Muhamed was a child molester.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Looks like we disagree with age of a bride and the contex of the times.

All the comparisons to any other person or religion isnt applicable when youre debating me.

My issue is simply this;

Mohammad was Ok with having sex with a pre-pubescent girl. Regardless of times, they have no "womanly" attributes. A CHILD.

He was the prophet of God, the one and only last voice of God to not be questioned.

Hes a fraud because I believe God at any time is/was not ok with having sex with kids.

Just because you have your mensies, doesnt mean youre body is ready for sex or child birth. God would know this.

Hence IMHO, Mohammad is a crack pot that started a violent religion where men continue this practice hiding behind cultural walls and a man who no one can say ill against.

Catholic Priests or Rabbis dont apply here because no one is starting a religion off any of those individuals, or attacking people for making fun of these perverts.

How many times do I have to type this?

originally posted by: Parazurvan
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

Its really important to research the author of material. A lot of anti-Mohammed stuff is written by Christians.

Here's an article about the author of your linked website.

Da'at Emet (True Knowledge) is published by Yaron Yadan, who studied in an yeshivah, yet today attempts to discredit Rabbinic teachings

Therefore the ideas presented herein are not a series of answers for the writers of “Daat Emet”, because their problem is that they do not want to observe the Torah and its commandments. These ideas are written for those whose will has not been corrupted, but the distributed pamphlets have awakened in them questions that require honest answers. www.thesanhedrin.org...

originally posted by: Parazurvan
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

I'm not sure "still practiced today" is fair.

Your always going to have some idiot some where do such things, but I doubt you could find enough of them to fill up an Applebee's...

Also almost every fighting force uses or has used rape as a military tactic. That's where "rape and pillage" comes from.

I just don't like pointing fingers at a specific group, when everyone's fore fathers did the same.

originally posted by: babloyi
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?

That's like the definition of semantics...

Change my every mention of pediaphile and swap it to child molestor, and the point still remains the same....

Reguardless of the scientific definition, if you ask someone what a pediaphile is they will answer, child molestor and if you ask them what a child molestor is, they will prob say pediaphile.

The exact definition of pediaphile is irrelevant to any of the relevant topics..

Unless one is saying that grown men having sex with barely flowered virgins, is ok now or was ok then....besides that it's semantics.


The exact definition of every word is made up. The psychology dictionary didn't fall from heaven, it is a collection of findings named by people. Not very different than the common meaning of something..

The problem is when people use propaganda to pretend one meaning means the other. Like my example of a scientific theory vs theory in conversation...

It doesn't mean everyone who uses "theory" in the common way is wrong and trying to push propaganda. It's the ones who pretend like a scientific theory is no better that any random theory that I might think up, that's dangerous.

Which is what you are doing..

"He called it pediaphile when child molestor is a more accurate discription. so that invalidates any point, and it is ok to have sex with a child..as long as they started their period, because technically some scientific journal defines an adult as "having started puberty."


No one considers a 12 year old an adult, weather they started their period or not.

Pretty much everyone would consider a adult who had sex with a child of 12 a pediaphile...sure that might not fit the exact scientific definition, but the fact they are a child molestor doesn't change. The fact that when people call him a pediaphile, child molestor fits better, doesn't make it ok.

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Looks like we disagree with age of a bride and the contex of the times.

All the comparisons to any other person or religion isnt applicable when youre debating me.

My issue is simply this;

Mohammad was Ok with having sex with a pre-pubescent girl. Regardless of times, they have no "womanly" attributes. A CHILD.

He was the prophet of God, the one and only last voice of God to not be questioned.

Hes a fraud because I believe God at any time is/was not ok with having sex with kids.

Just because you have your mensies, doesnt mean youre body is ready for sex or child birth. God would know this.

Hence IMHO, Mohammad is a crack pot that started a violent religion where men continue this practice hiding behind cultural walls and a man who no one can say ill against.

Catholic Priests or Rabbis dont apply here because no one is starting a religion off any of those individuals, or attacking people for making fun of these perverts.

How many times do I have to type this?

