Yes they can
They're selfish cunts that think the world revolves around them and that they should be able to rape children to satisfy their fetish
You either like women or you like men. Nobody is born being exclusively attracted to children.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:20:41 2011 No.2421494 >>2421481 If you can find love in a mans hairy butthole, no part of you is rational.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:22:41 2011 No.2421506 >>2421485 >Hurr durr I'm afraid that you may actually believe that and not just be an extremely obvious troll.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:22:41 2011 No.2421512 Social Mores. What society deems enmass as appropriate or not. I hate the word appropriate

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:22:41 2011 No.2421515 >>2421485 see>>2421481 Admit it, these moralistic gymnastics aren't objective, you're just trying to justify your babyfucking. You're not using science, you're using warped logic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:23:41 2011 No.2421520 >>2421490 Did you even read my post entirely?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:23:41 2011 No.2421523 >>2421481 what makes a 17 year old less rational than an 18 year old? hell, what makes a 13 year old less rational than an 18 year old? theres no difference today, except physical.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:24:41 2011 No.2421533 >>2421523 Expect brain development, which is the most important part.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:24:41 2011 No.2421538 as far as the related pic... Tell the pope about it.. this has very little to do with /sci/ ! Next...

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:25:41 2011 No.2421546 It is arbitrary in the sense that there is nothing objectively wrong about having sex with a child. People don't like it, it's as simple as that.

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:25:41 2011 No.2421548

>>2421523
>what makes a 17 year old less rational than an 18 year old?
In most places (I won't say all because I'm not a legal scholar) a 17 and an 18 year old can have sex. Most places have a provision for proximity of age.
>what makes a 13 year old less rational than an 18 year old?
There is a significant difference in brain structure and function. 18-year-olds are much better able to make logical decisions. Just look into the literature.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:25:59 2011 No.2421544 >>2421400 No. People try to demonize them no matter what. I'm trying to find a paper which showed that almost all people displayed some arousal when seeing child in certain situations.

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:29:41 2011 No.2421582

>>2421485
sure, so if a 8 year old decides he wants to donate one of his kidneys in exchange for say...20 bucks, we should respect his choice because clearly he made that decision with all the experience, common sense, and wisdom of someone 15 years older than him.

fucking hell you're a moron, children do stupid shit, stupid stupid shit, ergo they can't be trusted to make certain life critical decisions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:29:41 2011 No.2421586 >It all seems so arbitrary. That's because it is. Do you have any more stupid questions before you post something that's actually on topic?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:31:41 2011 No.2421606 >>2421548 Why does their cognitive ability matter?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:35:41 2011 No.2421643 >>2421606 you're right, it doesn't matter, lets put people with downs-syndrome in positions of political power and see what happens, because clearly, cognitive ability is inconsequential.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:35:41 2011 No.2421644 Is it wrong to be a 17 year old and liked by a 13 year old? I can't help that this girl is attracted to my shaggy hair and tight jeans. What should I do? She is in eight grade, while I'm in twelfth. It's just kind of awkward.

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:37:41 2011 No.2421661

>>2421546
>nothing objectively wrong

if you're using it in the same sense as
"objectively speaking, we're just a bunch of atoms"

then you're correct, but anything less (or more?) than that and you're an oversimplifying ass who makes statements that in no way reflect the real world.

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:37:41 2011 No.2421664

>>2421523
There are lots of differences.

12-olds don't have a body that can have sexual intercourse like an adult. They also can't understand their feelings and can't deal with them. One could easily destroy a kid's mental health by fucking with him/her.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:37:41 2011 No.2421668 >>2421644 Tell her to meet you somewhere after school, drive her out to the woods and tell her you'll only giver her a ride back if she sucks your cock

>>	Nixx Wed Jan 26 22:39:41 2011 No.2421679 A dickhead would take advantage of her...question is are you?

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:40:41 2011 No.2421694
File: 63 KB, 958x235, untitled.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2421376
First part of my post is in my picture, I was getting some error with part of my post not being allowed (does anyone know what word is causing me issues?), so I just put it into notepad and saved it as an image. Read that first, then the rest. Sorry.

Oh this type of thinking (though it's obviously exaggerated) is most definitely incorrect:
>>2421322

I'd just like to point out that bondage/rape fetishes are very common and fairly well accepted in society as far as fetishes go. You don't give consent to rape.

Unless you're just playing pretend, or looking at porn harmlessly on the internet. You can't really play pretend for pedophilia unless you find some girl that looks much younger than she is, but looking at CP, even when taken by the girls themselves, is veeery bad, while looking at rape porn, even actual videotaped rape, is perfectly okay (well some people might get disgusted) and legal. Legal to watch and distribute, not to perform/film, mind you.

What I'm saying is, it's all just society burning witches. We'll grow out of it in the following generations and find someone else who's different to pick on.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:40:41 2011 No.2421697 >>2421668 Lol that's wrong. I would feel like I'm manipulating her innocence. Her body is just developing and may not make the most rational decisions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:41:41 2011 No.2421701 >>2421643 That's different. Though I'd actually prefer retards to run the country, they wouldn't get anything done (taxation, war etc). >>2421661 No. Cognitive ability can be inconsequential to me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:42:41 2011 No.2421706 >>2421679 She could get fuckin suicidal, you never fuckin know

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:43:41 2011 No.2421713

We evolved to be attracted to males or females depending on brain development in the womb. We didn't evolve to be attracted to children, in fact most women died during childbirth before modern medicine so one would assume we evolved to be unattracted to underdeveloped females.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:44:41 2011 No.2421723 >>2421644 >What should I do? Leave 4chan until you're 18.

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:44:41 2011 No.2421728

>>2421713
doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80039-5
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4JCS5B6-8&_user=10&_cover
Date=11%2F30%2F1995&_rdoc=8&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_lis
t_item&_srch=doc-info%28%23toc%2329681%231995%23999739995%23617872%23FLP%23display%23Volume%29&a
mp;_cdi=29681&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=15&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&
amp;_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a935770cd1e44682b44a96cee54c455b&searchtype=a

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:45:41 2011 No.2421739 because society is not logical, and pedophillia has negative connotations due to child rape in reality though, pedophilia is just like normal sex in that sometimes its rape and sometimes its consentual

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:45:41 2011 No.2421742 >>2421713 Most women can start having children around the age of 14.

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:46:41 2011 No.2421752

>>2421713
>in fact most women died during childbirth so one would assume we evolved to be unattracted to underdeveloped females.

I don't understand how you got to that conclusion. Wouldn't that mean most developed women would've died after giving birth? Leaving only younger women?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:48:41 2011 No.2421770 >>2421723 Suck my dick. I gaurantee over half the people on 4chan are under 18

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:50:41 2011 No.2421782 >>2421723 Isn't that just the NSFW boards? I over 18, so I never even stopped to read that agegate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:51:41 2011 No.2421798 >>2421782 Nah, 4chan has some global rules and it includes being over 18. You can look them up if you want, I'm not really sure where you'd fine them, maybe the homepage or the FAQ. NSFW are just boards where you can post nudity.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:52:41 2011 No.2421804 >>2421782 Global Rule #2: Under 18 GTFO

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:52:41 2011 No.2421807 >>2421742 14 is not a kid. It's a loli. Some ethnic groups actually marry their kids when theyr' 14 because it's an age when the family can decide their future.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:52:41 2011 No.2421812 >>2421770 I'm sure that has nothing to do with its decline in quality

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:52:59 2011 No.2421808 >>2421728 I cant open it >>2421694 +1 internet

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:53:41 2011 No.2421817 >>2421770 >Suck my dick Can't, it would be statutory rape.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:54:41 2011 No.2421824 >>2421345 >a 15 year old girl isn't capable of giving consent to someone over 18. You do realize that Western society has basically pounded this sentence into your brain and that it has no valid semantic meaning, right?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:55:41 2011 No.2421830 Excuse me if I'm wrong, but isn't 18 the age your brain stops growing?

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:55:41 2011 No.2421834

>>2421770
nope, if there were mods on /sci/ you'd be b& for being such a retard (and for breaking the rules).

>>2421694
>videotaped rape

what backwards country do you live in, rape videos (if the rape is real) are illegal.

moreover, videos that emulate rape and emulate underage girls are legal because the actors involved are over 18 (speaking strictly about professional porn here)

homosexuality was illegal because of religion, we've moved past that

child abuse (child sex, etc) is illegal because it's highly immoral and exploits those dumber, less experienced, and more vunerable than us.

unless we can somehow move past (or move backwards) not giving a shit about other people and giving no flying fuck at all about the welfare of our future then sure, child sex would be A O fucking K

essentially, what you're saying is that when society becomes amoral or immoral, it'll be okay, and that's true, but it makes you a fucktard for obvious reasons.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:56:41 2011 No.2421841 >>2421808 linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005789405800395 or google the DOI.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:56:41 2011 No.2421843 File: 41 KB, 375x347, oshitrun.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2421807

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 22:57:41 2011 No.2421849 >>2421817 Not if I gave concent. Also, I'm turning 18 in less than a month.

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 23:00:41 2011 No.2421878

>>2421694
>no disorders

1. they didn't document them well because they thought the HUMAN BRAIN WAS MADE OF FIRE and BILE (the humors and shit)

2. it was a society filled with rape and pillage, its hard to care about a boy getting bummed when another country is seeking to rape and impregnate every single woman in your kingdom

3. the colosseum (Roman, i know, but greek tourists and all) people would cheer at slaves and shit killing each other and torn apart by animals, today that reflects that something is very, very, wrong with you.

thats just the tip of the iceberg, but suffice to say, you're wrong

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 23:09:41 2011 No.2421925

For the same reason we do not allow a child to drive, to sign legal contracts, or to consume alcohol or tobacco. They are not complete people, they are people in training. So, consent. Even if there were no other reason, consent is enough.

Homosexuality is not intrinsically harmful. Unless homosexuality is defined itself as being harmful, there is nothing about it that harms the practitioners in any way. Having sex with a prepubescent boy or girl is. Physically, usually, and mentally, often, maybe always.

