It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Muhamed was a child molester.

page: 22
51
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

That was simply a deflection, and trying to discredit... in self defense. Although I admire your skill in debate, it is still defense seeing directly through the veil as you swipe, in an enpassing move like in chess but I am not a pawn in this silly game.

I was not attacking you just the nonsense people attach and hold onto that doesnt help themselves nor anyone else in the end...

So having been seen your ignorance is not deniable but definitely plausible in how you use it to manipulate and defend during debate... your stake is anything to win. Which means you have an agenda for a particular side... in ecessence youve only played yourself for a fool.

Queen to queens level 3




posted on May, 16 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

My post pointed out that Mohammed raped that girl before she even reached puberty. . .


What girl?



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: babloyi

So people who have sex with children right after they reach puberty are not pediaphiles, then?

Again I think it's scientific term vs implied meaning.

In layman conversation a pediaphile is any adult who has sex with a child less then 15.

If a 30 year old sleeps with a 14 year lid, they are considered Pediaphiles.

Your arguing semantics.

"Well technically they aren't pediaphiles because technically they are an adult when they start puberty."

I'm talking about the base moral question of
" is it ok for an adult to have sex with a child?"
Reguardless of the present societal laws.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

Many posts on this thread have said that it was okay in the old days (Thousands of years ago) for grown men to take young wives, especially considering the short life spans, You could die by the time you were thirty. Women were considered ready to wed when they reached puberty, because, scientifically, they are able to concieve a child and give birth.



Stating it was the culture of the time - - - is stating it was the culture of the time.

Where does anyone say it is OK by today's standards?



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: babloyi

So people who have sex with children right after they reach puberty are not pediaphiles, then?



Apparently, not until the 1900s.



Pedophilia was first formally recognized and named in the late 19th century. A significant amount of research in the area has taken place since the 1980s. en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: JoshuaCox

That was simply a deflection, and trying to discredit... in self defense. Although I admire your skill in debate, it is still defense seeing directly through the veil as you swipe, in an enpassing move like in chess but I am not a pawn in this silly game.

I was not attacking you just the nonsense people attach and hold onto that doesnt help themselves nor anyone else in the end...

So having been seen your ignorance is not deniable but definitely plausible in how you use it to manipulate and defend during debate... your stake is anything to win. Which means you have an agenda for a particular side... in ecessence youve only played yourself for a fool.

Queen to queens level 3


What ignorance??


I'm not deflecting, go reread your post..it's a jumbled mess and I had no idea what your base point was.

I am also not above making posts that upon rereading, even I can't understand..like I said a sec ago, I never proof read until it is sent, and sometimes don't then.

So what was your point.. I can't reply when I don't know what you are asking.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: amazing

My post pointed out that Mohammed raped that girl before she even reached puberty. . .


What girl?


Is little girl "wife"



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: babloyi

So people who have sex with children right after they reach puberty are not pediaphiles, then?



Apparently, not until the 1900s.



Pedophilia was first formally recognized and named in the late 19th century. A significant amount of research in the area has taken place since the 1980s. en.wikipedia.org...


My point would be that it was always evil, and the laws were wrong. They were written by humans..humans who personally profited from said system.

That is kinda like saying their were no pediaphiles before psychologists gave it a name.
edit on 16-5-2016 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: amazing

Many posts on this thread have said that it was okay in the old days (Thousands of years ago) for grown men to take young wives, especially considering the short life spans, You could die by the time you were thirty. Women were considered ready to wed when they reached puberty, because, scientifically, they are able to concieve a child and give birth.



Stating it was the culture of the time - - - is stating it was the culture of the time.

Where does anyone say it is OK by today's standards?



Why was it ok yesterday?



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: amazing

Many posts on this thread have said that it was okay in the old days (Thousands of years ago) for grown men to take young wives, especially considering the short life spans, You could die by the time you were thirty. Women were considered ready to wed when they reached puberty, because, scientifically, they are able to concieve a child and give birth.



Stating it was the culture of the time - - - is stating it was the culture of the time.

Where does anyone say it is OK by today's standards?


But whey are we even having an argument? Based on previous discussions and posts in threads, I think that 95% of the time, you and I agree with each other on everything. I think this is one of those 5%. I think Islam is a bad religion and I think the root of it is Mohammed. I'm not a big fan of Judaism or Christianity or Scientology either, but those three didn't start out as badly as Islam. I think the rape of that child goes far beyond the norm of the time, many sources that I've read have put her as prepubescent meaning even for the norm of the time it was...well not normal. The fact that Mohammed was a petty criminal, putting hits on old people that disagreed with him and commiting genocide is just icing on the cake. Jesus didn't do any of that. Neither did L Ron Hubbard.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: amazing

Many posts on this thread have said that it was okay in the old days (Thousands of years ago) for grown men to take young wives, especially considering the short life spans, You could die by the time you were thirty. Women were considered ready to wed when they reached puberty, because, scientifically, they are able to concieve a child and give birth.



Stating it was the culture of the time - - - is stating it was the culture of the time.

Where does anyone say it is OK by today's standards?


