|
Post by dianaholberg on Aug 3, 2007 4:06:24 GMT -5
You two can keep saying "free love" is a good thing all you want. People say what they have to when they feel a need to justify their lifestyles of liberality and free-wheeling. Meantime, it's our children who suffer the consequences.
|
|
doug
Student
Posts: 8
|
Post by doug on Aug 3, 2007 6:55:49 GMT -5
You have deliberately chosen the term "free love" in order to evoke an image from the 1960s/70s of hippies running around with flowers on their faces. You want to imply that my post was somehow advocating a "swinging" sexual party for all where no one should think of the consequences of their actions and that I believe harm to children is an acceptable by-product of this freedom.
You are wrong.
I explicitly said in my post that I thought that child molestation was a crime. Indeed it is a crime. In the UK any sexual activity with a person under sixteen years of age is a crime. The law is quite clear that anyone under this age cannot be said to be sexually mature enough to consent to sexual activity and I believe that the law is right.
I also said I thought those who sexually assault a child should be punished but I added that as such men and women were suffering a form of mental illness and this too needed to be addressed.
Contrary to what you may believe about my "lifestyle of liberality and free-wheeling" I do not think it is acceptable, moral or justifiable to sexually abuse children. But I don't believe that the expression of a healthy adult sexuality leads to child molestation either.
A man who abuses children is sexually attracted to children. He is not sexually attracted to adults. Urging him to be chaste and telling him he shouldn't sleep with a woman until he is married is irrelevant because he doesn't want to. He wants to sleep with a child and I think we can all agree this is an illness. It is certainly not reflective of any kind of normal adult sexuality.
It is also unhelpful to confuse the two in order to make a point about the need for a more chaste society in general. As I said before, there are countless examples now coming to light of child abuse that took place during periods when "sexual purity" was championed (and from within those institutions who promoted it). This philosophy didn't stop child abuse then so I don't think it would stop it now. It would probably just make it more hidden and this would be no good for anyone.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Aug 3, 2007 21:39:39 GMT -5
It's not about revenge. Chopping off body parts with no pain killers or band-aid afterwords would be revenge.
The idea here is to prevent offenders from being repeat offenders. Our society won't kill them. We certainly don't have the resources to lock them all up at about $40,000 a year per person.
So we keep it simple. "you abuse it you lose it". I know this will not solve everything, but it would deter many and differently put the brakes on repeat offenders.
I don't recall if I ever floated my isolation idea here. In short we clear off Midway Island. Every rapist, pedophile, murderer, higher end drug dealer etc. gets a one way ticket in the back of a cargo plane. They parachute out and our society is rid of them. We make air drops of basic tools and seeds now and than. Those on the Island can make a decent life for themselves or they can kill each other. Bottom line they can't get back to harm our society any more. We have a sub patrol every now and than to destroy any rafts that might be tried and we keep the island male only so that there are no children. We save ourselves a ton of money not locking these people up and we don't have to let really nasty people back out where they can harm others. Some of the saved resources can than be used to help those who are breaking the law, but who have not crossed the line too far to come back.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Aug 4, 2007 13:28:45 GMT -5
It's not about revenge. Chopping off body parts with no pain killers or band-aid afterwords would be revenge. The idea here is to prevent offenders from being repeat offenders. Our society won't kill them. We certainly don't have the resources to lock them all up at about $40,000 a year per person. So we keep it simple. "you abuse it you lose it". I know this will not solve everything, but it would deter many and differently put the brakes on repeat offenders. I don't recall if I ever floated my isolation idea here. In short we clear off Midway Island. Every rapist, pedophile, murderer, higher end drug dealer etc. gets a one way ticket in the back of a cargo plane. They parachute out and our society is rid of them. We make air drops of basic tools and seeds now and than. Those on the Island can make a decent life for themselves or they can kill each other. Bottom line they can't get back to harm our society any more. We have a sub patrol every now and than to destroy any rafts that might be tried and we keep the island male only so that there are no children. We save ourselves a ton of money not locking these people up and we don't have to let really nasty people back out where they can harm others. Some of the saved resources can than be used to help those who are breaking the law, but who have not crossed the line too far to come back. The first two problems that would need worked out are: 1) you would need two islands. One for men and another for women.
2) Are you taking the stance that once a person is convicted of sexual crime they are no longer under the protection of the law? Something tells me, and it is just a wee small nagging hunch, that you put a whole buch of sex offenders on an island and they are not going to stop. So unless you are going to police said island...
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Aug 4, 2007 14:20:43 GMT -5
Once again, it's our children who suffer when we put our desires first. That's the answer, like it or not. It was true in the 60s and 70s... it was true before that time... and it's true today.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Aug 4, 2007 20:36:57 GMT -5
A second island might be needed at some point, but I'm guessing that the number of females who would go there otherwise are few enough in number that it might be better to keep them in the current system, but if not grab two islands.