Children do not want to have sex with adults. They have a sex drive, to some degree, this is true. A small percentage may be interested in sex with an adult. An even smaller percentage will be interested in actually going through with it, when presented with the opportunity. And an even smaller percentage will be mentally and emotionally developed enough to deal with the situation and come out unharmed. The power disparity between the adult and child in even the most idealised pedophilic relationship would be so great that any adult adult relationship with a similar disparity would be considered grossly dysfunctional.

Even if only one of these three were true, it would be enough to look on practicing pedophiles with great disdain.

Also, puberty is natures age of consent. Someone just starting puberty should not be with someone just ending it, with a grey area in between.

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 23:12:41 2011 No.2421939

>>2421834
>what backwards country do you live in, rape videos (if the rape is real) are illegal.

America. Really? I've seen them posted on 4chan, but then again, so is CP.

Well I don't it's enforced very hard, then.

Also, you're assuming that somehow our current moral standards are "correct" compared to any other societies. Why?

I'm not saying we should go back to oppressing women and owning slaves, but our morals are pretty fucked even now. We still have shit like capital punishment, we still let religion control our politics and laws, we give minorities (and women) special privileges and we still have a witch hunt mentality for groups such as pedophiles.

That's just looking at base of it, we live in a very immoral society that promotes selfishness, backstabbing, exploitation, with the end goal very every person being wealth. This is from an American perspective, but it's pretty much the same all around the world.

It's pretty silly to actually think that our morals are "correct", just the idea of any society's morals being right is absurd. It doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme, it's how we currently feel about things, privy to change at any moment.

Also
>child abuse (child sex, etc) is illegal because it's highly immoral and exploits those dumber, less experienced, and more vunerable than us.
>exploits those dumber, less experienced, and more vunerable than us.

Looking at CP taken by kids themselves doesn't do any of this, why is that illegal? All it does is force pedophiles to suppress their urges and drive up the market for CP.

>>2421878
Yeah, you're right, it was a pretty terrible example but with today's morals, if I brought up any society that did encourage pedophilia or early marriage, then that society would've already be seen as bad or backwards, just because of that.

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 23:16:41 2011 No.2421960

>>2421925
I don't see how nature plays into it considering all sorts of fetishes disregard any idea of safety or reproduction.

Just to make it simple, how does homosexuality play into nature's idea of reproduction? Not at all.

So I don't see how "nature's age of consent" is relevant.
Well, I do, but then again, wouldn't the moment the girl felt a sex drive be nature giving consent? Ignoring all "morals" or logical thought-processes, all manipulation or misunderstood social standings, if a young girl who saw the chance to fuck a guy and her body told her that it was a good thing and made her horny, would that not be nature giving consent?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 23:17:41 2011 No.2421964 >>2421925 you're missing the difference between attraction and acting THERE IS A DIFFERENCE

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 23:18:41 2011 No.2421968

how does homosexual sex qualify as a disorder?\
can no one see any evolutionary benefit to it?
Most humans are inherently bisexual, in fact back in the day homosexuality wasn't considered a lifestyle it was an action. Something you did. Sex with men. Most homosexuals had perfeclty happy lives with their wives. who they cheated on. with men.

Society is turning it into a disorder by making it a lifestyle.

In a group sexual attraction to everyone forms more bonds and keeps everyone together. especially if that group doesnt have a lot of one sex.

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 23:20:41 2011 No.2421982

>>2421960

My point being that humans are not usually interested in sex until they have started puberty. They do not usually have a grasp on the complexities of the situation, sexually, until they are part of the way through puberty.

I refer you to my point about driving cars, signing contracts and drinking beers. Do you think children should be permitted to do these things at the first point they show interest in doing so? The first time someone else convinces them they should?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 23:21:41 2011 No.2421986 >>2421968 >can no one see any evolutionary benefit to it? What are the evolutionary benefits? Honestly, I'd argue the exact opposite of your post. It's illogical to be homosexual, and the only reason people are is because of society.

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 23:24:41 2011 No.2422006

>>2421964

Are you talking about the difference between a pedophile and a child molester?

I said practicing pedophiles for a reason. Pedophiles in isolation are to be pitied, perhaps, but not reviled. All I, or anyone should, care about is that children are not being damaged by the sexual predations of adults.

For example; when the day comes that lifelike, childlike sex robots become available, I say, let the pedophiles fuck them. The state of being a pedophile is only to be pitied now because there are limited ways for them to act on their desires without harming a child. When they can do so without harming a child, what the fuck do I care? It will just be another fetish.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 23:25:41 2011 No.2422011 >>2421986 Re read my post broseph

Anonymous Wed Jan 26 23:27:41 2011 No.2422015

>>2421986

Homosexuality is hardly any less logical that heterosexuality. It is not even an evolutionary dead-end, since homosexuals still can, and always have throughout history, fathered and mothered children in the old fashioned way. I don't see why it would have any more moral character than handedness.

So far as we can tell, it can't be cured, it can't be prevented, but thankfully it hurts nobody.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 26 23:29:41 2011 No.2422032 >>2421849 You missed the entire discussion then, didn't you? You're under 18, you can't give consent.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 01:36:41 2011 No.2422707

>>2421341
This is a good point, better one would be at which age a child is capable of consent. That one is still a thorn in psychologists sides.

Long story short: It's really hard to distinguish pedo rapists from non-sexual pedos, so it's best to profile even innocent ones and work to remove their kind from society for the safety of the children.
It's not like they're a race (which has nothing to do with behavior) or culture/religion (which is a choice), so it's ok to profile based on pedos probably uncontrollable impulses.

>implying homosexuality is even legal in most of the world
Vast majority of the planet including some European nations and US states find homosexuality, sodomy or gay marriage to be unlawful.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 01:39:41 2011 No.2422720 both are disorders but one is considered normal because if you were the opposite sex it would be normal both are because your brain is not functioning like it should

Meth !!aXZQLQEDst0 Thu Jan 27 01:56:41 2011 No.2422803

As a pedo I find that picture extremely disgusting.

As I see it, it's only a disorder if it really debilitating to one's functioning in society and causes constant distress. I function well, completely content with my primary attraction for little girls. I know it's a stupid idea to ever do anything, so I don't. Simple as that. If people still want to label me as sick, that's fine.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 01:59:41 2011 No.2422826 >>2421824 >>2421824 >>2421824 >mfw no one has given any kind of response to this truth >rage quietly onward

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:00:41 2011 No.2422831 File: 1.37 MB, 1951x1528, Sikhs in Military.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2422803 Your Sikh

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:01:41 2011 No.2422836 >>2422803 Fellow pedo here, I label you as awesome, take care dude

>>	Meth !!aXZQLQEDst0 Thu Jan 27 02:07:41 2011 No.2422867 >>2422831 Dohoho >>2422836 Right back at you, man

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:12:41 2011 No.2422883

>>2422826

did you not read anything? we have to draw the line somewhere. and thats why its statutory rape and not plain old rape. we make some concessions because we know its different than someone fucking a 4 year old.

Are you complaining about the abitrary nature of 18 as the age of consent? deal with it pedo. The only other option is to give the youth continual cognitive tests to see if they are mature enough and independent enough to be capable of giving consent to a sexual relationship

however these tests would have to have a standard to measure their results against, a standard that would inherantly be arbitrary....

There is no getting around the need to draw the line somewhere and say 'this is illegal and this is not'

18 makes sense as its the age the youth adopt the responsibilities of adulthood

If you want to get really scientific about it, portions of the brain don't stop developing until 25, so we could make that the new age of consent. Unless thats what you want shut your fucking mouth dipshit.

>>2422803

your kind should be killed, or atleast castrated. I find it hard to believe that if you honestly are primarily attracted to children, you wont act on your desires. For a long time gays were punished with death and believed they would go to hell for fucking men, but they still fucked. Sexual desire is a very core impulse in humans and you know deep down if you're a real pedo (as in likes 8 year olds and shit) that if you had the opportunity or didnt think you would be caught you'd act on it. You wouldnt give a shit for the welfare of the child.

OP Thu Jan 27 02:16:41 2011 No.2422905

Protip: Any argument against pedophilia can be applied to homosexuality. Yet I'd imagine few here are against gayfags. Why?

That being said there is a cut-off point. I'm not going to say what age I think it is, because it will just reek of cultural bias (see Greek pederasty). Back when you were 15 you wouldn't have refuse a hot 20 yr old, why should girls be any different?

I'll also second what some anons are saying...Our society's reaction to it is much more damaging than the act itself.

That being said, If you have sex with anyone against their will, it should be the highest crime.

Since were on the subject: Zoophilia. Animals can consent too. Come at me.

-A Non-Pedo Hetersexual Male.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:18:41 2011 No.2422915

>>2422883
Your response completely dodged the specific question I asked. See >>2421824
After reading that post carefully, think again about it before attempting to respond to it.

>You wouldnt give a shit for the welfare of the child.
You claim to know so much about the heart of a stranger. How is it so? From what I have seen, it is you who has been corrupted.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:19:41 2011 No.2422917

>>2422883
Gayfags-

your kind should be killed, or atleast castrated. I find it hard to believe that if you honestly are primarily attracted to men, you wont act on your desires. For a long time straights were punished with death and believed they would go to hell for fucking the opposite sex, but they still fucked. Sexual desire is a very core impulse in humans and you know deep down if you're a real faggot (as in likes men, and the same sex in general and shit) that if you had the opportunity or didnt think you would be caught you'd act on it. You wouldnt give a shit for the welfare of the man.

now see how dumb that sounds?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:21:41 2011 No.2422925 >>2422905 >Yet I'd imagine few here are against gayfags. /sci/ is one of the most homophobic boards on 4chan. Not surprising, since it's chock full of morons.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:22:41 2011 No.2422927

a healthy, straight man can find a pubescent girl, under the age of "consent" sexually attractive without it being a disorder.

once a girl enters puberty and starts dropping eggs and can be pregnant, it's nature's signal that she is ready to start crapping out kids.

society has decided that a sexually mature cannot give consent to someone over 18.

well, let me rephrase that. SOME societies have decided that some sexually mature girls can't give consent to men over 18.

in reality, it varies depending on the country...and state.

now, having sex with a pre-pubescent girl has no evolutionary benefits, and isn't usually an acceptable behaviour. MOST of the time.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:26:41 2011 No.2422948

>>2422905
>Our society's reaction to it is much more damaging than the act itself.
In cases where no one physically forced anything and everybody was smiling the whole time, agreed

>If you have sex with anyone against their will, it should be the highest crime.
Agreed, and the fact that it's considered rape either way regardless of whether the child said "yes" or "no" proves that: THE LAW TRULY DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE CHILD'S VOICE. THAT FACT IS SAD AND SHAMEFUL.