But whey are we even having an argument? Based on previous discussions and posts in threads, I think that 95% of the time, you and I agree with each other on everything. I think this is one of those 5%. I think Islam is a bad religion and I think the root of it is Mohammed. I'm not a big fan of Judaism or Christianity or Scientology either, but those three didn't start out as badly as Islam. I think the rape of that child goes far beyond the norm of the time, many sources that I've read have put her as prepubescent meaning even for the norm of the time it was...well not normal. The fact that Mohammed was a petty criminal, putting hits on old people that disagreed with him and commiting genocide is just icing on the cake. Jesus didn't do any of that. Neither did L Ron Hubbard.


Have you ever read the Old Testament lol?



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The fault was not reading yours in response... I know what I said. You not knowing what you nor I said clearly points to lacking comprehension twice now.

Since youre lacking comprehension of not only what you said and now what ive said twice already? Id say youve got quite a few cognitive disorders you need to work on to better yourself.

In otherwords it might be best to quit arguing while youre behind, instead of continuing... only to keep making an ass out of yourself.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: amazing

Many posts on this thread have said that it was okay in the old days (Thousands of years ago) for grown men to take young wives, especially considering the short life spans, You could die by the time you were thirty. Women were considered ready to wed when they reached puberty, because, scientifically, they are able to concieve a child and give birth.



Stating it was the culture of the time - - - is stating it was the culture of the time.

Where does anyone say it is OK by today's standards?


I think that 95% of the time, you and I agree with each other on everything.


True.


I think Islam is a bad religion and I think the root of it is Mohammed.


I think people make a religion. I think its good or bad in how people interpret it.

Mohammed did nothing that wasn't the norm at the time. Christians did the same thing.

There are Hard Line Christians that are so far from Christ's teachings they should have their "license" revoked.

Just as there are modern Spiritual Loving Muslims.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: amazing

Many posts on this thread have said that it was okay in the old days (Thousands of years ago) for grown men to take young wives, especially considering the short life spans, You could die by the time you were thirty. Women were considered ready to wed when they reached puberty, because, scientifically, they are able to concieve a child and give birth.



Stating it was the culture of the time - - - is stating it was the culture of the time.

Where does anyone say it is OK by today's standards?


But whey are we even having an argument? Based on previous discussions and posts in threads, I think that 95% of the time, you and I agree with each other on everything. I think this is one of those 5%. I think Islam is a bad religion and I think the root of it is Mohammed. I'm not a big fan of Judaism or Christianity or Scientology either, but those three didn't start out as badly as Islam. I think the rape of that child goes far beyond the norm of the time, many sources that I've read have put her as prepubescent meaning even for the norm of the time it was...well not normal. The fact that Mohammed was a petty criminal, putting hits on old people that disagreed with him and commiting genocide is just icing on the cake. Jesus didn't do any of that. Neither did L Ron Hubbard.


Have you ever read the Old Testament lol?


Yes but Christianity started with Christ or Jesus. The 4 Gospels. Islam started with Mohammed.

You have a good point, I have no idea how anyone can be a Christian with the old Testament in the Bible.

Regarding the Old testament and Judaism. Theory is that the older a religion is the less violent it becomes or it dies out. The newest religion of the Abrahamic religions is Islam. Christianity and Judaism have both become less violent as time has gone on. The problem with Islam is that with our media and our weapons of mass destruction, we might not have time for Islam to go through it's growing pains, as Judaism and Christianity have.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The fault was not reading yours in response... I know what I said. You not knowing what you nor I said clearly points to lacking comprehension twice now.

Since youre lacking comprehension of not only what you said and now what ive said twice already? Id say youve got quite a few cognitive disorders you need to work on to better yourself.

In otherwords it might be best to quit arguing while youre behind, instead of continuing... only to keep making an ass out of yourself.


I can't reread my post when you don't quote it.... I have no way of knowing exactly what post your referring to, I have posted quite a bit here..


No one who goes back and reads the post in question would think I was the one with a mental disorder lol



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: amazing

Many posts on this thread have said that it was okay in the old days (Thousands of years ago) for grown men to take young wives, especially considering the short life spans, You could die by the time you were thirty. Women were considered ready to wed when they reached puberty, because, scientifically, they are able to concieve a child and give birth.



Stating it was the culture of the time - - - is stating it was the culture of the time.

Where does anyone say it is OK by today's standards?


But whey are we even having an argument? Based on previous discussions and posts in threads, I think that 95% of the time, you and I agree with each other on everything. I think this is one of those 5%. I think Islam is a bad religion and I think the root of it is Mohammed. I'm not a big fan of Judaism or Christianity or Scientology either, but those three didn't start out as badly as Islam. I think the rape of that child goes far beyond the norm of the time, many sources that I've read have put her as prepubescent meaning even for the norm of the time it was...well not normal. The fact that Mohammed was a petty criminal, putting hits on old people that disagreed with him and commiting genocide is just icing on the cake. Jesus didn't do any of that. Neither did L Ron Hubbard.


Have you ever read the Old Testament lol?


