Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (7816)	6/25/2010 11:47:38 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Christ! You are one rabbit-running, mouse-hole dodging, ignorant, Bonehead BIGOT! I'm on a little holiday and I don't appreciate needing to respond to your uneducated ignorance and your gratuitous and deliberate insinuations. But worms like you must be responded to, mustn't they??? Firstly, anyone who has read the last (say) ten DOZEN of my posts is aware that I very carefully emphasised that my permissions were based on concrete criteria and had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the multiplicity of "definitions" you or anyone else could come up with for "pederasty". I have NEVER expressed support for either homosexuality or any of its variants such as pederasty (which means love between an adolescent and someone older). My "support" (as I made it clear in dozens of posts) was for the RIGHT of all people to engage in legal sex of their choice with any other competent people. This defines itself as someone of the age of consent. If YOU want to define pederasty as sex with an 8 year old boy, then under that definition you are intentionally acting in misrepresentation--but under that definition I remain absolutely opposed to such a situation--but of course I have already said that dozens of times! I consider pederasty from the normal educated view--which means homosexual or bisexual relations between a younger pubescent boy of adolescence and someone probably 5 to 10 years older. I support the rights of these two people to have love or sexual relations if they are of age of consent. Otherwise--NOT. IF YOU want to arbitrarily limit pederasty to people below the age of consent then all pederasty would be wrong and illegal (and I would consider it to all be wrong under that definition)--but again, I have said that dozens of times already). But it would not be wrong by virtue of the act but by virtue of the age of consent, the competence, and the legality thus violated--thus...the circumstances of the act. I believe that people of the age of consent can do anything they like with one another provided there are no victims. This is the issue. I have been trying to give you the opportunity to rise above your Christian Bigotry and take a stand under the Canadian Human Rights Act and repeat after me: My name is Greg or ee. I support the rights of all people to share voluntary and legal sexual activity after the age of concent, where there is no victimization. If you cannot say that you are a BIGOT--pure and simple. Now let me give you an hour of study so that you will understand the issue of pederasty. And please don't cherry pick preferential lines from this paper to "red-herring" this discussion any farther. I am only supplying it so you can choose to talk with some maturity. But you still need to "choose". As I said: If you are too uneducated to recognize pederasty as sometimes involving people of the age of consent (and the renowned Christian Augustine and his pederastic relationship obviously falls outside of "age of consent" issues), then that is fine. This has nothing to do with definitions of pederasty. Define it in abysmal ignorance, if you like. I have told you what I support and what I do not. You can be honest about that or you can choose to be dishonest about it. My support of the RIGHT to pederastic relationship was carefully confined by concrete circumstances of age, competence, and affect. I included the rights of pederasts because I share the educated view and the historical knowledge that a great deal of pederasty is legal and moral whether it is in France or not--because pederasty is a homosexual relationship that often includes both parties above the age of consent. And it would be dishonest and immoral for me to exclude legal pederasts from the protection of the Canadian Human Rights Act. But again (for the hundreth time)--if you wish to define ALL pederasty as below the age of consent...THEN FINE! Just tell this thread if you support the rights of all people ABOVE the age of concent to engage in legal, competent, consensual sex!! "Pederasty is specifically the relationship between a man and a pubescent or postpubertal boy, generally under the age of eighteen, although the term has occasionally been used--most notably in France--to designate homosexuality between men of any age websters-online-dictionary.org You can be honest about that or you can choose to be dishonest about it. Just tell this thread if you support the rights of all people ABOVE the age of concent to engage in legal, competent, consensual sex!!