>Animals can consent too.
Agreed

- A Pedo

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:27:41 2011 No.2422953

comparing homosexuality to pedophilia is retarded and shows you didnt READ THE FUCKING THREAD

homos area ttracted to age appropriate men that can consent

pedos like children that cant consent

As for animals its held that they dont have the intellectual capacity to consent and the power imbalance of human vs animal makes it impossible

gtfo or learn some shit you dumbfucks. jesus christ this board is supposed to be smart

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:27:41 2011 No.2422954 >>2422953 define consent. you just lost.

Meth !!aXZQLQEDst0 Thu Jan 27 02:28:41 2011 No.2422955

>>2422883
Believe what you wish. I'm innocent until I commit a crime, which I never plan on doing. I wouldn't rape anyone if I knew I could get away with it, as I am highly empathetic. My attraction for little girls includes more than a sexual aspect; there is a powerful admiration and infatuation that makes me wish for only the best for them. The thought of putting my will above a little girl's, or any human's, will sickens me.

>>	sage sage Thu Jan 27 02:30:41 2011 No.2422963 File: 7 KB, 251x189, 1272208425513.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2421303 >It all seems so arbitrary. Bingo. That's why it isn't science. This is not /sci/ related. GTFO!

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:30:41 2011 No.2422967 >>2422954 "permission to do something; "he indicated his consent"" thats the definition.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:31:41 2011 No.2422976 >>2422953 You are either trying to troll this thread or you are one of the most ignorant motherfuckers ever, completely impressionable by mainstream society's pseudo babble bullshit on this issue.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:32:41 2011 No.2422980 >>2422967 so at what age do humans have the ability to give "permission to do something"? or, let me ask it another way. on which birthday does someone gain the ability to give consent?

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:35:41 2011 No.2422994

>>2422953
>children that cant consent
>animals cant consent
but thats wrong you retard.

every try to get close to a dog that doesnt like you? a horse? ever try telling a kid to do something they dont want to? hint- they cry and/or attack you.

organisms have ways of cross-species communication. you clearly know nothing of emotion, body language, or sexualities.
most zoophiles fuck animals that could kill them if they wanted to, so itll be pretty obvious if the animal doesnt like it. heres something thatll blow your mind- talk to a zoophile, many animals do enjoy sex (SURPRISE SURPRISE)

for fucks sake, try punching a baby in the face, Im sure itll be pretty obvious that its unhappy with what you did. even any aspie on /sci/ could interpret that.

tl;dr- even fucking infants can consent in ways

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:36:41 2011 No.2422995

>>2422967
YES. And, ignoring what arbitrary laws say and sticking with common sense, a child can indeed give you permission to do something. For example, play with one of her Barbie dolls. Or agree that she should brush her teeth. When people say "children can't consent to sex" it's kind of enraging because they obviously can, the only thing up for debate is whether or not it should take place in the event that they do consent. Remember, I am not using consent in the legal sense here, but in the dictionary sense.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:37:41 2011 No.2422999 jesus christ you people are retarded. at this point im fairly sure you're just trying to troll so i'm /out of here when you start implying infants and children can consent to sexual relationships you just went full retard.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:37:41 2011 No.2423001 >>2422955 claps i salute you sir. no joke, you are seriously a good man. it will be people like you that pave the way for full acceptance of all sexualities.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:37:41 2011 No.2423002 File: 34 KB, 600x480, 1267363273015.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2422976 >Think there is science behind man-made laws LMAO

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:39:41 2011 No.2423008 File: 67 KB, 864x569, 1288973222843.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] not science

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:41:41 2011 No.2423015 >>2423002 I believe laws SHOULD make sense and that many currently don't. If they don't, they should be changed. You're genuinely laughing at someone who wants to make the law more rational? That doesn't make sense. Your priorities are mixed up.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:42:41 2011 No.2423019

>>2421303

anything other than "propagating sex" is abnormal, i mean, considering the purpose of sex and all.

abnormal doesn't have to be a bad thing, just abnormal.

therefore, homosexuality is just as abnormal as a pedophilic sexuality.

society's mores, scant decades ago, kept homosexuals 'in the closet' even though it's an apparent genetic difference and as viable as the heterosexual.

try this: almost every species has an inherant self limiting 'gene' (?) that kicks in when in the presence of overpopulation.

homo sapiens have cycled through homosexual cycles before, in history, when the world became "apparently full".

the world right now appears full. strangely enough, homosexuality increases steadily as the present goes by.

maybe we've kicked the 'internal non-populating mechanism' into high gear again.

fine with me as long as all the women don't follow suit! (I think their ingrained will to reproduce will save me while the rest of you guys go pole dancing) (!).
besides, i think that homosexu

>>	Meth !!aXZQLQEDst0 Thu Jan 27 02:43:41 2011 No.2423022 >>2423001 Thank you, sir. >full acceptance of all sexualities. I would like to see this within my lifetime, but I know that is expecting too much.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:44:41 2011 No.2423027 >>2423019 We don't have sex to make babies, we have sex because it feels good. Animals have gay sex for pleasure, with baby animals for pleasure, with inanimate objects, animals masturbate. . . there's nothing abnormal about sex for pleasure.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:46:41 2011 No.2423031

>>2423022
Im the opposite kind of pedo. Im only interested in the spectacle/absurdity of it. People that develop a fascination with the purity of underage girls kind of creep me out. I dont get how you could get off on innocence. Not criticizing, just saying I dont get it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:48:41 2011 No.2423037 this thread is why we need MORE humanities influences in science, not less. some people with great opinions on here, but /lit/ would've been better for this discussion.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:48:41 2011 No.2423040 Of course it's arbitrary. Homosexuality was considered a disorder until about 1970, when the hippies arbitrarily made homosex politically correct. Other cultures at least in the past made sex with adolescents politically correct.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:48:41 2011 No.2423043 >>2423027 animals also eat their young dont use the natural world as an example for what humans should do

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:49:41 2011 No.2423046

>>2423031
Im the opposite kind of fag. Im only interested in the spectacle/absurdity of it. People that develop a fascination with men kind of creep me out. I dont get how you could get off on penises. Not criticizing, just saying I dont get it.

>protip: you dont have to get it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:50:41 2011 No.2423049 >>2423031 I'm another pedo of Meth's kind. Loving innocence is pretty innocent itself. If you're creeped out by that, society has really gotten to you. I wonder if pedo is your fetish and not your sexuality.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:51:41 2011 No.2423054

>>2423015

The only way to fix the problem is to outlaw religion (or just wait for it to die out). Religion (belief in imaginery friends as an adult) is the sole reason humanity is so fucked up.

You can't assume rational thought from those who believe in imaginery friends.

\thread

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:53:41 2011 No.2423059 File: 26 KB, 619x352, 127629679242bb2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2423054 ALL YOU DO IS WIN

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:54:41 2011 No.2423063 >>2423049 Thinking innocence is marvelous is fine, I just don't get how you can connect it with sex. And youre right, Im not really a pedo, I just enjoy the occasional cp thrill. Its not a lifestyle or anything.

Meth !!aXZQLQEDst0 Thu Jan 27 02:54:41 2011 No.2423064

>>2423031
Ah, let me make it more clear. If we're talking about a sexual attraction, then for me it's physical. The small bodies, cute faces, flat chests and all. I find that to be very sexy. But like how a man can be romantically and emotionally attracted to women, I have that for little girls. The childish nature is very alluring to me and greatly augments my attraction. You could say it's the larger portion, even. Their personalities make me very happy and I enjoy their company.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:55:41 2011 No.2423065 >>2423043 humans don't live in the natural world? interesting.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:55:41 2011 No.2423069 >>2423064 That does clear it up.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 02:58:41 2011 No.2423079

>>2423054
angsty teen atheist detected

ill save you the trouble and just tell you what you'll eventually (hopefully) realize. Religion is NOT without blood on its hands, but it is FAR from the world's biggest problem. Eliminating religion would only make the world negligibly better.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:00:41 2011 No.2423087

>>2423063
Meth is right. The reason you are finding all of this hard to understand is probably because you're not factoring genuine full-blown heart-racing romance into the equation. I don't know how else to say this, but I could take a 9-year-old girl on a romantic date and take it 100% seriously, exactly how most adults take their dates seriously. For me, there is no dark aspect to the situation at all. Darkness only comes when angry people start to disrupt the harmony and damage the girl by trying to convince her something is wrong.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:03:41 2011 No.2423103 File: 2 KB, 94x126, 1285713639543.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2423087 Vur clear now, thank you. On this date, would you feel like an adult? Or would you feel like you were nine years old again?

>>	Meth !!aXZQLQEDst0 Thu Jan 27 03:06:41 2011 No.2423115 >>2423087 I admire your passion. But now I feel like crap because I know I'll never be able to take a 9 year old out on a date.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:07:41 2011 No.2423116 >>2423079 >eliminating the ~2 billion creationists' religions to make them scientifically literate >only 'negligibly good' Ohwow.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:07:41 2011 No.2423119

>>2423103
I am probably a rare case. I feel like a 9-year-old girl ought to be my social equal, and that, the fact that I look older only gets in the way of things and makes it needlessly awkward. It embarrasses me when a 9-year-old girl thinks of me as her elder, and I feel like I really am not any older than her, deep down. This may not be the case with other pedos, I'm just saying how this all works for me.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:07:41 2011 No.2423120 >>2423079 All irrational thought stems from religion (making up bullshit and taking it as facts).

