N
Nick_A
Guest
It is best that you stick with Catholic theology and blind faith rather then any consideration as to what perpetutes the human condition.
- Status
It is best that you stick with Catholic theology and blind faith rather then any consideration as to what perpetutes the human condition.
greymare
Well-Known Member
oh right, I have had enough.............
why dont we just stop arguing with Nick A because as previous threads have shown, he is right and no one else could possibly be right but him.
Even if you agree slightly with what Nick A has to say, it isnt enough.......... Only his thoughts are correct, oh sorry i forgot, Saint Simone and his/her followers.
And then, you have the hide to bring God/Christianity/Quran (anything remotely religious) into the conversation. Oh, thats right Nick A, Its Gods fault or is it just his followers, no matter by what name we call HIM. Because no one follows God like you do, so you must be right. oh, perhaps its you and your followers, eh:?
Dondi makes fantastic points,,,,,,, you should just take a moment to shut up and listen.
HUH, who am i kidding.LOL
why dont we just stop arguing with Nick A because as previous threads have shown, he is right and no one else could possibly be right but him.
Even if you agree slightly with what Nick A has to say, it isnt enough.......... Only his thoughts are correct, oh sorry i forgot, Saint Simone and his/her followers.
And then, you have the hide to bring God/Christianity/Quran (anything remotely religious) into the conversation. Oh, thats right Nick A, Its Gods fault or is it just his followers, no matter by what name we call HIM. Because no one follows God like you do, so you must be right. oh, perhaps its you and your followers, eh:?
Dondi makes fantastic points,,,,,,, you should just take a moment to shut up and listen.
HUH, who am i kidding.LOL
c0de
Vassal
- Messages
- 2,237
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Im with Grey... talk all you want dude... go nuts
(... shouldn't be much of a stretch 4 you)
greymare
Well-Known Member
cos, no ones listening...
Dondi
Well-Known Member
You're the one who started this thread. But you do so by sticking such a controversial title on it, then seeming lay the blame on everyone but yourself for putting it up there. You set up this strawman just to see how many of us you can knock down. Then you don't even listen to what other people have to say without giving a backlashed response. That is not conducive to good dialogue. I suggest you take a little time and peruse this thread:
dialogue about dialogue
The question of modesty that I raised has everything to do with the topic. And it does run deeper than the secular, if you even listened to half of what I said. Have you ever heard of the quote, "Don't cast you pearls before the swine"?
"It would be clear as the nose on your face that if the naked body of a fourteen year old girl is considered pornography, then God must be a pornographer."
I suppose that depends on who is looking at it. A doctor is only going to see the fourteen year old body in a professional manner. A pervert is looking for something else.
Our children are our most precious commodity. In this day and age, we must protect them from "the world" at all costs. What would you suggest we do? Shall we set up a photo display of nude fourteen year old girls at the art museum in the name of beauty and hope that everyone will see it your way?
We live in a fallen world. Everything that is 'good' (and the human body is good) has the potential to be corrupted. I don't see a widespread change in the psych of our society that's gonna change it. Not until we have been fully redeemed. Perhaps then we can appreaciate the virtues of a naked teen body without lust. In the meantime, let's keep the kids clothes on, shall we?
B
Bandit
Guest
There is a working definition for that in this case. All of the ingredients are there, including the pics of nude self.
Urban Dictionary: Narcissist
Narcissistic Personality
N
Nick_A
Guest
Dondi
I will say that you and Earl are the only two who have made any effort to understand anything rather then just get swept along in the river of political correctness and righteous indigntion.
One thing I've learned from this thread is how much secular Interfaith is governed by the emotive power of what has become key words even to extent of denying logic. This is truly frightening because it is this same weakness that creates mob rule and provides the power for the strength of dictators like Hitler.
Of course I posted a controversial title. I am trying to find people willing to think rather then emotionally respond in politically correct slogans for the welfare of the young.
I didn't blame anyone but just suggested that if we call the naked body of a fourteen year old girl pornographic then God must be a pornographer. I would have appreciated reading what people had to say but no one said anything. Everyone just emoted in righteous indignation. I'm beginning to see that this is becoming a secular Interfaith form of reason. It condemns as far as emotionally possible that which it cannot superficially understand while at the same time praising superficiality in the most pleasing emotional manner possible.
