Muhamed was a child molester.

a reply to: babloyi

Sorry, I refuse to play your game of deflection.

You have, in this thread, tried to defend pedophilia. Or have you not?

a reply to: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Jonjonj
Sorry, I refuse to play your game of deflection.

Game of deflection? So you're saying *I* was cussing and now I'm blaming it on you? I don't think I've cussed here in the 12 years I've been on this site.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
You have, in this thread, tried to defend pedophilia. Or have you not?

Have I? I suggest you read through it again. You can click the little man in the lower left corner of my post and click POSTS IN THREAD and see every post I've made in this thread.

Come back when you find where I'm defending pedophilia.

originally posted by: babloyi
a reply to: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Jonjonj
Sorry, I refuse to play your game of deflection.

Game of deflection? So you're saying *I* was cussing and now I'm blaming it on you? I don't think I've cussed here in the 12 years I've been on this site.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
You have, in this thread, tried to defend pedophilia. Or have you not?

Have I? I suggest you read through it again. You can click the little man in the lower left corner of my post and click POSTS IN THREAD and see every post I've made in this thread.

Come back when you find where I'm defending pedophilia.

Actually, accusations of being a paedophile are especially ridiculous, because Aisha was the only one this is even a (debatable, as according to the sources there are multiple ages given, but all agree she had hit puberty, so the term paedophilia is wrong in this case) issue about.

Hmmm

As a question to you, in terms of morality, what exactly is your issue here? That the average 12 year old (not sure why we're picking this number, but lets go with it, assuming they were past puberty) over 200 years ago in some rural area (or at least not closed-off or protected like royalty) was not mentally an adult, so it is immoral?


Well guess what, yes. It actually is immoral.


But again, you're defining them as "children". Were they children according to the time they were born?

Kids are kids, you seem not to think the same.

Is it simply a matter of a number in your mind? It can't be.
Or is it that "I consider a person of age 12 today to be too immature or childish to even possibly be capable of making a decision regarding such a thing, so it must have been the same throughout history"?

I think that is probably the most revelatory quote.

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: 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.

So having sex with a 12 year old isn't morally bankrupt, but judging those in the past by modern standards, is....

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

originally posted by: Jonjonj
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?

I'm pretty sure your an @$$ if you say that reguardless of religion...

The perceptions of savage times of what was done,was done...There are quite a few myths that bring up the act or deed of rape like the Greek trinity committing rape, where as Set would rape Horus but no moral of the story other then getting F***'d by a God. Hell, even today we still revere Plato being a great Philosopher, or Nostradamus being an actual See'er into the future, but they are both boy lovers.

How common these type of relationships were back then, I don't want to know, maybe because people didn't live long enough, or maybe they are just bloody savages that can't control a thing in their life...IDK. Maybe their views of God letting made them feel better about their lives...

Sure there are countries that allow this crap, where others, will grab a machete, and go medieval. Plus, I don't think anybody going to a take a bullet to defend Pedos.

a reply to: pheonix358

Narrated Hisham's father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.
Sahih Bukhari 5:58:236

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: 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.

So having sex with a 12 year old isn't morally bankrupt, but judging those in the past by modern standards, is....

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Your reading comprehension is terrible. I said before IN THE PAST it WAS OK. BUT NOT TODAY.
YOU YOURSELF are judging people who cant defend themselves from your accusations. THAT is whats bankrupt.
Youre trolling.

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: 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.

So having sex with a 12 year old isn't morally bankrupt, but judging those in the past by modern standards, is....

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Your reading comprehension is terrible. I said before IN THE PAST it WAS OK. BUT NOT TODAY.
YOU YOURSELF are judging people who cant defend themselves from your accusations. THAT is whats bankrupt.
Youre trolling.

I apologize , my bad..

It wasn't morally bankrupt for an adult to have sex with a 12 year old before it was made illegal, but it is morally bankrupt to judge the past by modern standards...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Better?

originally posted by: seeknoevil
a reply to: pheonix358

Narrated Hisham's father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.
Sahih Bukhari 5:58:236

Do we know she had not started her period at 9?

To some people Appearentry that's the measuring stick on what makes a child molestor...

In they bleed they breed, 8 to 80, blind cripple crazy. If she can't walk I'll toat her...(sarcasm...)

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
I apologize , my bad..

It wasn't morally bankrupt for an adult to have sex with a 12 year old before it was made illegal, but it is morally bankrupt to judge the past by modern standards...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Better?

If you cannot see the point the previous poster was making, then I'm afraid I have to agree with him that either your reading comprehension capabilities are troublesome or you are trolling to get a reaction out of people participating in this thread.

originally posted by: Specimen
The perceptions of savage times of what was done,was done...There are quite a few myths that bring up the act or deed of rape like the Greek trinity committing rape, where as Set would rape Horus but no moral of the story other then getting F***'d by a God. Hell, even today we still revere Plato being a great Philosopher, or Nostradamus being an actual See'er into the future, but they are both boy lovers.

How common these type of relationships were back then, I don't want to know, maybe because people didn't live long enough, or maybe they are just bloody savages that can't control a thing in their life...IDK. Maybe their views of God letting made them feel better about their lives...