Yes but Christianity started with Christ or Jesus. The 4 Gospels. Islam started with Mohammed.

You have a good point, I have no idea how anyone can be a Christian with the old Testament in the Bible.

Regarding the Old testament and Judaism. Theory is that the older a religion is the less violent it becomes or it dies out. The newest religion of the Abrahamic religions is Islam. Christianity and Judaism have both become less violent as time has gone on. The problem with Islam is that with our media and our weapons of mass destruction, we might not have time for Islam to go through it's growing pains, as Judaism and Christianity have.


No Christianity started with the Hebrew God, then was edited by Jesus.

It was still the same god who committed all the atrocities of the Old Testament...

In fact if someone adheres to the holy trinity, then Jesus is the same guy who committed those atrocities himself.

It's not really Islam as much as wahabism.

Most Muslims. Take the same cherry picking approach modern Christians take. Only believing the good, while dropping the out dated... Mostly dropping the out dated.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
So people who have sex with children right after they reach puberty are not pediaphiles, then?

Again I think it's scientific term vs implied meaning.

This is the 2nd time you've said pediaphile. Pediaphile is not a thing. It'd be paedophile or pedophile.
And yes, "paedophilia" is a proper scientific term with an exact meaning, and that meaning is a specific psychiatric disorder where one is sexually attracted to prepubescents. So yes, if a person who had sex with someone who had hit puberty, that would not be paedophilia. I don't know about "scientific vs implied" meaning. Words have specific meanings, and scientific terms have even more specific meanings. If we go down the road of "scientific vs implied" meaning, there is no mental illness, only demon possession, depression is just "feeling down so you should snap out of it", Nazism is not 20th century authoritarian nationalism, instead it is "anything someone believes that I think is bad" and we should all run headlong at the wall between platform 9 and 10 at King's Cross, because "laymen" believe that Harry Potter does it.

My point is,

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
In layman conversation a pediaphile is any adult who has sex with a child less then 15.

Is a completely made up definition. These aren't semantics. Paedophilia is a legitimate and very real and sad psychiatric condition, and you are rendering it meaningless with your "layman" nonsense.
I realise there is a temptation to make make statements "punchier" by using strong terms like "paedophile" (or nazi, or fascist, or racist, etc.), but you should know better than doing so in contradiction to the truth.

I'm really not arguing technicalities. So far you've used the term "child", the term "adult", and the term "paedophile" (or pediaphile, whatever), and yet you don't even accept what these words mean in historical and scientific contexts.

If you ask "Is it okay for an adult to have sex with a prepubescent?" (whether you are asking about today, 100 years in the future, or 2000 years in the past), the answer from me, and hopefully most people today (and probably earlier) would be "No". That is a mental disorder. A sad and serious one. It is called paedophilia, and as of yet, we don't understand it enough to treat or cure it, so someone afflicted with it would simply have to be locked away for children's safety.

Now if THAT is what you meant by "is it okay for an adult to have sex with a child?", then you have my answer. But if the words mean something else, it is hard to answer your question, isn't it? Let me ask mine again:

originally posted by: babloyi
If we had some magical way of knowing if a person had already hit puberty, and of sound mind to such an extent so as to be able to validly consent to marriage/sexual intercourse, would it be immoral still?

edit on 16-5-2016 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

So now you dont know how to go back a page or click your name so that the conv pops up?.. did you have special help logging into this site? Seems youre running low on a lot of skills in order to function properly, yet still think theres validity to such biased opinion...

Too bad this isnt the Victorian era or Id make good use of a fainting couch wondering what the world has come too with so much make believe ruling the world, and people so clearly incompetent in arguing such that they cant comprehend, remember, nor even go back a page nor click to see what they said... well, I suppose since that belief business was just learned and such as yourself keep spreading such bias. It is wholly logical yet very irrational in which there is no reason other than to blame ignorance, and Im happy to say ATS you know that site you may have logged into or may have had help logging into has a mission to deny such a thing.

*that THING is ignorance btw or by the way, sorry... I just dont know how remedial I should be getting at this point.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Is anybody aware that the Talmud actually says sex with a child UNDER a certain age is nothing?

And that the Catholic church has always been pedophilic without shame? They inherited it from the Greeks that thought it was normal, even noble (some Greeks, a lot actually).

But everyone wants to crap on Islam without mentioning the fact that the other two faiths are more guilty of this practice as a ritual today.

If Mohammed did do that, he was sick.

But today pedophilia is not something Islam practices or advocates. Although every culture has its pedos I think that would get you killed in a Muslim nation today if known.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
What book is all this written in?

I know I Israelites sacrificed children to Molech in the Old Testament and probably today it is done by many secret societies with ties to the cult of Molech that is Judaism. I have heard of many generational occult Jewish families and Mormons practice it who practice it today.

And they captured women as booty, surely for sex slaves.

Israeli commandos have been known to use rape as a terror tactic and care nothing for the life of any non Jew. Seriously.

Anybody ever heard of Talmud allows pedophilia
edit on 16-5-2016 by Parazurvan because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-5-2016 by Parazurvan because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
51
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join