There would be no policing of the island except to make sure no one gets off. If the dregs of society want to form their own system of government great. If they want to hold to the death gang wars until there is no one left it that is their problem.
|
|
jedivelariuskenobi
Guide
All life is one energy, therefore, there is no i only we, and compassion then must follow
Posts: 252
|
Post by jedivelariuskenobi on Aug 4, 2007 21:44:19 GMT -5
Once again, it's our children who suffer when we put our desires first. That's the answer, like it or not. It was true in the 60s and 70s... it was true before that time... and it's true today. If that is true for you than, most definitely, i applaud you. There is no wrong way to the Divine . However, i just think that focusing to much on "purity" in society will only contribute to the sexual confusion and false shame that is so prevalent in our society. When you say that purity is something that is desired it automatically places the sexual act and desire in general in a negative light, making something that is a beautiful expression of love, into something dirty and "profane." That being said, that does not mean that i am calling for the kind of "free-love" society you so offhandedly made joke of above, that is to far to the other extreme. What i am calling for is a realization of balance, and another realization that perhaps you are seeing profanity where there is beauty. However, like i said, there is no wrong way to the Divine, to God, and what works for you is your truth. That does not make it my truth or the truth of others though. In Peace and Light, Jedi Velarius Kenobi Shadow Jedi of the Balance
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Aug 5, 2007 10:56:52 GMT -5
That being said, that does not mean that i am calling for the kind of "free-love" society you so offhandedly made joke of above, that is to far to the other extreme. There is nothing off-hand or joking about my posts. I truly believe what I am posting. "Free love" was a very real movement that had tremendous impact on the USA, on the Church and eventually on the world at large. It was a movement of rebellion and disrespect masked in the name of "love". It abolished healthy boundaries and raised multiple generations believing that there are no such things.
|
|
jedivelariuskenobi
Guide
All life is one energy, therefore, there is no i only we, and compassion then must follow
Posts: 252
|
Post by jedivelariuskenobi on Aug 5, 2007 11:42:03 GMT -5
While some of the followers of the 1960s "free love" movement might have gone to far, the Love that they spoke of is not the evil that you make of it. As for the effects that it has had, i am first a foremost a student of history, and i have studied quite in depth the effects of that era in history. Therefore, i would recommend that you do not try to engage me in a study of history for you will be hardpressed to argue.
Boundaries assume that there is a right and a wrong, which there is not. Love is free and open to all, there is no requirements, that you do not create for yourself. That being said, balance serves me most as a truth, for it recognizes both sides of the illusory duality that we as humans cling to.
There is only love or fear, and actions can be of each of these. However whatever they are sponsored by the divine sees no right and wrong in either. There is only beings acting as who they are, or being acting as who they are not.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Aug 5, 2007 13:39:51 GMT -5
So molesters and paedophiles are not wrong in expressing who they are? Many of them claim to be acting only in "love".
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Aug 5, 2007 13:46:13 GMT -5
Boundaries assume that there is a right and a wrong, which there is not. Love is free and open to all, there is no requirements, that you do not create for yourself. That being said, balance serves me most as a truth, for it recognizes both sides of the illusory duality that we as humans cling to. There is only love or fear, and actions can be of each of these. However whatever they are sponsored by the divine sees no right and wrong in either. There is only beings acting as who they are, or being acting as who they are not. By the way, this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You are one of those in the generations to which I am referring.
|
|
jedivelariuskenobi
Guide
All life is one energy, therefore, there is no i only we, and compassion then must follow
Posts: 252
|
Post by jedivelariuskenobi on Aug 5, 2007 13:51:36 GMT -5
So molesters and paedophiles are not wrong in expressing who they are? Many of them claim to be acting only in "love". There is no such thing as right and wrong. They are relative terms created by society not by God / The Divine / The Force / The Source. The only thing that matters is a recognition of oneness and a recognition of who you really are. Or not. There is no wrong or right, all paths lead to the divine. Absolute power, demands absolutely nothing. We are the Whole, the Whole is divinity - God, and thus we are all a part of that divine, we are God. Limitation is part of the illusion we have created for this experience. That does not mean i think society should condone the molestation of children, i don't think that would be a "good" manifestation of who we are trying to be as a collective consciousness. with love and light, Jedi Velarius P.S. If i am touched by ideas from the 1960s, Thank God ( LOL) I'm honored you think so!
|
|
|
Post by Amalcas on Aug 5, 2007 14:03:09 GMT -5
On Velarius assertion that the Absolute, by nature, requires nothing (and thus no right or wrong): The argument boils down to whether humans are, by nature, absolute, or specifc; that is, whether there is some impenetrable Existence which no human can possess. If humans are indeed specific, then by the same logic we need; we depend on the Whole. Thus, then, would right and wrong be defined: right is to depend on the Whole, and wrong is to turn one's back from that truth.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Aug 5, 2007 14:09:38 GMT -5
That does not mean i think society should condone the molestation of children, i don't think that would be a "good" manifestation of who we are trying to be as a collective consciousness. How does "good"/"bad" differ from right and wrong? It seems to me you want to have it both ways -- to say there is no moral good yet define what society does and does not condone. If there is no right and wrong, there is chaos and lawlessness, and our children are defenseless.
|
|
jedivelariuskenobi
Guide
All life is one energy, therefore, there is no i only we, and compassion then must follow
Posts: 252
|
Post by jedivelariuskenobi on Aug 5, 2007 14:13:07 GMT -5
I am merely using terms that fit into your understanding of the world so that you'll understand what I'm getting at. I put "good" in parentheses for emphasis on its relativity.
It is all about who we are trying to be both individually and as a society. No i don't think that has to take the shape of endless dualities but rather, as a manifestation of love.
|
|