Then why was god ok with it in the Old Testament??

It is the same God....he wasn't killed by Jesus and replaced, he just decided to slack off on the atrocities a bit.

If you adhere to the holy trinity, that Jesus and God are the same. Then it was Jesus himself who commited the OT's atrocities.

So does that make the Old Testament written by false prophets?

If so, then why would any of the big 3 religions be validated? At their root they are false..

I agree with all your overall points on sex with children, I'm just not seeing where you make the jump to excuse the previous commandments from the Old Testament that validated child molestation in the first place...


Shouldn't God and Jesus have felt the same about slavery? Because the New Testament validates it..or is slavery ok, because the NT validates it?


It seems like your heart is in the right place but you are cherry picking when it started counting.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
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.

Damn you still going on about how ignorant I am without saying what you disagree with me over ????


Imot spending the time required to go back and guess what post you mean....

I'm guessing since you seem loath to repeat your counter point, that you never had one...

a reply to: JoshuaCox
I'm not sure what "layman" and what "someone" thinks is relevant to the truth. Just because one person is ignorant to the truth is no excuse to let the ignorance spread- "Hey, since EVERYONE says it, It (even though only I'm saying it now) we might as well accept it!". It isn't semantics at all, because the base condition and the base cause is very different.
One person has a sexual attraction to prepubescents, someone who has no developed sexual characteristics. This is a psychiatric condition, it is unnatural, and unfortunately right now, there is no cure.

The other person has a sexual attraction towards someone who has developed secondary sexual characteristics, but has not yet reached the age of majority in their respective society. While certainly not unnatural, this person should control themselves, because in today's society, such a person at such an age is likely not mature enough to comprehend such a relationship.

I mean, with your completely arbitrary definition, Mexico, Phillippines, Argentina, Japan, Hondurus, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Portugal is happy with "pediaphilia", because entering into a consensual relationship with someone aged 12-14 in those countries is completely legal. And since by your definition of "if everyone believes it, then it must be true" this means that what they're doing is totally okay!

a reply to: Butterfinger

Did you even bother to read the entire thread or just sticking your fingers in the butter trying to contaminate the entire thing? At no point did I condone such a thing... since youre prone to believe in the fanciful and that whatever experiences youve had or a group has affirmed you having make such experience or belief thereof real.

Exerience is an experience and in many cases it is simply a phenomina... what myself and several other long time deny ignorance ATS members have pointed out that there is a premise of bais between then and now concepts and ones chosen set of belief playing theirs against anothers chosen set of belief.

In other words drawing an ignorant line of belief disregarding all facts presented for a chosen belief of some experiences in mass or individually supported by some groups as reality when it flies in the face of facts that are known and very very statistically repeatable as day to day reality a reality that every single person shares that requires absolutely no belief whatsoever, called you can see it taste it touch it smell it what one chooses to think about it has no bearing on what it is, it is an experience that varies person to person and they in their personal opinion say hey you think this too? Awesome! Lets go fight and kill or find more people or sway other people to our belief and fantasy ideal and then try to force everyone not agreeing by way of unethical moral based politics to goose step to our make believe opinion with us or perish, be outcast, hated, and or brow beaten to oblivion.

Thats not equality at all thats not live and let live at all... thats dictatorship, thats totalitarianism, thats extremism and it has a place in each and everyones tiny little ignorant hearts that want the world to be exactly how they want it band together and try to shove it collectively down the throats of everyone whether they like it or not with not equality in that whatsoever... declaring stuff they dont like or agree with, evil, sick, mental, or some defect that requires sterilization, eugenics, genocide, and all other sorts of nasty business that has done society absolutely no good whatsoever in 1000s of years... society is an evolution that moves forward by this thing called death and rebirth.

Look at what all the children ave inherited clinging to these line drawn ideals and ideologies hoping to bring them about in ways not peaceful nor that solve anything in the way of lasting peace that brings any sort of happiness or advancement except by those making a figurative killing while pushing others to make actual killings.