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:08:41 2011 No.2423125 >>2423116 Taking religion out doesn't mean science is going to flow into its place. People don't like science because its boring/hard, not because religion offers a better explanation

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:11:41 2011 No.2423135 why does this belong in science? why did they photoshop an 8 year old girl's head onto a woman's body? that shit is freaking me out

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:11:41 2011 No.2423137 >>2423079 >>2423125 I'm curious, if he had said to eliminate all religions except the one that you follow, would you be for that?

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:11:41 2011 No.2423140

>>2423115
Don't give up hope, maybe you can someday. But like any romantic relationship, it shouldn't be rushed or artificial. I mean, a lot of so-called normal people have trouble finding a date. We just have a significant added burden on top of that because of social pressures.

For the date itself, the best bet would be to make it seem to the nosy people around you that you are taking your little sister out to eat or something. Don't do anything too romantic in public and no one would be the wiser.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:13:41 2011 No.2423144 To the moralfags ITT... if a Star trek-style holodeck was created, and pedos got all of their desires taken care of in there and lived perfectly normal pedo-free lives IRL, would you still be against it?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:14:41 2011 No.2423150 >>2423135 >why did they photoshop an 8 year old girl's head onto a woman's body? Because the people who want you to despise all relationships between people over 18 and people under 18, THEY are the ones who are actually sick in the head.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:16:41 2011 No.2423161 >>2423135 Whoever made that anti-pedo ad was kind of bonkers. Ironically, they probably need help.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:16:59 2011 No.2423158 [DELETED]

>>2423064
The difference is from where people extract pleasure.

- Some people(like you and me, but I'm not pedo) think in sex like a form of affection.
The more affection, the more pleasure.
I think its the most rational form..

- Some believe its a power game.Submissive and dominating people..sado etc
The more domination and humiliation, the more pleasure
(people usually think this is the "natural" and "animalistic" sex drive)

- Some think its a profane thing.
The more profane, the more pleasure.
I believe here is where the sick people fit.Catholic priests for example..I don't think its a coincidence that there is a lot of pedophiles among them.I believe its the way religion makes them see sex, i.e., as something profane.

All the types are correlated with hetero or homo..there can be both in any type, I think.

btw..the age of consent here in brazil:
year-age
1862-17
1890-16
1940-14
and its still 14.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:20:41 2011 No.2423177
File: 25 KB, 436x570, untitled.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2423125
True. If you take away religion, it will not be replaced by science necessarily.

It will however be replaced by rational thought, which is still magnituides better then religious thought.

Religious thought, specifically "faith", is the biggest pile of shit in all of human history. Having "faith" isn't a positive trait at all. Having "faith" mean you are fucking retarded and gullible.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:23:41 2011 No.2423185 >>2423065 humans dont have to act like other animals

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:24:41 2011 No.2423190 >>2423137 im an atheist, so not really relevant

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:26:41 2011 No.2423197 >>2423190 >atheist >arguing FOR religion I must say, that's a first that I've seen.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:28:41 2011 No.2423211

>>2423140
>>Meth
U guys are awesome about answering questions.

If you guys are still in here, I have a question. Don't you feel like intellect would be an obstacle? Maybe its just me, but i would think it'd be hard to have a meaningful relationship with someone not as intellectually mature as myself. I look at some girls my own damn age (20) and know i could never be in a serious relationship w/them because, to be frank, itd be intellectual starvation. Theyre stupid. Innocence is cute, but you could never talk to her about politics, life, or meaningful things...or is that ok w/u?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:29:41 2011 No.2423214 >>2423144 >anti-pedo laws claim to protect children >pedo animation and drawings are also illegal Give it up. Moralfags are all about controlling you, not about helping people.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:29:41 2011 No.2423215 >>2423177 What of causality, then?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:30:41 2011 No.2423216 >>2423125 People like religion because it is comforting to believe pretty lies. People would rather believe in pretty lies, then harsh reality.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:31:41 2011 No.2423225 >>2423211 That's pretty much why pedos are sick fucks. They don't want a relationship with an equal, but with someone they can control.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:31:41 2011 No.2423226 >>2423215 What do you mean?

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:32:41 2011 No.2423230

>>2423197
ya, its seems that way, but i do genuinely think we'd be better off without religion. it would be an overall improvement.

I just get kinda frustrated when people link it to every single world problem. theyre blinding themselves to thousands of other issues that are more relevant. ill admit IQ would go up, but social issues wouldn't be resolved. atheists can still be terrorists, dictators and murderers.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:33:41 2011 No.2423231 >>2423216 Thanks, Steve Jobs. Unfortunately, you are right.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:33:41 2011 No.2423232 >>2423216 >>then harsh reality. reality isn't so harsh. if reality appears harsh it's probably the observer's fault.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:35:41 2011 No.2423240

>>2423211
For me, the relationship would be more about enjoying the simpler aspects of life. I guess another way to say that is, I find intellectual stimulation mainly through my own actions in my own time anyway. If I were with a girl that age, the relationship would be more about cuddling under a blanket, watching movies, and playing hide-and-seek than talking about the national debt, which is perfectly okay with me. But I guess we would probably both read books and occasionally talk about them with each other.

P.S. you know, there are some 9-year-olds who could hold a sensible political discussion...

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:36:41 2011 No.2423241

>>2423226
You take plenty of things on faith. Many, many things. You just draw the line differently than some people.

I'm Catholic. The Church has nothing against science, contrary to what many of you often regurgitate. In fact, the Church is responsible for the Enlightenment, indirectly. There's a reason it happened in the West. I won't prove it to you, but if you'd really like to gain knowledge, then you can research it yourself, like I have.

Regardless, my point is that you should perhaps be more aware of what you take for granted, and how you so caustically denounce it.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:38:41 2011 No.2423249

>>2423211
That's why it's called a fantasy. 99.9% of pedos don't act on their fantasy urges. It's the 0.01% that do that are emotionally unstable anyways that give the rest of the pedos such a bad name.

And why the fuck do people equate sex with control? Why can't it just be having fun? I've never once gotten laid and thought 'fuck yeah, I owned that bitch!' Personally I find the sex always equals control people to be more fucked in the head than the pedos.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:41:59 2011 No.2423260 >>2423249 >>2423158 Is this post invisible people? I'd like to know

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:42:41 2011 No.2423263 >>2423249 Sex isn't necessarily about control. Sex with children is.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:42:59 2011 No.2423264 is this => >>2423158 invisible?

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:44:41 2011 No.2423268
File: 13 KB, 272x345, Bendercb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2423230
Ignorace and people being dumbshits are linked to most, if not all, problems in human society. People making poor decisions based off shit-logic and improper reasoning skills.

Religion fosters, incourages and rewards dumbshits. Religion discouages thinking ability, and reasoning skills. The correlation between religion and most problems in society is kinda justified. Withou religion societies problems would deccrease by magnitudes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:49:41 2011 No.2423275 File: 24 KB, 320x240, Abacus!.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2423268 >Denounces "shit-logic" >Uses shit logic

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:49:41 2011 No.2423276

>>2423263
>sex with children is about control

thats wrong and if you can honestly look at the response of every Pedo whos taken the time to answer questions, and still come to that conlusion youre a troll.

sex may be about control for some people, pedos or not. How many straight people have rape fantasies? thats about control. All the pedos posting here dont seem to be interested in control. I hope this thread is read by many people, it may enlighten some.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:54:41 2011 No.2423283

>>2423268
donthinksotim.

Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao- all atheists. and crazy fucktards.
Bin Laden, Westborough Baptist Church, the Pope- all religious. and crazy fucktards.

what do they all have in common? THEYRE CRAZY FUCKTARDS! if someone is crazy theyll kill and murder. you can justify any action through ANY belief. even buddhists and hindus murder.

plus youre ignoring extremely important historic things like class oppression, exploitation, etc

>>	Scientist Thu Jan 27 03:56:41 2011 No.2423286 >>2421303 >arbitrary Yep. To play a devil's advocate position, minors are not full adults, do not have full responsibility, and are not granted full rights. Adults engaging in homosexual behavior do have full rights and responsibility.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:57:41 2011 No.2423291
File: 24 KB, 502x391, 1270664214909.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2423241
>Church is responsible for the Enlightenment, indirectly.

LMAO,
Tons of shit is responsible for the Enlightement indirectly. Your indirect causation doesn't mean shit. Nor does it imply any merits to the indirect cause. You seem to have shitty reasoing ability as well, you a religiou fag?

An analogy to your fail logic:
Hitler was indirectly responsible for man landing on the moon.

This is historically true, you could build a chain of cause and efffect from WWII to the Cold war, and the space race. This still doesn't imply any merits to Hitler though.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 03:58:41 2011 No.2423296

Okay all, it seems to me that the main question here is, is pedophilia morally wrong?
Not science, but I'll throw my two cents in anyway.

The first question we might ask is, what do we mean when we call something morally wrong?
I would define a particular action or choice is immoral or wrong when it somehow deminishes happiness, well-being, or health; or it somehow causes unneccesary harm or suffering; or both.

So, does an adult engaging a child in a sexual act deminish the happiness, well-being, or health of either party?
Does an adult engaging a child in a sexual act cause the unneccesary harm or suffering to either party?

Well, I suppose the outcome of said questions would further depend on how define 'adult' and 'child'.
But, answer those questions, and you have your answer.

Personally, I find pedophilia very much repellent, but if there truly is no harm incurred in the matter, then I suppose I would be forced to declare no foul.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:02:41 2011 No.2423311

>>2423291
I clearly stated I was a religiousfag in my post.

Let me specify, seeing as you're not below exploiting the possible ambiguity of my post.

The Enlightenment was possible only because of the culture of learning and reason perpetuated by the Church.