Sure there are countries that allow this crap, where others, will grab a machete, and go medieval. Plus, I don't think anybody going to a take a bullet to defend Pedos.

I think by nature we are just savages, making it a constant battle to do better. I'm just not sure excusing monsorous acts is the best way to improve..

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
I apologize , my bad..

It wasn't morally bankrupt for an adult to have sex with a 12 year old before it was made illegal, but it is morally bankrupt to judge the past by modern standards...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Better?

If you cannot see the point the previous poster was making, then I'm afraid I have to agree with him that either your reading comprehension capabilities are troublesome or you are trolling to get a reaction out of people participating in this thread.

No I see his point.. I just don't agree and find it preposterous...

Humanity has done a horrible job of making laws. By their constant shifting with the times, it's obvious they were fallible.

I just don't consider what's legal and what's right the same thing.

Hypothetically if rape is legal, is it still ok?obviously not the law is jacked up..

Those who don't remember the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them..

I think making excuses for the monsterous acts of our for fathers, IS forgetting the lessons of the past.

a reply to: Dark Ghost


Their entire argument is based on 2 totally flawed points..

1: that the law of the land is the deciding factor of good or evil.

2: that some scientific text book defines an adult as "some one who has reached puberty."

Well obviously laws have constantly been wrong, or we wouldn't have to change them...

And anyone who has ever met a 12 year old (assuming that's a fair median age for getting your first period) they can tell you that is definately not an adult...

So I don't consider either one of those valid excuses for having sex with a child...in any age.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
No I see his point.. I just don't agree and find it preposterous...

Humanity has done a horrible job of making laws. By their constant shifting with the times, it's obvious they were fallible.

I just don't consider what's legal and what's right the same thing.

Hypothetically if rape is legal, is it still ok?obviously not the law is jacked up..

Those who don't remember the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them..

I think making excuses for the monsterous acts of our for fathers, IS forgetting the lessons of the past.

Ok. We know that "legal" refers to what is accepted by the law of the state to be permissible. Perhaps you would like to clarify what you mean by "what's right" then. I am not trying to complicate things, I just don't understand from what baseline/source you determine something as "right" or "wrong". Your conscience? A gut feeling? The views of the majority that make up the population? A holy text?

It is true that an action can be lawful but still judged as immoral by society, I don't dispute that. And you are correct about lessons of the past, but to quote someone famous "if there is one thing we learn from history, it's that we don't learn from history..."

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
No I see his point.. I just don't agree and find it preposterous...

Humanity has done a horrible job of making laws. By their constant shifting with the times, it's obvious they were fallible.

I just don't consider what's legal and what's right the same thing.

Hypothetically if rape is legal, is it still ok?obviously not the law is jacked up..

Those who don't remember the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them..

I think making excuses for the monsterous acts of our for fathers, IS forgetting the lessons of the past.

Ok. We know that "legal" refers to what is accepted by the law of the state to be permissible. Perhaps you would like to clarify what you mean by "what's right" then. I am not trying to complicate things, I just don't understand from what baseline/source you determine something as "right" or "wrong". Your conscience? A gut feeling? The views of the majority that make up the population? A holy text?

It is true that an action can be lawful but still judged as immoral by society, I don't dispute that. And you are correct about lessons of the past, but to quote someone famous "if there is one thing people don't learn from history, it's that people don't learn from history..."

I think there are some acts that are immoral by human standards..

None of the "victimless crimes" or morality police issues of course, just the big stuff..


Cold blooded murder, slavery, rape and childmolestion off the top of my head fit the bill.

I think those things could safely be considered "evil"...and without needing a diety to tell us that.

a reply to: Dark Ghost
I just think excusing such acts is forgetting our history..

is this a troll thread ?

so much hate

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
Their entire argument is based on 2 totally flawed points..

1: that the law of the land is the deciding factor of good or evil.

Maybe not the law itself, but certainly the type of people that make up the state where the laws are made determine what is good or evil. You know that sick feeling you get in your stomach when you consider child rapists? Well, that reaction is the result of conditioning by the society you were brought up in, which determined that sex with minors is viewed as abhorrent. If you think I am wrong, then tell me: if you go back to your 5 year old self and were asked "what are your views on adults having sex with children?" would your reaction then be the same as it is now?

2: that some scientific text book defines an adult as "some one who has reached puberty."

It's tricky to define when adulthood has set in. In most Western countries, the age of consent is between 16-21, with 18 being about the median. Now, such a calculation is not based purely on biological processes (when puberty is finished and adolescence begins) but rather social determinations such as the average life span.

If the average life span today was 20 years old (just imagine for arguments sake), do you think this would alter the determined age of consent compared to today's classification?

Well obviously laws have constantly been wrong, or we wouldn't have to change them...

I agree that laws ought to be revised from time to time as they need to adapt with the times.

originally posted by: kibric
is this a troll thread ?

so much hate

I think it was intended to be, but was hijacked into discussing the over all good vs evil of adults marrying children after their first period..

Effectively changing it from a Mohammad bashing thread, to a fore father (humanities fore-fathers not America's)bashing thread.

Which I personally find far more even handed..