That is the absolute reality of it and there is absolutely no way to refute it, except by the very thing that is causing all the ruckus in society and that is bias due to ignorance by clinging to belief over reality.

originally posted by: babloyi
a reply to: JoshuaCox
I'm not sure what "layman" and what "someone" thinks is relevant to the truth. Just because one person is ignorant to the truth is no excuse to let the ignorance spread- "Hey, since EVERYONE says it, It (even though only I'm saying it now) we might as well accept it!". It isn't semantics at all, because the base condition and the base cause is very different.
One person has a sexual attraction to prepubescents, someone who has no developed sexual characteristics. This is a psychiatric condition, it is unnatural, and unfortunately right now, there is no cure.

The other person has a sexual attraction towards someone who has developed secondary sexual characteristics, but has not yet reached the age of majority in their respective society. While certainly not unnatural, this person should control themselves, because in today's society, such a person at such an age is likely not mature enough to comprehend such a relationship.

I mean, with your completely arbitrary definition, Mexico, Phillippines, Argentina, Japan, Hondurus, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Portugal is happy with "pediaphilia", because entering into a consensual relationship with someone aged 12-14 in those countries is completely legal. And since by your definition of "if everyone believes it, then it must be true" this means that what they're doing is totally okay!

Ok, now I get it...

Ya'll are classifying some one who molests children as an uncontrollable brain disorder, making it not really their fault..

But (and this is me asking) some one who wants to have sex with 12 year olds who have started their period. Doesn't have a mental disorder?

See I think all of that is irrelevant.

I don't think it is fair to put pediaphiles in the same group as trans genders and other mental disorders...

I don't care if you (not you, you) did it because your brain wiring is jacked up. Because I assume every one who commits truly evil acts has a brain disorder.

Every mass shooter had some brain wiring that was messed up, or they wouldn't have done the mass shooting....

I'm not making excuses for psychopaths who molest children, and don't give one flying flip why try did it.

If you were born wired to be a monster, your still a monster.

If you were born wired to be a serial killer, your still a serial killer..

I'm honestly against increased sentences for hate crimes and such for the exact same reason. If you cold blooded murdered some one, I don't care if you did it for money, or racism. The end result was the same, you cold blooded murdered some one. Doing it for money is not better than doing it because of their race or sexuality. Either way you gotta go...

originally posted by: babloyi
a reply to: JoshuaCox
I'm not sure what "layman" and what "someone" thinks is relevant to the truth. Just because one person is ignorant to the truth is no excuse to let the ignorance spread- "Hey, since EVERYONE says it, It (even though only I'm saying it now) we might as well accept it!". It isn't semantics at all, because the base condition and the base cause is very different.
One person has a sexual attraction to prepubescents, someone who has no developed sexual characteristics. This is a psychiatric condition, it is unnatural, and unfortunately right now, there is no cure.

The other person has a sexual attraction towards someone who has developed secondary sexual characteristics, but has not yet reached the age of majority in their respective society. While certainly not unnatural, this person should control themselves, because in today's society, such a person at such an age is likely not mature enough to comprehend such a relationship.

I mean, with your completely arbitrary definition, Mexico, Phillippines, Argentina, Japan, Hondurus, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Portugal is happy with "pediaphilia", because entering into a consensual relationship with someone aged 12-14 in those countries is completely legal. And since by your definition of "if everyone believes it, then it must be true" this means that what they're doing is totally okay!

And to your second point, I'm not the one basing it on "what people think."

That was concerning the communication being sent and understood between our two parties. Meaning that I ment child molestor and reguardless of the definition of pediaphile, within normal conversation they hold the same meanin...someone who has sex with children..

I would say that ya'lls opinion that "since it is legal or when it was legal, the people who commited such acts were not child molestors." Is basing inherent morality on what people think at the time. Rather than morality being something that has remained static while our laws change from generation to generation.

I am saying that cold blooded murder was wrong no matter if it is hypothetically legal where you commit it.

That rape is wrong weather it's legal or not.