As I said, I won't show you here, in part because that would be an enormous task. But, again, if you really pursue Truth, you will learn for yourself.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:02:59 2011 No.2423307 File: 488 KB, 2089x1582, ppp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Scientist Thu Jan 27 04:05:41 2011 No.2423319

>>2423311
>The Enlightenment was possible only because of the culture of learning and reason perpetuated by the Church.
Yes and no. During some ages, the church was clearly responsible for the creation of modern scientific inquiry, but later it turned on its creation and deemed it heretical when it didn't like its answers.

It's a mixed history. Overall, as the church is based on faith in spite of available contradictory evidence, I'll simply say that the church probably has done more harm than good to science.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:07:41 2011 No.2423324 File: 25 KB, 295x373, 1231235623.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2423307

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:08:41 2011 No.2423329
File: 63 KB, 1024x768, Bender%20Futurama.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2423283
>Thinks I impled direct causation

>Can't grasp basic reasoning

There will probably always be some crazy-fucktards. Having a system that incourages crazy fucktards (religion) only feeds the fire though.

In general the religious have lower IQ's and less critical thinking ability. Instead of trying to better themselves, the religious basically embrace ignorace. This is not good for society.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:09:59 2011 No.2423334 >>2423324 it looks like carlton banks, from fresh prince. It was a test to see if I was invisible because the lack of response to >>2423158

>>	Scientist Thu Jan 27 04:12:41 2011 No.2423343 >>2423329 >Thinks I impled direct causation You did.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:16:41 2011 No.2423357
File: 35 KB, 293x425, 6a00e5510dc3dd8833011570f3b893970c-pi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2423319
>One spat between a troll pope and master troll Galileo
>Atheists try to make that the defining event of the catholic church, if not all religion.
>mfw

>>	Scientist Thu Jan 27 04:17:41 2011 No.2423360 >>2423357 How is Galileo a troll? He was just trying to spread the truth. Also, you're horribly misinformed if you think it's just Galileo that the Catholic church screwed over the very issue of planetary orbits.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:23:41 2011 No.2423376 >>2423360 Have you read the pamphlet he published, in which he put the words of the pope in the court jester's mouth or some shit like that? He trolled the fuck out of the pope.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:23:41 2011 No.2423378 >>2423307 Are the mods fapping? why is this still here?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:24:41 2011 No.2423385 >>2423360 It was. Back when Copernicus was doing it, he got all kinds of encouragement from the church into his research of heliocentrism. It wasn't he actual science that got Galileo into trouble.

Scientist Thu Jan 27 04:26:41 2011 No.2423390

>>2423376
You mean "Dialogues concerning the Two Great World Systems"? He didn't pick out the pope's words specifically. He picked out the standard Catholic arguments against reason and evidence.

Yes he wasn't polite about it. That doesn't make him a troll. Please learn what that word actually means instead of just applying it to anyone you don't like.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:26:41 2011 No.2423391 >>2423319 This isn't true. I won't ask you to provide an example of your case, because I haven't for mine. It's a huge topic, and can't be covered on 4chan.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:28:41 2011 No.2423397
File: 28 KB, 363x310, 1277429447433.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2423311
I ain't arguing with you dumbshit. Your facts are decent. However, they still don't logically help the church look better. Your reasoing is so shit-teir that you can't even tell when you are drawing false conclusions.

Here is the analogy of your shit logic again. I will try an break it down for you little guy. I can only dumb it down for you so much though.

>Facts:
Hiter Rose to Power. Hitler tries to conquer most of world, WWII. The Nazis loose the war, at great cost to most world powers. All world powers are gone, except USA and USSR. USSR and USA locked in cold war. Space race insues. USSR send Spudnik to beat americans.
Americans landed on the moon to beet USSR.

Hence, Hiter (Axis) is directly responsible for crippling all major powers except the US and USSR. He is indirectly resonsible then for the Cold war, the space race, and American landing on the moon.

Man landing on the moon was indrectly caused by Hitlers rise to power!

>Bad conclusion:
Hiter was needed for man to walk on the moon.

Your logic and reasoning skills are so fuckin shit. You a creationist?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:28:41 2011 No.2423398 >>2423385 This is true. Fellow Catholic? I never thought I'd see the day.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:30:41 2011 No.2423412 >>2423398 I'm a Christian, but not a Catholic. Just stating it how it is.

Scientist Thu Jan 27 04:31:41 2011 No.2423414

>>2423385

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism
Quoting Martin Luther
>There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism
>Although he was in good standing with the Church and had dedicated the book to Pope Paul III, the published form contained an unsigned preface by Osiander defending the system and arguing that it was useful for computation even if its hypotheses were not necessarily true. Possibly because of that preface, the work of Copernicus inspired very little debate on whether it might be heretical during the next 60 years. There was an early suggestion among Dominicans that the teaching of heliocentrism should be banned, but nothing came of it at the time.

Yes yes. I know it's wiki. Really want me to look into it for better sources?

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:35:41 2011 No.2423420

>>2423390
No, there were no "standard catholic arguments" at all. The pope and published some specific opinions, but there was no official position. Galileo used specific phrases from what the pope published and lampooned them. You don't piss off the king like that, which is basically what the pope was at that point. Even at the end, when the two were going after each other, the pope didn't condemn Galileo for his scientific arguments but for his religious ones. His alternate interpretations of the Bible and such.

Like most great thinkers of the time, Galileo had his own unique take on his religion, and being public about doctrinal differences with the church is what gets you dragged before the inquisition. The inquisition doesn't give a fuck if you do science. That's just modern myth.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:35:41 2011 No.2423421

>>2423397
The mass of spelling and grammar problems in your posts make it hard for me to take you seriously.
By the logic you are using, the existence of Hitler could be said to cause anything that happened after Hitler. What I said is nothing like that. Something can cause something without being directly responsible for it.

I'll say it again. The Enlightenment was a *direct* result of the environment of reason and learning perpetuated by the Church.
As the Church was only responsible, in a direct manner albeit, for the *environment* that launched the Enlightenment, I think it would be unfair to say that the Church was *directly* responsible for the Enlightenment itself.
>>2423414
Martin Luther, unfortunately, excommunicated himself from the Church.

>>	Rotraven !!mIqNYe2hqC4 Thu Jan 27 04:37:41 2011 No.2423425 Good job with those new janitors guys.

Scientist Thu Jan 27 04:37:41 2011 No.2423426

>>2423420
>Even at the end, when the two were going after each other, the pope didn't condemn Galileo for his scientific arguments but for his religious ones. His alternate interpretations of the Bible and such.
See, that's where I have a problem. You see, his scientific arguments /were/ religious arguments. The scientific evidence, aka the evidence available to all of us from the natural world, clearly contradicted several verses of the King James Bible about the Earth not moving.

Thus, the pope is an idiot faith-head, and Galileo is the man for making fun of the faith-head.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:40:41 2011 No.2423432 God doesn't exist, get over it. The gaps he once tried to escape to are gone, and the remaining ones shrink by the day.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:40:41 2011 No.2423433

>>2423420
Also, I'd like to point out, at the risk of being massively flamed by people who do not know about the subject, that the Spanish Inquisition was a relatively minor event.
Perhaps 2,000-3,000 people were killed over a span of around 300 years, most at the hands of secular authorities.

>>2423426
The ignorance is astounding. The King James Bible, my friend?

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:40:41 2011 No.2423434
File: 70 KB, 450x338, 1270673538704.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2423421
>>2423421
Please take a basic logic course. I don't have time to waste trying to teach you anymore. Sorry little guy.

The Space race was a *direct* result of the political environment resulting from WW2.

Trollin?

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:41:41 2011 No.2423436

>>2423414
So Martin Luther didn't believe in heliocentrism. So the fuck what? You are aware that Martin Luther wasn't a catholic, right? I was talking about the encouragement Copernicus received from the catholic church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus#Heliocentrism

>In 1533, Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter delivered a series of lectures in Rome outlining Copernicus' theory. Pope Clement VII and several Catholic cardinals heard the lectures and were interested in the theory. On 1 November 1536, Cardinal Nikolaus von Schönberg, Archbishop of Capua, wrote to Copernicus from Rome:

>Some years ago word reached me concerning your proficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. At that time I began to have a very high regard for you... For I had learned that you had not merely mastered the discoveries of the ancient astronomers uncommonly well but had also formulated a new cosmology. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe... Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject ...[71]

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:42:41 2011 No.2423441 Remember when this thread was about pedos? Me neither.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:43:41 2011 No.2423442 File: 18 KB, 300x201, 1275417294017.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2423426 >the pope is an idiot faith-head religious "faith" = being fucking retarded

>>	Scientist Thu Jan 27 04:43:41 2011 No.2423443 >>2423433 >The ignorance is astounding. The King James Bible, my friend? Are you going to make a point, or just call me ignorant? King James Bible published in 1611. Galileo did his shit several years later.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:44:41 2011 No.2423444

>>2423426
But that's wrong. Geocentrism is not a religious position. There's nothing in the bible that suggests it, unless you are stretching poetic speech to ridiculous conclusions. The pope was more concerned about Galileos propensity to make his own biblical interpretations than anything he had to say about natural phenomena.

>>	Scientist Thu Jan 27 04:45:41 2011 No.2423448 >>2423436 I was attempting to cherry pick good quotes which showed that the culture was overtly anti-heliocentric because of scripture. The wiki page goes into more detail.

Scientist Thu Jan 27 04:46:41 2011 No.2423451

>>2423444

Quoting wiki
>In the King James Bible Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "[the Lord] Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."

Reply religious-fag?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:47:41 2011 No.2423452 >>2423434 That's probably true. Von Braun's work with the nazis pretty much showed the world the power of rocket technology. There probably wouldn't have been a space race without it.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:47:41 2011 No.2423453
File: 10 KB, 202x174, 1295057149300.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Explain to me why a fucking 13 y.o. is mature enough to decide that it's is fun to eat shit to the point of morbid obesity and precocious death, but can't be touched by a dick or it'll get profoundly scarred for life. BAWWW'd

>mfw giving a Big Mac to a obese kid isn't punishable with jail but fucking a willing teenager is.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:47:41 2011 No.2423454

>>2423434
By your logic:
1.The unipolarity of the post Cold War world resulted in the Iraq War.
2. The Iraq War resulted in the eventual splitting of NATO.
3. The splitting of NATO resulted in X (where X is a future, historical event).
3. X resulted in Y.
4. Ad infinitum.