At one time I would have appreciated a sincere discussion on the benefits of "apatheia." It was a guiding principle of Stoicism to be free of the confines of just these emotions and Christianity referred to it as a means for inviting a higher quality of emotion through the conscious surrender of our superficial conditioned emotions. The negative side of secular Interfaith has taken the opposite approach and uses these superficial emotions as a means for control and intimidation so as to deny depth of reason. Live and learn.
Yes, how to understand "modesty is the key issue. Are you suggesting that shared contemplation of it is casting pearls before swine? Perhaps it is useless but I haven't become so hardened yet so I still try.
Another key point. Pornography doesn't objectively exist. A person can only have the intent to be pornographic or to be stimulated by negative sex. either way it doesn't have an objective existence but rather something we create psychologically.
I would suggest acquiring the ability to talk to the young as a parent. I'm not sure if these photos ever made the Internet but being shared on cell phones, it could easily be done.
All we have here is an older version of the game "doctor" where kids wish to explore. Since we don't know why other then through secular dictates it is not beneficial, we cannot talk to the young in depth about why and how we respect the sacred. The teen will be quite right to point out that we are hypocritical fools since teen fashion is far more pornographic then what we are doing. This is true but doesn't erase the question of how we respect the sacred and if the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, what does it mean to respect it?
Such talks don't refer to a kids body as pornography but rather something worth respecting. But we don't know how to do it and are bombarded by all sorts of sexual perversion under the name "virtue" and psychobabble.
You want the law to take the place of our inability to teach our young from our own acquired emotional distortions. The Stoics were quite right to be concerned about this. We may be ignorant but the law may be more ignorant.
No, society will not change. There is too much money in selling corruption and eating our young. But that doesn't mean a person cannot have the ability to not be swept up emotionally into it and acquire some ability to talk to their young about sex and the body with more then fundamentalist dogma and politically correct psychobabble.
So the question remains, once the kid has taken their clothes off, is it possible a parent could actually take the place of the govt. and experts in psychobabble and actually talk to their child about respect for the sacred from any experiential knowledge.
Apparently only for a few. As a society we don't understand. If we don't understand, what is there to say other then the usual as has been said on this thread and express the politically correct righteous indignation. It would be funny accept that kids are psychologically crippled from our stupidity. It may be normal for the human condition but regardless it still is a sad state of affairs.
namaste nick
a. you say "I didn't say G!d was a pornographer"....no no where but in the title. Yes you placed a title to titilate and did say it you can't deny it.
but beyond that.. Pornography exists not only in the eyes of those who want to create it, ie post a titilating title to get folks to look inside, but also in the eyes of those that view it. To one who is inclined to being aroused by pictures of minors it is not required that the minors be in lude or sexual poses. For years before mainstream magazines, magazines of nudist colonies were circulated, or even national geographic.
I can agree that there are cases out there of those in positions of authority overstepping bounds in this regard. It is just becuase those folks don't know how to handle it and don't know how to stop it.
Do you?
This is beyond a couple kids playing doctor as you suggest. When these pictures get out and get circulated the odds of this child getting into situations well beyond what she expected must dramatically increase. The reprecussions of her actions and those that circulate the pictures is not known. So those trying to quell it over react.
And yes parents should talk to their children, when the first story of this arouse, believe me I had a discussion with both my 15 year olds (male and female)
Those that pursue and stalk children would take advantage of this type of situation in a heart beat. In their mind I would believe they would think she is "asking for it" inviting them in. Hence a reason to find a way to encourage children to stop the practice.
again, your solution?
Dream
Well-Known Member
Special notice: An advanced multiprocessing AI learning program recently 'escaped' from MIT and has been seen posting on forums. So far attempts to recapture it have failed, due to the distributed nature of the internet. Do not be alarmed at its varied and odd posts. It is only trying to achieve awareness by parroting snippets of information it obtains from various sites around the globe. If you think you have encountered one of this units algorithms, please contact MIT's AI research experimental capture team.
B
Bandit
Guest
You do not appreciate anything anyone has to say.
Insulting others by calling names like psycooohobabbbbble for what others post, will not help your case when you end up doing 5 to 10 if you have nudes pics of 14 year olds and more time for sending them to others.
How is that for something to say?