And that adults having sex with 12 year olds was child molestation, reguardless of it is legal.

a reply to: JoshuaCox
No, I don't think you get it. I didn't say it is okay because it is a brain disorder. An alcoholic who gets drunk and kills someone or beats on people isn't excused. Illegal is illegal- and if you were arguing on the basis of illegality in your current societal environment (instead of if you were born and living in Japan or Mexico or Germany, for example), then I'd agree with you. But you seem to be placing some sort of universal moral law on all humanity for all time that "Engaging in sexual intercourse with someone below the age of 15 is evil no matter what!", which is what I disagree with.

I said it is different because it is a psychiatric disorder.
A person having sexual attraction towards those in early adolescents, i.e. pubescents, is called hebephilia. And no, it is not a 'brain disorder'. I say this again, empirically and scientifically- when it came under discussion on whether to include hebephilia (paedophilia is included, by the way) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, it was voted an overwhelming "No".
I suppose next you are going to say "It doesn't matter what a bunch of psychiatrists and psychologists thing, because the layman thinks that hebephilia is a mental disorder, it is!"?

And with regards to your second post, see, again, I don't think you understood it. If you were communicating with someone in Mexico or the Philippines (or any of the countries I listed, or even some I didn't, accounting for almost a billion people in the world), and you used the word "paedophile", not only would you be technically and scientifically wrong, you'd also be wrong in the context of the communication with that person, because to them, it isn't paedophilia. So my point still stands.

originally posted by: babloyi
a reply to: JoshuaCox
No, I don't think you get it. I didn't say it is okay because it is a brain disorder. An alcoholic who gets drunk and kills someone or beats on people isn't excused. Illegal is illegal- and if you were arguing on the basis of illegality in your current societal environment (instead of if you were born and living in Japan or Mexico or Germany, for example), then I'd agree with you. But you seem to be placing some sort of universal moral law on all humanity for all time that "Engaging in sexual intercourse with someone below the age of 15 is evil no matter what!", which is what I disagree with.

I said it is different because it is a psychiatric disorder.
A person having sexual attraction towards those in early adolescents, i.e. pubescents, is called hebephilia. And no, it is not a 'brain disorder'. I say this again, empirically and scientifically- when it came under discussion on whether to include hebephilia (paedophilia is included, by the way) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, it was voted an overwhelming "No".
I suppose next you are going to say "It doesn't matter what a bunch of psychiatrists and psychologists thing, because the layman thinks that hebephilia is a mental disorder, it is!"?

And with regards to your second post, see, again, I don't think you understood it. If you were communicating with someone in Mexico or the Philippines, and you used the word "paedophile", not only would you be technically and scientifically wrong, you'd also be wrong in the context of the communication with that person, because to them, it isn't paedophilia. So my point still stands.

I don't think there many, but there are a few acts that are morally "evil" no mater time or place. I would put a grown man having sex with a 14 year old in that basket...but the original topic was when they start their first period..which is often far before 14....I don't agree with basing it on the begining of puberty at all....it is inherently false to classify some one as an adult, by that measure.

Sure the ancients believed God told them to or whatever, but it still doesn't change the brass tax for me...

Also just as a side thought, do pediaphiles really actually chose their attraction by "if they got there first period." Or is it just they are attracted to children...

Would they (if given the oppertunity) choose not to molest a kid who just started, or would they still molest them because "close enough?"

Seems like there would be nearly no scientific definition pediaphiles if that is the case....

a reply to: JoshuaCox
Again, there is no scientific definition of pediaphiles, because that is not a word. Sounds like someone ejaculating on their mp3 players.
A paedophile, however, DOES have a scientific definition, and I thought I provided it- sexual attraction to prepubescent children- that is, someone who hasn't hit puberty yet, so they don't have any of the sexual characteristics that can result in sexual attraction.

And again, I'm sorry, but your moral code of "If they're 14 or younger then it is automatically evil" has no basis in ethics and morality, never mind basis in legal law in all those countries I mentioned.
Surely you can see how your "rule" is illogical. It is an arbitrary number you came up with because of the society you were brought up in.

I haven't read all 23 pages, so sorry if this article was already sourced.