You were, and are, using a faulty analogy.

Are you denying that something can be the indirect cause of another event?
By my logic:
The environment created by the US Gov't. after the "Sputnik event" was indirectly responsible for the increase in US children's proficiency in math and science.

It's a faulty analogy.

>>2423443
I wasn't referring to the dates. I was wondering why the Pope would use Protestant bible.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:47:41 2011 No.2423455
File: 19 KB, 363x480, untitled (8).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2423436
Catholicism also incourages mental illness (belief in imaginary friends) and pedophlia. They really got a shit track record filled with tons of fucking retarded ideas.

>>	Scientist Thu Jan 27 04:48:41 2011 No.2423456 >>2423454 Touche.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:49:41 2011 No.2423457 >>2423455 Not even worth responding to. But, I did. 2/10

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:50:41 2011 No.2423458

>>2423448
But that's absurd. The culture was overtly anti-heliocentric, in Copernicus's words, "on account of the novelty and incomprehensibility of " heliocentrism. It had literally nothing to do with the Bible. It was standard scientific resistance that comes with every revolutionary idea.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:50:41 2011 No.2423459 >>2423453 Because nobody wants to fuck the obese underage girls, thus minimizing the pedo factor. If the women of the world really wanted to end pedophilia, they would be stuffing big macs down girls' throats by the dozen.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:50:41 2011 No.2423460 >>2423455 Find me a religion that doesn't.

>>	Scientist Thu Jan 27 04:51:41 2011 No.2423461 >>2423455 To be fair, Catholicism doesn't support pedophilia according to their teachings. They merely abuse their position, money, and trust in order to aid and abet child molesters.

Scientist Thu Jan 27 04:53:41 2011 No.2423464

>>2423458
From what I know of history, and from the wiki page, a major reason for this wasn't because it was "revolutionary". Perhaps the biggest reason was that it contradicted scripture.

Unfortunately, I don't think either of us have the resources and time to bring good evidence to bear on this point.

PS: Your argument implies that the original belief in a stationary Earth was somehow scientific. It was not. There was no evidence to support such a notion. It was driven almost entirely by an inflated ego of man, and assisted by scripture. It wasn't a scientific revolution where a better scientific idea replaced an old one. It was a scientific idea replacing bullshit.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:55:41 2011 No.2423468

>>2423461
>>2423455
Now we just devolve into slander.

Firstly, the Church has no more a "pedophilia" problem than does any other organized religion. Lest you think that religion is to blame for this, too, I would ask you to look into abuse rates at public schools in America. Abuse rates at public schools are far higher than in any church.

Secondly, the Church does not have a "pedophilia" problem. The majority of those abused were post-pubescent, making the problem "ephebophilia."

Thirdly, as the majority of those abused were boys, it is a homosexual problem. Having sex or abusing post pubescent boys is a case of homosexuality.

All in all, less than 1% of priests worldwide have been accused of abuse. Not convicted, accused. This is a horrible and disgusting amount, regardless. But keep in mind a sense of perspective when singling out the Church for this horrific crime.

Scientist Thu Jan 27 04:58:41 2011 No.2423472

>>2423468
Yo dude. I was quite clear, frank, and I dare say even honest with my assessment of pedophilia in the church. I very specifically went out of my way to say that their teachings do not include it.

However, the church has used its resources to shield child molesters for the sake of their public image, and in the process allowing these molesters to molest a lot more children, instead of getting sent to prison and butt fucked like they should be.

Your analogy to other religions, or schools, falls flat on that account. AFAIK, there has been no other concerted effort of such an organization to aid and abet child molesters.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 04:59:41 2011 No.2423476

>>2423451
I can't believe you are serious about those things. You've never said "the sun rises" or "the sun sets"? Does that make you anti-heliocentrist? Trying to interpret those verses to say that the earth is not in orbit around the sun is full retard.

If you want a fuller explanation, the word for "world" used by Asaph that he is singing to God in 1 Chronicles, does not imply "planet". The word ("tebel") means "the inhabitable world" or "reality" or "where we live". The priest may as well have been saying "the universe cannot be moved". That would have the same meaning.

>>	Scientist Thu Jan 27 05:01:29 2011 No.2423482 >>2423476 >"the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved." Reply?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 05:01:41 2011 No.2423483 >thread about homosexuality and pedophilia >215 posts and 22 images What the fuck /sci/?

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 05:01:41 2011 No.2423486

>>2423454
You two fags talking about he King James Bible need to smarten the fuck up. Neither the Pope nor Galileo were English, and neither would ever consider reading the Bible in any languages other than the Latin vulgate or the original Greek and Hebrew.

>>	Scientist Thu Jan 27 05:02:41 2011 No.2423487 >>2423476 Obviously, that's your interpretation. Unfortunately, the people of the middle ages weren't so cultured, and instead thought that "world" meant "Earth", and that Heaven was a physical place up there somewhere.

Scientist Thu Jan 27 05:03:41 2011 No.2423492

>>2423486
Meh. Ok. I'm not an expert on Biblical stuff, thankfully. However, we have several documented people, such as Martin Luther, saying that these passages mean that the Earth does not move.

You can argue that he has an incorrect interpretation, but that seemed to be the prevalent one at the time, and that's all I'm going for. Thus the church held back science in this particular case.

Jim Profit !DgnrydpFYU Thu Jan 27 05:04:41 2011 No.2423494
File: 36 KB, 640x480, JimProfitScientist28.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

If you ask me, fags are worse then pedophiles. Pedophiles are at least willing to overcome the law to get their sexual desires met, whether or not that's a good thing is not the point. The point is they perservere, they actually believe the shit they say.

Fags unionize, for what? Is faggotry illegal? Has faggotry EVER been illegal? No. They just want special treatment because they take it up the ass. Actually they do so much worse then that. No one wants to admit that sexual crime, rape, domestic abuse, child abuse, and every other crime involving family and relations has gone up sense homosexuality has been accepted.

Infidelity is the result of homosexuality. How many cases go ignored of a man or woman "coming out" and divorcing their spouse because they want to have an illicet affair with the same gender? It's disgusting. They just don't fucking care about their families, their loved ones, or anyone, not even themselves. Fags are pathological liars, manipulative, conning, socially repugnant, they meet all the requirements for a clinical sociopath.

Scientist Thu Jan 27 05:06:41 2011 No.2423499

>>2423494
>Is faggotry illegal? Has faggotry EVER been illegal? No.
Please go away troll.

You know that there's still probably some anti-sodomy laws on the books in some US states? They just aren't enforced anymore, but they definitely were back in the day.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 05:07:41 2011 No.2423500 >>2423494 They didn't get rid of Louisiana's anti-sodomy laws until 1990.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 05:07:41 2011 No.2423504 >>2423494 Alan Turing, one of the world's first computer scientists and helped crack Enigma, stabbed in the back by his own government (UK) due to said sodomy laws.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 05:30:41 2011 No.2423505

>>2423472
I appreciate your attempts at what most would consider common courtesy.

The Church was responsible, in some cases, of grave crimes. The attitude in the Church regarding ephebophilia was, prior to the 1990's, the same as the general academic communities, however. Pedophilia and ephebophilia were viewed as psychological and, in the case of the Church, spiritual problems that could be dealt with through psychoanalysis, and counseling and prayer, respectively. This is terribly wrong, obviously, and the Church has paid for it dearly. All of us have paid for it dearly, Catholic or not. She began to recognize the error of Her ways in the mid 1980's to early 1990's. You can research this subject if you like. You'll find it far more complicated than what is generally espoused in the media.

And my what I said was not an analogy. It was an example, a statement of fact. I was only hoping that to show that this problem was far more complicated, and is far more extensive than most would want to believe.
>>2423492
Again, Luther was not a member of the Church.
>>2423486
Read my post. The Pope would not use a Protestant bible, regardless of the language. Obviously. That is all I said.

Scientist Thu Jan 27 05:35:41 2011 No.2423508

>>2423505
Well, the problem we have with this is that the Church thinks it's above the (human made) law. Giving them way too much benefit of the doubt as you are, the church decided that the molesters could be "cured", and there was no need to send them to prison. Even that is a completely unacceptable stance.

What actually happened is that the church wanted to save face so they just quietly moved them around.

As to your other points, they're good, but don't really address my points fully either. I was just trying to show that the general culture, not necessarily just catholic culture, of the Geocentric model was scripture based. As such, Martin Luther is as good a source as any.

And finally, I guess I'll just repeat what I said earlier:

>Unfortunately, I don't think either of us have the resources and time to bring good evidence to bear on this point.

>PS: Your argument implies that the original belief in a stationary Earth was somehow scientific. It was not. There was no evidence to support such a notion. It was driven almost entirely by an inflated ego of man, and assisted by scripture. It wasn't a scientific revolution where a better scientific idea replaced an old one. It was a scientific idea replacing bullshit.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 05:36:41 2011 No.2423511

>>2423492
Look, people also use the bible as "evidence" of ancient alien contact. Geocentrists similarly used the bible as "evidence" of geocentrism. All I'm saying is that there is nothing in the bible that would make an objective reader reach either of those conclusions. People were not geocentrists because of the Bible. They were geocentrists because that's the default position based on appearances.

>>	Jim Profit !DgnrydpFYU Thu Jan 27 05:37:41 2011 No.2423512 File: 12 KB, 240x135, JimProfitScientist51.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2423499 >>Please go away troll >>CP, and no one says anything You fags make me sick. I can't wait for this country to wake up and put you in ovens.

Scientist Thu Jan 27 05:39:41 2011 No.2423513

>>2423511
>All I'm saying is that there is nothing in the bible that would make an objective reader reach either of those conclusions. People were not geocentrists because of the Bible.
Minor nit. You know that those are relatively unrelated, right?