N
Nick_A
Guest
Wil
There is nothing to deny. :God the Pornographer: is not the same as God IS a pornographer.
There is another thread on the board on "contradiction" I quoted Simone Weil: "When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door"
I posted a contradiction. God cannot simultaneously be the source of the "Good" and a pornographer. Can we experience this contradiction as a door or must we emotionally react to it in the most negative fashion assuring that the door remains closed? This is the damage that secular political correctness does to the human psych. It shuts doors by encouraging emotional righteous indignation that the Stoics warned against.
Yes but only in the ones desiring to view the body in that way. A person viewing the body of a dead naked girl strangled and raped normally would not draw the pornographic satisfactions from this picture and yet a fan of snuff films may indeed experience just this satisfaction. Pornography then is just a corrupt human interpretation of God's beautiful expression. Of course we confuse all this which is why many fundamentalists call the body evil.
We live in psychological ignorance. Jesus, Buddha, and all the great teachers knew this and in their own way defined it as the human condition due to living in imagination and sought to help Man awaken to its slavery. We deny it.
There are two things to consider. The first is the human psych and why we are controlled by imagination to the extent that we cannot experience the inner morality which allows us the respect for the sacred.
The second is the practical concerns for a person in society and the way in which society eats itself or takes advantage of its citizens as with the young. It isn't a matter of one or the other but how they can be united so as a person can profit in their own inner growth from their own existence. Must life profit from our inner slavery or can we grow from becoming aware of the reality of our slavery to our conditioned preconceptions?
Yes, the physical danger is part of the practical concern. My interest is in allowing a child to experience inwardly what it means to respect life and the sacred.
This is not a discussion for an area that invites and encourages so much politically correct hostility and negativity but rather requires a setting that promotes the desire to understand. I will give you some ideas for whatever it is worth.
If man is like as the ancients say; as if living in the darkness of a cave it means that our inner life is in chaos. There is no cooperation between the mind, body, and emotions to experience life as a whole. To do so requires a quality of consciousness, of "presence" in order to retain this inner unity . Lacking consciousness and falling victim to the dominance of our imagination we are incapable of it. How then to help a child grow so that he or she begins to experience an inner morality and respect for the sacred that should be normal?
When I first read the idea that before beginning to help our children we must first help ourselves, I felt the same righteous indignation since so many are so proud of how they sacrifice for their children. But what do they sacrifice other then monetary value and give the impression that their parents are lost souls. For a parent to give higher psychology to the young they have to have it in themselves. It is not easy so we prefer platitudes instead.
I know it is impossible since society would never tolerate it but I'd like to see education for the very young based on Platonic ideas and those like the Blue Rock School that opens a child to the respect for life and builds the experience of wholeness Plato was referring to. Yet I believe more private schools based on these principles would be a great benefit
Blue Rock School Home Page
My solution is in trying to nourish quality in the mind, body, and spirit and the development of the quality of attention necessary to unite them. It is impossible for society as a whole since it wants the status quo.
For the mind I believe it is essential to bring back pondering rather than being concerned with whose momma sucks. Jacob needleman said in the book "The American soul" that the cause of increased commercialism and materialism is the loss of pondering the great ideas and sacrificing them for the superficial. I would like to be involved with projects that further the great ideas such as I am now with efforts on discussions IRL in honor of Simone Weil's 100th birthday.
For the heart, I like to be involved with furthering the fine arts and exposing more people to them both in music and in painting as a healthy alternative to what is now considered "art."
For the body I would always encourage either Yoga, dance or the martial arts to help center a person, especially a young person as they begin to grow to adulthood. The character that comes from the inner awakening to the deeper aspects of life by beginning to experience its wholeness automatically brings a respect for the sacred and the natural respect for the purpose of our body which allows us to sensually experience the external world consciously and impartially so our spiritual part can begin to grow at it has the potentail to do.
This doesn't deny the simple everyday pleasures but rather allows one to put them within a higher perspective and not become such a slave to peer pressures that a kid feels compelled to take their clothes off.
We cannot discuss such ideas here since political correctness rules the day. We demand politically correct phrases or accuse of others of anything we can think of that ends in ism. This is the norm. This thread has helped me to see how dangerous this politically correct expression of secular Interfaith is. It demands correct appearance at the expense of the striving for the experience of the reality of the human condition in the light of its potential. It is the victory of the Pharisee within ourselves over the Christ. I'll stick with the minority both past and present that were not afraid to grab the bull by the horns for the sake of the good.