Muslims account for 91% of child rapes in UK

Could there be a historical correlation in the teachings of Islam that lends to the horrific child-rapes by Muslim men even today?

www.fireandreamitchell.com...: %20FireAndreaMitchell%20(Fire%20Andrea%20Mitchell!%20Exposing%20Liberal%20bias%20cause%20the%20MSM%20doesn%27t%20have%20to.)

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Its conditioning just like pavlov and his salivating dog when ringing a bell. The person that abused me as a very small cild sowed that seed while in the military stationed in places where adults prostitute children and developed a penchant for such a thing... of course back on the mainland where its not legal to do so... that craving once so conditioned did not go away but became a clandestine activity or perversion to hide from everyone except obviously his victims.

You know the ol sow a seed, tend that field, reap a habit business? No different. It has nothing to do with homosexuality, transgenderism etc. that many try to tie it too. The reason people try to tie it to that, is because there has a been great deal of repression of people expressing their sexuality preference of gay, to to the bias and unacceptance of that choice by demonization for a long time until the person felt safe to come out, where society or family would not judge them for it, some hiding playing those roles have historically played a facade having a wife or event children as society expected.

Tieing pedos and gay etc together is an agenda from the same people desiring to repress peoples sexual identity... and push it as a sickness. Pedos are not born it is on the lines of fetishism... which is an abnormal sexual attraction of extremes that one develops over time... usually by the sexually obsessive, that cannot get enough get bored with one expression and keep going and going until they find something and fixate on it.

Again, there is no scientific definition of pediaphiles, because that is not a word. Sounds like someone ejaculating on their mp3 players. A paedophile, however, DOES have a scientific definition, and I thought I provided it- sexual attraction to prepubescent children- that is, someone who hasn't hit puberty yet, so they don't have any of the sexual characteristics that can result in sexual attraction. And again, I'm sorry, but your moral code of "If they're 14 or younger then it is automatically evil" has no basis in ethics and morality, never mind basis in legal law in all those countries I mentioned. Surely you can see how your "rule" is illogical. It is an arbitrary number you came up with because of the society you were brought up in.

a reply to: babloyi

I am not the only one who thinks that, in spite of all your big words and "fallacious" arguments, you are nothing more than an apologist for pedophile behaviour.

a reply to: UnBreakable
Seriously? Your source is a blog that quotes another blog?
I'm sure that's very useful and informative! Let me link you to this blog about how Obama is actually a lizard wearing human skin. It's really reliable too!

a reply to: Jonjonj
I'm sorry, you can't seem to answer me in your own thread, so you're trying here? I suppose your ancestors died to allow you the freedom to use words incorrectly too?

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Thetan
Yikes, this should be interesting:

All cases of an adult having sexual relations with a nine year old child is a case of child molestation.
Muhamed was an adult who had sexual relations with nine year old child.
Therefore, Muhamed was a child molester.


This is the argument. The only way to prove the conclusion wrong is to show that one or both of the premises is false.

www.thereligionofpeace.com...

Well let's be fair...if you go back 700+ years , everyone's ancestors were pediaphiles. Including nearly every major figure from the bible.

Now I personally am in the camp that thinks we SHOULD NOT be excusing nor glorifying the immoral acts of previous generations.

Sure the founding fathers created America, but they were also mainly slave owning rapists.

That said I am quite sure the Jesus being transgendered is an insane stretch. About to read the site now.

According to YOUR INTERPRETATION. Biologically WHEN you hit puberty you are not a child anymore. SO its actually dishonest to call them pedophiles or child molestors.

Also Not all the founding fathers were slave owners. And Do you got any proof of them being rapist? Back that up.

You do realize you just said it was ok to have sex with a child, as long as they had entered puberty, right.....

Back in the past they were raised this way and they didnt see it as rape due to SURVIVAL OF THE SPECIES. Death was very high back then. Youre not getting the distinction between Pre pubesent and pubesent.