You can argue all you want that an "objective" reading of the bible doesn't say the Earth is the center and doesn't move, but that doesn't change the possible fact that the standard accepted reading of the time was that it did.

So, perhaps it's wrong to say that "scripture" did. It would be a bit more accurate to say that "church", and the general European Christian culture, which includes scripture, supported Geocentric to the exclusion of all else under threat of heresy and death.

>>	Scientist Thu Jan 27 05:40:41 2011 No.2423515 >>2423512 What? I reported him already. What else do you want me to do?

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 05:45:41 2011 No.2423522

>>2423508
This is also incorrect. As I said, the prevailing thought in many academic circles regarding pedophilia was that it was a treatable phenomenon, and not something that one should be imprisoned or punished for. They were thought to be "sick," in the medical, not pejorative, sense.
This is obviously wrong, and the Church has worked to correct it's previous crimes.

My point was that this is a problem that is widespread (not just the Church, other churches, public institutions, etc.), that it's not the problem many think it is (ephebophilia as opposed to pedophilia), and that to single out the Church is evidence of bias, ignorance, or worse.

Martin Luther is not an acceptable source. Protestants often reject Reason as valid or useful, while Catholics and the Church accept and affirm Reason as revealing the Word. They are quite different.

Lastly, I think your final sentence, and greentext, are aimed at someone else. I did not write the second greentext.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 05:45:41 2011 No.2423523

>>2423508
>It wasn't a scientific revolution where a better scientific idea replaced an old one. It was a scientific idea replacing bullshit.
I'm honestly dumbfounded that you would think that. We had THOUSANDS of years of people observing the heavens, charting them, predicting the movements of the planets, predicting eclipses... It's you're position that none of that was scientific? Ptolemy was a bullshit artist rather than a scientist? (Perhaps you think Ptolemy read the Bible and that's what held him back?)

No... geocentrist astronomy was the result of thousands of years of great science. Heliocentrism was an astonishing leap forward by astronomers who happened to be Christian. Christian astronomers happened to find the heliocentrism that centuries of muslim astronomers, roman astronomers, and egyptian astronomers never found.

Scientist Thu Jan 27 05:46:41 2011 No.2423525

>>2423523
They were practicing science as best they could while shackled under the oppressive yoke of religions, not just christian. The wiki page lists an ancient greek suggesting that another should be tried for heresy for saying Heliocentric stuff. That kind of science is almost like no science at all.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 05:47:41 2011 No.2423526

>>2423513
>So, perhaps it's wrong to say that "scripture" did. It would be a bit more accurate to say that "church", and the general European Christian culture, which includes scripture, supported Geocentric to the exclusion of all else under threat of heresy and death.

No, the church had only a passing interest in science. It was the scientific field of astronomy that was stuck on geocentrism, since long before Christianity even existed.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 05:48:41 2011 No.2423527

>>2423525
Lol, do you know the origin of the word heresy? And it's original meaning, in Greek?

You have a narrative to stick to, and you fill it. The bogey is religion, the liberator Science, and you'll bend, twist, and accept anything you can to fill out that story.

Scientist Thu Jan 27 05:51:41 2011 No.2423532

>>2423527
>Lol, do you know the origin of the word heresy? And it's original meaning, in Greek?
Please enlighten me.

>You have a narrative to stick to, and you fill it. The bogey is religion, the liberator Science, and you'll bend, twist, and accept anything you can to fill out that story.
I really try not to. I think a lot of this discussion has been rather useless pedantic arguments and lots of "He said" "She said" without anyone citing reliable evidence as to how important was the Christian dogma, church, scripture, etc., and other religions, in upholding the Geocentric world view.

I would welcome reliable links on this subject, or even a wiki link. I've got nothing at the moment.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 05:51:41 2011 No.2423533 >>2423307 Hey assholes, start reporting this image so fucking mod will remove it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 05:54:41 2011 No.2423541 because it's not ~15 years from now yet

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 05:56:41 2011 No.2423546

>>2423532
Original meaning was "an opinion."
If you are honest when you say that you "try not to," then I commend you and apologize.
However, speaking of something "being shackled under the oppressive yoke of religions" seems inflammatory and rather ignorant for someone who is trying to avoid such a narrative (and such large generalisations).

>>	Scientist Thu Jan 27 05:59:41 2011 No.2423553 >>2423546 Well, I never said I wasn't aiming for inflamatory. I think religion and faith is a blight on this Earth for numerous other reasons, and the sooner it goes the better. I apologize if that clouded my judgment in this thread.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:03:41 2011 No.2423563

>>2423525
Sure, the greeks for very particular about what people could believe and teach, on pain of death. That doesn't mean that the science of astronomy didn't thrive there and elsewhere. Do you think Ptolemy got his astronomy from religion rather than from scientific observation?

>>	Scientist Thu Jan 27 06:04:41 2011 No.2423566 >>2423563 As I said, I suspect that the religious culture and doctrine "colored" or tainted it. However, I would really like some actual evidence one way or the other. I've gone out way too far on a limb.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:04:41 2011 No.2423569

>>2423553
Well, thinking that religion and faith are a curse to be destroyed seems to me to be the thinking of a zealot or crusader rather than a rational, even tempered person. So I guess I can allow the zealot his madness, knowing full well that it is often not of his making.

Invincible ignorance, perhaps?

Scientist Thu Jan 27 06:07:41 2011 No.2423572

>>2423569
I also think that serial murderers are a blight to be destroyed, just like totalitarian regimes.

Just because one is opinionated in his views, and holds his views strongly, does not make him wrong nor a fundamentalist.

Also: my own atheist copa-pasta inc, to better explain my views.

I am an atheist.

First, why should we care? Why talk about it?
1- People tend to be moral, or at least moral enough for society to function, without delusions. We can "thank" evolution by natural selection.
2- Delusional people tend to make less moral decisions which affect the public because they base their decisions on falsehoods.
3- People who hold delusions, and even pride themselves on having faith, lack critical reasoning. This makes them easy to mislead and dangerous
4- While not all delusional people are incredibly dangerous, when the delusion is shared, they tend to prop up the real crazies by supporting their "faith" instead of calling shenanigans on it.
5- The harm caused by these delusions tends to outweigh the benefits.

Also, why are they delusions? Why are they wrong? Pick any popular theist religion. Let's take Christianity. "It's fair to say that the Bible contains equal amounts of fact, history, and pizza." (quoting Penn Jillette). Genesis and Noah's flood are laughably false. The myth of Jesus's birth with the three wise men is a blatant forgery based on the available evidence, in order to shoehorn him into satisfying an earlier prophecy. All other popular theist religions are the same, each containing outright falsehoods.

That leaves the unknown and unworshiped theist gods, and the deist gods. At best, we have no positive evidence for their existence, so positive belief in any particular one, is also delusion. The key part is that while a god may exist, it is a delusion to think that you know their mind, their intent. That leaves the inconsequential gods, like deist gods. That kind of god hypothesis is unnecessary at best.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:08:48 2011 No.2423576 File: 192 KB, 1024x768, saddam_hussein_execution_thumb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:21:41 2011 No.2423601

>>2423572
>1- People tend to be moral,
You must live in a different world than me. Or else you are sheltered.
>2- Delusional people tend to make less moral decisions
nope

>Genesis and Noah's flood are laughably false.
Wat? Have you read them? Do you really think they're presented as history? Do you also think the epic of gilgamesh is "laughably false"? Your thinking is as shallow as the shallowest fundamentalist.

>The myth of Jesus's birth with the three wise men is a blatant forgery based on the available evidence, in order to shoehorn him into satisfying an earlier prophecy.
Wow. Wat? Please elaborate.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:23:48 2011 No.2423602 Kids can give full consent. Kids like sex, too. Society forces them to think it's wrong.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:24:41 2011 No.2423604

>>2423572
>The myth of Jesus's birth
Watch zeitgeist shit much? Myths are timeless fictional stories with inner meaning. The book of luke details the events surrounding the birth of Jesus dating all the events to years of rule of various regional and imperial rulers, as historians did at the time. It's the antithesis of myth.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:25:41 2011 No.2423605

>>2423572
Agreed. But the difference between a madman and a patriot is what, and how, he hates.
The hate reserved for religion by atheists would seem to be far out of proportion in comparison to what would be called for (even granting all your claims), and it bespeaks a particular, even personal, anger or dislike. Some believe that atheists are "angry at God," and there are several studies that confirm this*. I'm not sure, and I won't comment on it further.

As for your copypasta..
I deny that religion is a delusion.
I would ask you, too, what is a delusion?

The last part of your quote, regarding "blatant forgeries," are humorous. Of course the older, pagan religions resemble in many ways Christianity! Without the preceding paganism, Christianity would not make any sense at all! I guess you can call that plagiarism, but to do so would be a stretch.

If you would like to learn a bit more about "delusions," et cetera, please read this:
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth02.html
It's very interesting, and Plantinga, although a Protestant, is one of the great philosophers of our time.

As an aside: really? Penn and Teller? This is why I have a problem with many atheists. I don't think that they're horrible people, or crazy, anything. Christ had nothing but kind words for those who could not believe. But so many of the New Atheists seem to derive their knowledge or religion and atheism from people like Dawkins, or Hitchens, or Penn and Teller. It's maddening. Dawkins is a great "populizer" of science, Hitchens a great writer. But neither of them are very good philosophers, and neither of them are know what they're talking about, when talking about religion. It would appear, however, that they are good proselytizers

*http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/01/anger-at-god-common-even-among-atheists/

Scientist Thu Jan 27 06:27:41 2011 No.2423609

>>2423601
> >The myth of Jesus's birth with the three wise men is a blatant forgery based on the available evidence, in order to shoehorn him into satisfying an earlier prophecy.
>Wow. Wat? Please elaborate.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_lib.htm
No census. No reason to be in Bethlehem. No three wise men. No shooting star. Total fabrication.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:28:41 2011 No.2423612 >>2423609 I could easily find another biblical scholar to refute that view. Indeed, that view is on the fringe of secular biblical scholarship. Why do you think it is true? Perhaps you have a narrative to fit?