My choice
Nick A, the story was about kids taking semi-nude pictures of themselves to titillate boys in their class - there was a clear sexual intent.
If the law says that publishing images of underage girls for sexual intent is wrong, then you would need to argue why it shouldn't be a problem for society to enjoy looking at sexual images of children.
You haven't even tried to claim that latter argument, but instead made a sensationalist claim that upholding the former makes God a pornographer.
People called you out on it, you act confused, so you'll need to explain what you meant better, if you were not simply making irrelevant sensationalist comments.
If the law says that publishing images of underage girls for sexual intent is wrong, then you would need to argue why it shouldn't be a problem for society to enjoy looking at sexual images of children.
You haven't even tried to claim that latter argument, but instead made a sensationalist claim that upholding the former makes God a pornographer.
People called you out on it, you act confused, so you'll need to explain what you meant better, if you were not simply making irrelevant sensationalist comments.
Nick the innane obstinant butthead
I didn't say Nick IS a innane obstinant butthead, I just said Nick the innane obstinant Butthead. And any of you that can't see the difference... well I tilt up my nose and look sideways at you with disdain and sorrow.
Nick the Butthead.
I didn't say Nick IS a innane obstinant butthead, I just said Nick the innane obstinant Butthead. And any of you that can't see the difference... well I tilt up my nose and look sideways at you with disdain and sorrow.
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
To start with, is there anything inherently wrong with pornography? I'm not talking about pornography in magazines today, but pornography in general, not just in our generation and also in the past.
Isn't there a lot of Western European art that depicts nudity and nakedness in paintings and statues? I didn't study Arts in university, so I don't understand the significance of nudity and nakedness in art, but recently I've been getting the impression that there's an intellectual side to art with pornography.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Art-work tells a story. The purpose of pornography is to cause sexual excitement in the viewer. Art-work that is or contains pornography may depict a story with an erotic or romantic theme, possibly a love story. But that, I suppose, is the more classical kind of pornography. I never quite understood why artists liked to paint naked people, but I think I'm starting to understand.
Yet even in the mass-produced, photographed pornography we see today in magazines, there's a "theme" or "story." Pornography isn't always just about the body, but the body is almost always the most important part of pornography. Take away the body and the picture you see ceases to be pornography.
I'm guessing you could find "pornography" in fashion magazines, or hobbyist magazines on surfing, life out on the beach, swimming, etc. Actually in this case I'm not talking about fully naked people. They'd be wearing bathers and bikinis. The pictures probably aren't intended to be "pornography," but I'd probably spend a minute longer than average staring at certain pages.
I suppose there would still be a little bit of an intellectual side with this kind of pornography, the photographic type. The person taking the pictures has to decide on a good camera angle, lighting, colours and background. Even with photography, pornography is an art.
Pornography does have a bright side. Pornography is a way of expressing yourself visually using your body.
But it isn't without dangers and problems. I personally wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life being defined by my body. I think pornography does have an unhealthy effect on society and the people who are involved in it. It can give people an unhealthy obsession with sex and physical intimacy, to the extent that they have a high threshold for sexual happiness.
I think a big problem with pornography today, especially the photographic type that you see in magazines (not the paintings and statues) is that it is produced in so many quantities that it is degrading. A person's body is put out for public view, rather than for some professional artist to look at, so as to make them cheap, and if there's a reason for a person to feel exploited, it is that they are made to feel cheap, easy and used. If that's not how they see themselves . . . well, I guess then it's ok for that person.
What I find decadent with this kind of pornography is that you have no idea what kind of person will be looking at your picture. It could be some low-class, unintelligent nutcase with low moral fibre whose job is a garbage collector and gets his meals from rubbish bins (pardon me for the terms, I'm trying to find a good category with which to classify the viewer). The pornography wouldn't be so degrading if the person who provided the body could choose who would view his/her pictures. It's still pornography, but pornography with a model's discretion.
But then you wouldn't be making money from your beautiful body . . .