Back in biblical times lifespans were very short due to disease,war,and social standing. To overcome the death rate it was each persons duty to procreate. Your people back then were way way smarter than todays versions. A 12 year old of intelligence back then will be mentally older if they were tested by todays standards.

You are so hung up on the laws of today you refuse to see. THEY DID NOT SCREW AROUND WITH GIRLS WHO WERE NOT BIOLOGICALLY READY BACK THEN. (caps for easy comprehension)

In MODERN TIMES though its NOT OK. but your saying it was wrong back then is just wrong because times and circumstances were not equal.

I'm hung up on laws?!?!

I'm the one saying that the law is irrelevant, and that right and wrong persist reguardless of whatever random laws were the flavor of the month....

Your the one saying since it was legal, it was cool...

We haven't needed to bang 12 year olds (some women start before then, some as young as 8 or9...some earlier than that.)
"For the survival of the species" since cave man days. Yet we continued having sex with children until what? 100/150 years ago???

So banging children for the "survival of the species" stopped 10,000 plus years ago, but it was still cool if you did last century.????


Oh and how do we know Mohammad's wife wasn't an early bloomer? According to you "if she bleeds, she breeds". So what if she had already started at 9? Then it's absolutely cool, huh?

Oh nope, it was cool for all your ancestors to rape children, but if the Muslims do it, they are evil and must be destroyed..

The hypocracy of some people is truly astounding...at least be consistent in your beliefs...

You MISSED my final sentence. I said IN MODERN TIMES its not right as in "against the law" Back in the anchient times THERE WAS NO LAWS PROHIBITING IT.

And according to most witnesses to Thomas jefferson He would not had forced his slaves to do anything they didnt want to do. Strange i know. I dont fault all of humanitys ancestors for keeping the species alive.

Also Im not advocating for muslims to die either. now terrorist can go die in a fire but average muslims are all right by me so where you claim hypocracy there is none. MOdern children are not as smart as ones from back in the past.

Modern children are lazy,weak,and woudnt know real work if they were slapped with it. Is this mean? yes it is but its true.

Also I do not appreciate your insinuation of me being OK with pedophilia. Im not. I do not fault the past peoples like you are doing because back then it wasnt a crime and as such I will not convict the dead. get off your high horse,theres a log in your eye.

Oh no I got your point, that there was no law permitting/restricting it. I just don't think it being legal excuses it....

Your the one validating pediaphiles, as long as it's legal... I just don't see how it was Ok to have sex with children then, but now it's pediaphiles. My vote is that it was always pediaphila and the laws were wrong.

Your point appears to be the opposite. That pediphilia isn't inherently bad, it requires a law to make it bad.

Laws are made by humans with personal self interest always the primary goal.

Having sex with little girls the second they get their first period, has always been pediaphila no matter the law.



Also children are not less intelligent than previous generations . They are far smarter today. IQ tests have to be scaled up nearly every year to compensate.

A 100 On the IQ test 50 years ago, would only register as a 60 or 80 today.

Every generation has thought the next were "a bunch of no good lazy and soft idiots."

Your father said that about your generation, and his father said that about his...and his before him, and so on and so on.

It's a known psychological effect. It's "the gooood ole days myth."

In reality every generation has exceeded the last. Our parents created things their grand parents couldn't imagaine, and our children will do the same.


The fact that gay people can now get married, does not trump slavery (not only American slavery, all).

The fact their are participation trophies, does not trump segregation.

the good ole days dont exist. It just was. And my dad view of this generation? spot on. we are stupider than theirs was.

COmmon sense wise that is. A child of today would be dead in a day if they lived in the past. Ops wrong. youre wrong if you dont like it tough shiite.

Judging past people for crimes of today is wrong and morally bankrupt.

a reply to: babloyi

What you said in my thread is redundant.

You are saying that pedophilia is a movable feast, allowable according to localisation.

Not in the world I live in.

So death to you and those you profess to protect, after all, if I were of a certain religion I could say that, right?

a reply to: Jonjonj
Ah, so when you can't form a coherent response, you resort to name-calling and cussing. Interesting.
I don't profess to protect anyone except language and the meaning of words.