Post Praetorian

N*rs9

Ric, kindly deploy your extra rook to op6 upon your earliest convenience...

Haha...no way, my good man...no way indeed...!

Sorry, I thought this was a thread possibly about something else...

Rx9xy

Trident, perhaps it might be possible to describe a pedophile as one who may have had a unique childhood experience that he or she may wish to mentally recreate, but is it equally possible to consider this individual completely free from a disorder of any kind if he or she then seeks to make the fantasy a reality? Essentially, is it fair to consider a pedophile who might wish to actually engage in sexual activity to be as mentally or emotionally sound as the individual who might 'pine' for a reenactment of his 8-year old coming of awareness, but soundly reasons that such a thing is beyond fair access?

To clarify, how might it be possible to consider both the pedophile who may wish to physically assault children to be as sound of mind as the one who might merely remember a certain childhood indiscretion with more fondness than it might perhaps deserve?

Possessed said:

Journey is a band,

that is not so grand.

 But surely you jest my squirrely friend

For Journey is e'er great to hear

I hope that you I don't much thus offend

When I claim something's wrong with your ear

Very good Ender, you now are on track

To make this thread your own

But now that I'm here

I'll want it all back

Until next I go home.

RicOlie_2 said:

No doubt he's been working

And has had no time for lurking.

He works with HTML and PHP,

With MySQL and JavaScript you see,

But since it's not part of his day job,

So on weekends, under his code name Bob,

He works on his computer prograhm

Instead of hanging out on OT.com.

Though in general this be true

It was not what detained me

My power cord I didn't stow

Led to a dead battery

I see I have some catching up

This needs my full attention

I'll give this thread a gentle bump

To keep it from suspension

Yes, sorry...I left my power cord at work so it was a pretty bland weekend...

;-)

P no5 - pq5

Well be that as it may

What rhymes is what counts

You can add them all day

Get all sorts of amounts

Also, is that pawn marching towards 5 TU or 6 UV?

Your theory, Dear Ender must be equally dependent upon the exact same criteria as before being met: namely, not only joint aggression, but also joint strategy. It was the combination that created the perception of an unwinnable game...as we shall be most pleased to demonstrate... ;-)

darth_ender said:

This thread is a fun addition to the Off Topic section

But it's tough to know what to say sans direction

Perhaps, and I hope my suggestion's not treason

But could we actually rhyme with a reason?

 Well certainly that could be really good fun

But, how should we choose it? By referendum?

darth_ender said:

In defense of dear Possessed

Your objection I contest

His last post where he with you concurs

Rhymes with the previous post of yours

 Well thank you for now I do see

Dear Possessed I am truly sorry!

It was the basis for the game...DE wished to make an attempt to vanquish our combined might...

RicOlie_2 said:

Possessed said*:

"I do not jest,

I am of accord."

So quoth Possessed,

But in far fewer words.

And now I am stressed

To make these converge

 *Tried to rhyme this I ded, but without success, I'm afred.

 Alas here we go again

Oh dear, but what a pain

RicOlie_2 said:

It is Danfun I quote:

Did anyone take note

Of the hidden message

In the poem I wrote?

Fixed your rhymeless garbage

In the above short verbage.

 Corrected your mistake,

Frink's onetime namesake

That, I believe, is the chief consequence of him being the one against whom we've aligned...

What have I done to you

That you must here undo

Our wonderful rhyming time

If e'en our thoughts aligned?

darth_ender said:

DominicCobb said:

Even if it is "technically" a psychological disorder, that doesn't matter, because, unlike the other disorders, it's not harmful (in fact the only thing harmful about it is other people making fun of them or comparing them to pedophiles). 

And DE you're going to have to explain yourself there.

 I explained it in my reply to Ryan McAvoy.  I don't understand why one's sensitivities to the plights of certain demographics always makes any analysis or comparison invalid.

Look, if a vegetarian said eating animals makes you like Jeffrey Dahmer, we might complain with a great deal of justification that such a comparison is inappropriate, yet there are valid comparisons when seen from a certain point of view.  Yes, we are in fact taking the life of another living creature and eating parts of it for pleasure.

But saying there is no room for comparison between homosexuals and pedophiles is stupid.  If we are trying to compare them morally (which I am not, and I'm in fact making nothing even close to such an inference), then there would be a flaw.  But we are comparing the actual sexual attraction, something which is technically not the "normal", yet is present in as real a sense for the pedophiles as it is for the homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Ultimately, my point has nothing to do with what is really right or wrong.  My point is simply that society's definition does indeed change.

The only time I brought morals into it was to point out that we might be offended by some changes that could very well face society in the future, but at the same time, some people (not me, because, as you hopefully read while incompletely taking in my initial message, I have really liberalized in my views in these matters) are offended by the changes we are facing in today's societal changes of morality.  And perhaps they deserve a little slack for being as resistant as you might be in 50 years.

 Precisely so...

DominicCobb said:

@impscum I was talking to ender, who in a previous post made the slippery slope argument I was referring to.

To both you and Post Prae, I am quite aware that our species has evolved to prefer monogamous and altruistic behaviors. That wasn't really my point, though. I was merely stating that, yes, on the face of it, homosexuality does not help reproduction. Well, on the face of it only having one sexual partner is not great for reproduction either, numbers wise. But my point is that doesn't matter. There's no shortage of babies. And we live in a world where homosexual parents can be just as good as heterosexual parents in terms of helping their children develop, whether that child was obtained through natural means or otherwise.

In regards to what causes such things as homosexuality and transsexuality, I too am curious. Is it neurological? Is it upbringing? It is not "normal" per se, but my point in this regard is that, again, it doesn't matter. Even if it is "technically" a psychological disorder, that doesn't matter, because, unlike the other disorders, it's not harmful (in fact the only thing harmful about it is other people making fun of them or comparing them to pedophiles). 

And DE you're going to have to explain yourself there.

This reasoning makes things clearer, thank you. One hypotheses that was espoused with regards to homosexuality is that it might have its greatest occurrence in areas of surplus population as it might serve to eliminate redundant males. I do not recall who proposed such a thing...?

imperialscum said:

Post Praetorian said:

imperialscum said:

Danfun128 said:

imperialscum said:

DominicCobb said:

Waiting til marriage for sex is not normal sexuality.

That is correct.

So is the idea of "sexual purity" nonsense? Will the world eventually come to a place where everyone has sex with everything?

I am was quite clear. I am not saying monogamy is a nonsense. All I am saying is that marriage is a nonsense.

 I am curious why you might say so? Or are you simply speaking of it as a technical concept?

One's concious decision or being led to it by a natural instinct are two self-sufficient conditions for one to practise monogamy. Marriage is just a human-made redundant nonsense. I hope I don't need to explain why religious marriage is so. Civil marriage is the same nonsense but on top of that it is also adds injustice with the unfair wealth-splitting laws in case of separation (half-half crap etc.).

 OK, understood...

Danfun128 said:

Did anyone notice the hidden message in my rhyming post?

 Since this post has no rhyme 

I can't take the time

To answer its quest

Or have it assessed

imperialscum said:

Danfun128 said:

imperialscum said:

DominicCobb said:

Waiting til marriage for sex is not normal sexuality.

That is correct.

So is the idea of "sexual purity" nonsense? Will the world eventually come to a place where everyone has sex with everything?

I am was quite clear. I am not saying monogamy is a nonsense. All I am saying is that marriage is a nonsense.

 I am curious why you might say so? Or are you simply speaking of it as a technical concept?