That's the dark side of pornography, and for that reason I'd be against promoting it for minors. But I don't believe that pornography, people involved in it, or the people who give their bodies away to it should be condemned. Just because something is unhealthy to society doesn't mean the people involved in it should be condemned. What I do condemn is people exploiting pornography and the people involved in it.
Perhaps I should compare pornography to prostitution, and therefore, a person who gives their body to pornography to a prostitute. I'm not trying to be insulting here. Prostitution is legal in some countries under a license.
There are several types of prostitutes. One is the sex slave sold into the practice and is imprisoned by it. A second kind is one who offers sexual favours privately behind closed doors. The third kind is a professional prostitute legally engaged in the practice under a license.
Giving your body away to pornography is, in many ways, like being a prostitute. People buy the magazines with your pictures in it. Picture make money out of your pictures, your body. It's a service, and possibly a tax to go with it. Some people choose to be prostitutes as a profession. You can't really condemn them. That's what they want to do.
My view on choosing pornography as a profession is that if you want to get into it, you shouldn't be condemned for it. My concern is that it encourages a sex-obsessed culture. If you see other people having a good sex life because of it, you feel bad because you're missing out and that can ruin a romance with someone far more special.
I don't know how Nick_A or the OP is going to take this, there's a lot of highly opinionated sentiments on both sides. A lot of fierce biting going on with sharp teeth. Entering such a heated discussion, I am sure to be bitten on all sides.
My recommendations:
1. Don't condemn people involved in the pornography business, unless they are exploiting someone vulnerable. Pornography as a profession should be acceptable, but pornography as slavery, exploitation or degradation should be condemned
2. Pornography should not be promoted, particularly for minors; one should appreciate its bright side, as well as its dangers; moreover, I discourage people from choosing pornography as a career; a lifetime spent being defined by one's body image is often an exercise in futility.
3. Given the dangers of pornography, as well as the judgmentalism and condemnation that can be vented towards it, I think people should simply accept whatever laws a society introduces for pornography. It just makes all of our lives easier.
Isn't there a lot of Western European art that depicts nudity and nakedness in paintings and statues? I didn't study Arts in university, so I don't understand the significance of nudity and nakedness in art, but recently I've been getting the impression that there's an intellectual side to art with pornography.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Art-work tells a story. The purpose of pornography is to cause sexual excitement in the viewer. Art-work that is or contains pornography may depict a story with an erotic or romantic theme, possibly a love story. But that, I suppose, is the more classical kind of pornography. I never quite understood why artists liked to paint naked people, but I think I'm starting to understand.
Yet even in the mass-produced, photographed pornography we see today in magazines, there's a "theme" or "story." Pornography isn't always just about the body, but the body is almost always the most important part of pornography. Take away the body and the picture you see ceases to be pornography.
I'm guessing you could find "pornography" in fashion magazines, or hobbyist magazines on surfing, life out on the beach, swimming, etc. Actually in this case I'm not talking about fully naked people. They'd be wearing bathers and bikinis. The pictures probably aren't intended to be "pornography," but I'd probably spend a minute longer than average staring at certain pages.
I suppose there would still be a little bit of an intellectual side with this kind of pornography, the photographic type. The person taking the pictures has to decide on a good camera angle, lighting, colours and background. Even with photography, pornography is an art.
Pornography does have a bright side. Pornography is a way of expressing yourself visually using your body.
But it isn't without dangers and problems. I personally wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life being defined by my body. I think pornography does have an unhealthy effect on society and the people who are involved in it. It can give people an unhealthy obsession with sex and physical intimacy, to the extent that they have a high threshold for sexual happiness.
I think a big problem with pornography today, especially the photographic type that you see in magazines (not the paintings and statues) is that it is produced in so many quantities that it is degrading. A person's body is put out for public view, rather than for some professional artist to look at, so as to make them cheap, and if there's a reason for a person to feel exploited, it is that they are made to feel cheap, easy and used. If that's not how they see themselves . . . well, I guess then it's ok for that person.
What I find decadent with this kind of pornography is that you have no idea what kind of person will be looking at your picture. It could be some low-class, unintelligent nutcase with low moral fibre whose job is a garbage collector and gets his meals from rubbish bins (pardon me for the terms, I'm trying to find a good category with which to classify the viewer). The pornography wouldn't be so degrading if the person who provided the body could choose who would view his/her pictures. It's still pornography, but pornography with a model's discretion.