>>	Scientist Thu Jan 27 06:28:41 2011 No.2423613 >>2423605 I already assume that you're going to say the entire book of Genesis is "metaphorical" or some such nonsense, so I won't even bother there. So, going to defend the obvious fabrication of the story of the three wise men?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:28:48 2011 No.2423611 File: 589 KB, 960x1280, stalingrad_offensive_marksisma.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:29:41 2011 No.2423615 Seriously I've never reported before, but can someone tell me how to? I'm going to report this guy. Disgusting. We're trying to talk down here

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:30:40 2011 No.2423617 >>2423615 youmustbenewhere.jpg

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:32:41 2011 No.2423620 >>2423617 Not new, just never gave enough of a shit to report people. >>2423613 Here you go. A scholar to answer your scholar.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:32:48 2011 No.2423621 File: 177 KB, 1024x768, 1956_khrushchev_secret_speech.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:37:41 2011 No.2423625

The problem with the whole child issue seems to resolve to this: it's illegal.

It's considered a disorder in the same way that anyone else committing crimes could be thought of having a disorder. Mostly it's socially deviant people who are considered disorderly. When individuals will not obey the laws of their society, they're considered ill or criminal.

Some things are decriminalized and some things are deemed criminal later on. Alcohol is a prime example of something that was legal, then illegal, and finally legal again. Cocaine was once legal and now is illegal. The list goes on.

However, the reason why such acts with children are not likely to be deemed legal any time soon is because of the concept of individuality and cognition.

A child is both an individual and has some of the same traits that cognitively an adult would. Adults being our baseline (and their average cognitive ability), there are two other notable groups that score sub par in relation to the results of an adult. These would include the mentally disabled and the elderly. Environmental issues may place individuals who normally could be considered of sound mind into the category of "unable to give consent" which includes those who are impaired by foreign substances like drugs or alcohol. (whether their desires were to partake in the consumption of the substances or not) Those who are sleeping or otherwise unconscious are also consider "unable to give consent".

continued...

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:39:41 2011 No.2423626

So, back to the issue at hand. What would the reason be to set an age of which these actions could be pursued? As an average, the time in which a human being could be considered to have the same cognitive abilities of an adult is after the date of eighteen. How did this age become set? It was the widest part of the bell curve that matched the greatest portion of the average capabilities of an adult.

So, in order to protect those without the cognitive abilities to consent prior to age eighteen, there is a restriction set on all under the age.

Some may argue that individual rights should come prior to the protection of the group and claim that if one could prove that an individual is cognitive enough to engage in these activities, then they should have the right to. However, the problem lies in that any individual that was tested would be suspect of being part of a criminal activity (ie. being forced) and the first time that a rape took place with a successful test taker, the system would crumble.

Anyone see any point of views that I haven't covered?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:40:48 2011 No.2423627 File: 158 KB, 640x480, niceshot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:41:41 2011 No.2423628

>>2423604
I'm a friend of Scientist. He asked me to come on to finish in his stead. Scientist just got auto banned from that goddamned word filter.

In short, it is a myth. There was no national census. There is no plausible reason for Jesus's dad to go to the town of his great x15 (?) grand father for a national census. That's like all of the United States going back to Europe, Asia, Africa, etc., for a national census in the United States. It's retarded. It's not how shit's done.

It's just the best excuse the fabricator could come up with in order to shoehorn Jesus into an earlier <goddamned word filter> prophesy.

So, is there some value in some reading of it? Perhaps. Is it in any way factually true account of history? Hell no.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:42:48 2011 No.2423629 File: 562 KB, 2276x1704, guisachev_perestroika_01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:43:41 2011 No.2423630 >>2423628 >Not how shit's done. I think you're searching for the word, impractical.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:44:48 2011 No.2423632 File: 903 KB, 2048x1536, curling_canada.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:45:41 2011 No.2423634 >>2423630 No. I think I'm looking for the phrase "Complete obvious forgery".

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:46:41 2011 No.2423635 >>2423634 That was just my take as a computer programmer.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:47:41 2011 No.2423636

>>2423628
In short, I disagree. There are plenty of biblical scholars who disagree too. I'm glad you have your opinion, and I'm pleased that you are able to state it in a clear and polite fashion, but other than that, I don't know what to say. We can quote things "at" each other till the cows come home. I think I can claim the majority of biblical scholars with my view, however.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:47:48 2011 No.2423637 File: 40 KB, 640x480, 129455703226_onionib.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:48:40 2011 No.2423639 >>2423638 Consensual sex isn't molestation at all.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:48:41 2011 No.2423638

>>2423625
>it's illegal.
being a pedophile is not illegal. how can a disorder be illegal?

child molesting is illegal, but that is a diferent concept.

look at the statistics.
majority of child molesting cases are commited by people who are not pedophiles.
majority of pedophiles never molest children.

pedophiles are otherwise normal humans, who are well aware that acting on their urges would be immoral. the percentage of sociopaths among pedophiles is roughly the same as among the rest of the population.

>>	Thu Jan 27 06:49:41 2011 No.2423642 >>2423604 the book of luke is supposedly written from witness accounts much after the fact, if it all isnt just bullshit to begin with since anyone that could have protested its writing would have likely been dead.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:49:41 2011 No.2423643

>>2423636
Ok. As long as you think that it's plausible that, in the times of the Roman Empire, the accounts of the national census were entirely lost, and most bizarrely that people would have to go back to their great x15 (?) grand fathers city for the census.

I'm sorry. There's no better description for that besides ludicrous. Most people of the time wouldn't even know the home city of their great x5 grand father. It would also be effectively impossible for everyone to go there at the same time. The logistics involved with the technology of the time are unfathomable.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:51:40 2011 No.2423645 File: 154 KB, 1280x960, mashina_goshdy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:52:40 2011 No.2423648 >>2423647 Define "sociopath".

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:52:41 2011 No.2423647 >>2423639 but that leads to debate about what constitutes consent, which i want to avoid. in western world, sex with children is socially unacceptable, so pedophiles who are not sociopaths avoid it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:53:41 2011 No.2423651 >>2423648 I know. He's misusing the term. It's ok.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:55:41 2011 No.2423652

>>2423638
Sorry, I clumped two things together. Being a subject that desires children is not illegal. However, the desires to commit illegal acts is often characterized as a disorder. Let's go back to the top so we don't have to argue semantics, shall we?

>>2423639
Cows aren't goats even though they both have four legs.

However, what you're grasping for is missing one of the conditions to even enter this argument. Children lack the ability to give consent to these sort of group (meaning more than masturbation) activities.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:57:41 2011 No.2423654 >>2423648 someone acting outside the acceptable bounds, as defined by the consesus of society he lives in?

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:57:41 2011 No.2423655

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

Spain has the lowest (13, w/ some stipulations), highest is a tie: Turkey/Malta (18)

Prostitution laws are also different in Europe. For example, Italy allows selling sexual services for money, but bans brothels and pimping.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:59:40 2011 No.2423661 >>2423654 Which includes being political correct as well, I assume.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:59:41 2011 No.2423660

>>2423643
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2001/what-did-the-census-at-the-time-of-the-birth-of-christ
-accomplish

Accounts of the national census? What? I think it plausible that you don't know as much about this as you put on. As this article states, there is actually very little "documentation from Ancient Rome."

Regardless, the historicity of this or that part of the Bible is not worth arguing about when we don't agree on the overall existence of God. I would not try and convince you that the Christian God exists.

I could grant you that some parts (certain parts, mind you, not all) of Christ's birth aren't historical and still have no problem. I don't, please take care to read, but I could.

I'm going to sleep, btw. Plus all this CP is freakin' disgusting.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 06:59:41 2011 No.2423663

>>2423647
Consent: That ability to cognitively understand and accept the consequences of an action and those which may follow. That baseline of judgment of what equals "cognitively understand and accept" being set by those of a physically and mentally mature age as gauged by a multitude of tests, studies, and the statistics that were derived from the resulting data.

(I think I wrote that pretty well.)

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 07:01:41 2011 No.2423666

>>2423652
>However, the desires to commit illegal acts is often characterized as a disorder.
yes, but it's not illegal.
that's not semantics, that's an extremely important distinction.
general public tends to conflate meanings of pedophile and child molester, which makes life hell for any law-abiding pedophile.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 07:01:41 2011 No.2423667

>>2423660
>Regardless, the historicity of this or that part of the Bible is not worth arguing about when we don't agree on the overall existence of God. I would not try and convince you that the Christian God exists.
But that's the problem. I don't understand how you can believe in this god when your interpretation of this god is a book full of factual holes, such as the entire book of Genesis, and most of the story of the birth of Jesus.

There's so little remaining third party evidence available nowadays that it's miraculous, forgive the pun, that we can disprove as much of the bible as we currently can. For every baloney story in the bible, there's probably dozens, if not hundreds, remaining unfalsified. How can you believe in that kind of god?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 07:02:40 2011 No.2423668 >>2423667 Would you mind stopping this off-topic crap?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 07:03:41 2011 No.2423669 File: 41 KB, 400x265, fbi-raid.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] THEY'RE ON THEIR WAY

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 07:05:41 2011 No.2423672

>>2423660
>http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2001/what-did-the-census-at-the-time-of-the-birth-of-ch
rist
-accomplish
Pretty unbiased report. Long as we all agree that the bible has obvious, important, and flagrant factual inaccuracies. It is not the literal word of god. It is equal amounts truth, history, and pizza, as evidenced by these flagrant problems in /long/ and /important/ story the birth of the main character.

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 07:06:41 2011 No.2423676

>>2423668
Sorry. I try to avoid such troll-fests, but I find it hard to let a bullshit shit argument or misinterpretation go unanswered. I never start it, and I try to finish it if it stays civil, in order that I might learn and perhaps spread some truth.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 07:06:41 2011 No.2423677 File: 387 KB, 2160x1440, dcp_2294.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2423669 Opens the door

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math