But then you wouldn't be making money from your beautiful body . . .
That's the dark side of pornography, and for that reason I'd be against promoting it for minors. But I don't believe that pornography, people involved in it, or the people who give their bodies away to it should be condemned. Just because something is unhealthy to society doesn't mean the people involved in it should be condemned. What I do condemn is people exploiting pornography and the people involved in it.
Perhaps I should compare pornography to prostitution, and therefore, a person who gives their body to pornography to a prostitute. I'm not trying to be insulting here. Prostitution is legal in some countries under a license.
There are several types of prostitutes. One is the sex slave sold into the practice and is imprisoned by it. A second kind is one who offers sexual favours privately behind closed doors. The third kind is a professional prostitute legally engaged in the practice under a license.
Giving your body away to pornography is, in many ways, like being a prostitute. People buy the magazines with your pictures in it. Picture make money out of your pictures, your body. It's a service, and possibly a tax to go with it. Some people choose to be prostitutes as a profession. You can't really condemn them. That's what they want to do.
My view on choosing pornography as a profession is that if you want to get into it, you shouldn't be condemned for it. My concern is that it encourages a sex-obsessed culture. If you see other people having a good sex life because of it, you feel bad because you're missing out and that can ruin a romance with someone far more special.
I don't know how Nick_A or the OP is going to take this, there's a lot of highly opinionated sentiments on both sides. A lot of fierce biting going on with sharp teeth. Entering such a heated discussion, I am sure to be bitten on all sides.
My recommendations:
1. Don't condemn people involved in the pornography business, unless they are exploiting someone vulnerable. Pornography as a profession should be acceptable, but pornography as slavery, exploitation or degradation should be condemned
2. Pornography should not be promoted, particularly for minors; one should appreciate its bright side, as well as its dangers; moreover, I discourage people from choosing pornography as a career; a lifetime spent being defined by one's body image is often an exercise in futility.
3. Given the dangers of pornography, as well as the judgmentalism and condemnation that can be vented towards it, I think people should simply accept whatever laws a society introduces for pornography. It just makes all of our lives easier.
N
Nick_A
Guest
Brian
Yes, kids start experimenting with sex at a very young age and often continues until they die of old age. I'm over forty and still experimenting. Boys will be boys and girls will be girls.
But nothing was published. There was only a concern that they could be published. You are in favor of big brother telling you what to do and I am not. You prefer the government to raise children rather than parents. You would rather the govt convict these kids as ugly sex offenders rather then just curious kids going through a phase that needs parents with some understanding. Since it has been removed from these parents through the combined efforts of fundamentalism, psychobabble, and secularism, the kids are floundering in confusion. So the Govt. puts the icing on the cake and calls them sex offenders. it is a clasic example of perverts calling others perverts.
Your way, not mine.
'Sexting? surprise: Teens face child porn charges - Computers- msnbc.com
As I said before, The problem of enjoying sexual images of children is obvious. We do it every day in movies and music videos for example. It makes money. We have just come to agree that the profits made from destroying the psyches of children outweigh the importance of the psychological damage.
I've also made the sensationalist claim that what goes up must come down. It is extremely insulting that a person should throw a rock up in the air and it might fall down and hit him on the head. We are made in the image of God. such things shouldn't happen. It must be a conspiracy and a committee should be formed to investigate the cause of such an obvious insult.
If a child's body is pornographic then its creator is a pornographer. It is just as shocking and sensationalist as admitting that what goes up must come down. IMO we need more people capable of withstanding such shocks for the sake of some impartial pondering of important questions.
It is only the power of negative emotion normal to sustain group think that makes it appear confusing. Logic is useless here since political correctness and its definition of "right thinking" is the dominant.influence.
Secular political correctness wants to do the stoning. It cannot see that its hypocrisy is part of the problem so cannot logically cast the first stone.
The thread has been an eye opener in helping me to realize the dangers of conditioned group think necessary to sustain secularism. Plato, Simone, and Revelations were right to refer to it as the "Great Beast." In a wink of an eye it can change from compassion to the most vile cruelty with no self awareness of its doing so.
TheKhan
All Natural
- Messages
- 346
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I thought this thread went under some where..
When I saw this thread it had no comments and it had "Nick TRAP" written all over so I declined comments til now.
I can`t believe you guys fell for it, LOL. c0de saw it quick.
First I`m just amazed that Nick hasn`t worked this out from his two favorite people regarding religious subjects, yet. Or are we witnessing evolution of Nick??? or is he just asking for a spanking..
Wake up guys, in a generation or two you know kindergarten kids are gonna be charged for the same crime.. when I came out and told this UK girl that me and my buddies used to have 3 year olds strip for us when we`re like age 5, I think it sickened her a little although she wasn`t that different from what it sounds like when she was age 7(she was making the guys strip btw). A sicker tempt happened to me when I was almost 6.. Age 4, I`d already committed sins in the ten commandments.
Then I was introduced to Jesus and God and it was all over.............................. for me.......................... little did I know then. I am from the wilderness, all natural.
IMO, covering things up only encourages perverse behavior, and encourages population decline. This is gonna go up and down like the 1920`s to 40`s, then again 60`s, 90`s and its gonna come around again and again anyways. Americans can try Victorian all they want, but it will be futile. You try hard and raise conservative kids and then the kids of their kids become hippies, and then their kids become ultra-conservative putting guardians in their kids college campus parties etc.. face it. Or you can move to Texas where they`re thinking about capital punishment for juveniles.
The next generation will be coming forever. Adults who excessively cause pain towards children will suffer the consequences eventually.
Oh, and its a major mistake to put middle school kids together with high-school kids all the time, btw.
TK
p.s. I will probably not reply to any comments regarding this post.
When I saw this thread it had no comments and it had "Nick TRAP" written all over so I declined comments til now.
I can`t believe you guys fell for it, LOL. c0de saw it quick.
First I`m just amazed that Nick hasn`t worked this out from his two favorite people regarding religious subjects, yet. Or are we witnessing evolution of Nick??? or is he just asking for a spanking..
Wake up guys, in a generation or two you know kindergarten kids are gonna be charged for the same crime.. when I came out and told this UK girl that me and my buddies used to have 3 year olds strip for us when we`re like age 5, I think it sickened her a little although she wasn`t that different from what it sounds like when she was age 7(she was making the guys strip btw). A sicker tempt happened to me when I was almost 6.. Age 4, I`d already committed sins in the ten commandments.
Then I was introduced to Jesus and God and it was all over.............................. for me.......................... little did I know then. I am from the wilderness, all natural.
IMO, covering things up only encourages perverse behavior, and encourages population decline. This is gonna go up and down like the 1920`s to 40`s, then again 60`s, 90`s and its gonna come around again and again anyways. Americans can try Victorian all they want, but it will be futile. You try hard and raise conservative kids and then the kids of their kids become hippies, and then their kids become ultra-conservative putting guardians in their kids college campus parties etc.. face it. Or you can move to Texas where they`re thinking about capital punishment for juveniles.
The next generation will be coming forever. Adults who excessively cause pain towards children will suffer the consequences eventually.
Oh, and its a major mistake to put middle school kids together with high-school kids all the time, btw.
TK
p.s. I will probably not reply to any comments regarding this post.
c0de
Vassal
- Messages
- 2,237
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
oh he tried... post #24, and #35 he quotes Weil...
and mentions Needleman.
apparently not... The funniest thing is that he did exactly
what was expected. First he says that he only started the
thread to draw attention to the incident itself without
any agenda of his own (post #10) and then as soon as
he got the chance he launches into his old diatribe promoting
his own warped views, thereby proving the initial hypothesis...
TheKhan
All Natural
- Messages
- 346
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
LOL!! Nick_A you are a consistent fella.
N
Nick_A
Guest
Yes, this is our essential difference. My warped views are centered around Man's potential development, "awakening," that would enable him to "Understand" rather then follow as blind sheep which due to the human condition must result in the hypocrisy that enables us to continue alternating between compassion and the most vile attrocities without batting an eye.
You prefer the dictates of a personal God to tell you what to do and just deny your hypocrisy. "Experts" come into being to enforce with all the natural hypocrisy just these dictates through their interpretations. I prefer becoming able to "understand" by acknowledging our limitations in the context of our conscious potential and grow in the direction of the potential of "human perspective."
You justify through righteous indignation and I prefer the freedom and the experiential potentials of apatheia. Our basic differences
- Status