Dak

i dont savvy, matey - lest ye be sujestin that 'arry potter be popular cos the words in 'es land-logs be havin random letters in em? tho it does be raisin a peripheral point, me ol' salt: the 's' phoneme be havin negative connotations interwoven in its riggin, more oft than nay used for unpalatable concepts; such as 'snake' 'n 'slovenly' 'n 'stupid' n 'slut'. 'n 'shit' 'n 'scab' 'n 'strike' 'n 'stuck' 'n more hearin on me travels am i, tho i remember not whar, that one of the speaches that modern english be based upon intentionally reserved the S sound for bad an evil things, an' so it be that in english the S is oft time associated with bad words. so, what affect be this havin on our thinkin? dus it be pre-biasting us to negatively consider those words as start with S? reason i remember this, is cos of ye mention of the house o' slytherine - the evil house, that be startin with an S - and be, me think, based on the word 'slither', which itself be startin with the evil S an' be based upon the evil snake, whos name also be startin with the dreaded letter. arr, ye shouldn'e av been startin me on the piratical mode a speech, matey: i be findin it hard te stop.

aye, ye be right me matey... but we be sailin off corse, and monsters 'n admin ave oft been known to gnaw upon the bone of unwary way-sailers... so tae get back on the right bearin... what be the best language for ease of use of that thar gray matter twix ye noggin then? www.arrrrrr.com/

its also believed that the acetylisation and methylation of the histone 'tails' of the chromatin may play a part in gene promotion, inhibition or silensing.

good point. but im still against the wanton killing of them, same as i guess if you did cheat on your wife, she could dump you, but killing you would be a tad extreme. as i said, remove them from society; but not by killing them.

aye, there be wangs on that thar china! but they nay be words. a quick savvy on google be reve'lin that wang be a popular chinese name. R!

do you have any referenses?

id be remindin ye all that 'wang' an 'choing' be words that i made up in post #2, not real words like. but wang be = tightly in an choing be = loosly in. hehe, choing. that be ticklin me ears. we should define and use it, me heartys. R17!

poo yourself. apparently it puts them off (seriously). other than that, scratch/poke the eyes, bite nose or any other delecate area that presents itself, grab and squeze bolox, knee the groin, strike throat, headbutt nose or if wearing high-heels stamp on foot. remember that the man may well be biger than you, so donot attempt to beat him in a fight, run away. if he has hold of you, use the above techniques to make him let go and then run. oh and scream. if he has a knife, id assume you should try screaming(not sure tho). i assume someone would rather flee the scene of a screaming woman than the scene of a murder, but if he has his knife to your throat its probably best to aquiest - rape is not as bad as death, and if you struggle the knife may go in accidentaly, so whether he was bluffing or not is irrelevent. if it concerns you overly, learn a martial art but make sure it is the correct one. ie, whilst huge phisical size is not nessesary in boxing it is definately an advantage, and also once pinned down on the floor it is hard to box as such, so boxing would not be a good choice. karata and tae kwon do also tend to get redused to uselessness if you are grabbed from behind. i would recommend wing chun (originally created by a woman, and relies more on speed and acurately plased punches than power; also was modified in a chinese revelution for speed of learning(becomes useful after about a month of training)); ju jitsu (good for grappling, ie if you are grabbed -- do not learn judo as you will not get taught how to stop people getting back up and chasing you); or, if your willing to put alot of effort into it, shoulin (anyone seen ling xiouyu from tekken. shes not actually that overexadgerated) or ninjitsu, also good for the not-amazingly-muscular but takes a while to become proficient in. but yeah, if you remember one sentance id say: scream, run, and gouge their eyes out if they try and stop you. and bite.

whats green, has 6 legs, and would kill you if it fell out of a tree onto you? [hide]a pool table [/hide]

i only ever claimed that in at least some of the cases, adult/child sex is damaging. if you want citations, if i could request that choral rhied give them (this seems like your area of expertese, im assuming that you may have some referenses to desent studies to hand). as far as your argument that AoC increases the likelyhood of rape, id ask you how the AoC could be viably be abolished (if thats what your sujjesting)? i do agree that repression can lead rape, hense why i think the stigma should be removed.

ahoy there maity, id be referin ye to me first post wi'in this ere thread for ye example. 17R!

(note: 'we' refers to society in general, not the members of this forum) he had a point inasmuch as, whether we are talking about homosexuality or paedophillia, something that is right or something that is wrong, or prettymuch whatever we are talking about, histeria, lack of understanding, shunning and witch hunts do not help. homosexuality, when it was finally rationally assessed, was demed to be ok paedophillia, if rationally assessed? when debating, i always acknowledge the possibility that my views may be wrong, so i guess one out come could be that we realise the AoC is wrong. much more likely is that we learn more about it and how the issue could more productively be handled. when homosexuality was extremely untolerated and homosexuals shunned, did people cease being homosexual? no. they went underground, or formed small secret groups or found others like them. occasionally a few of them got burned at the stake, but the phenomena still continued to exist. with paedophillia being extremely untolerated and paedophiles shunned, do people cease being paedophiles? no. they go underground, form small secret groups of find individual childeren. occasionally, a few of them go to jail, but the phenomena sill continues to exist. maybe if we relaxed the moratorum in general society on discussing paedaphillia and the stigma involved with finding childeren attractive, more paedophiles would come to understand and learn to control their instincts (and also learn that they should). it can be hard enough to admit that your gay, to yourself or your closest friends, let alone admit that your a paedophile. which leaves what options? keeping it to yourself? or seeking the guidance of people who will not instantly shun you, ie other paedophiles? eitherway does not, i feel, decrease the possibility that the paedophile will chose to act out their feelings. in that way, i feel muldermans comment was apt. there should be less shunning of paedophiles - ie for someone to merely posess that instinct should be considered ok - whilst maintaining the legal punishment of thoses who actually have sex with childeren. that attetude could consievably increase the number of non-practising paedophiles and reduse the number of practising paedophiles. ie, in that way, paedophiles now should be treated less like homosexuals used to be. not nessesaraly, though, 'accepted' asin 'allowed to practice'

i cant remember the name of the phenomenon (hasselmain?) but its basically that its resessivness allows it to hide. eg imajine Ao X Ao, their offspring would be AA, Ao, Ao, oo 3:1 phenotype ratio in favor of A, but 1:1 allele ratio. now imagine for example Ao X Bo, to give the offspring AB, Ao, Bo and oo. there is a 1:1:1:1 phenotype ratio but a 2:2:4 ratio of A:B:o alleles. so the o allele, by means of being able to resessively 'hide', is present at a higher rate in the population and so the chance of 2 o alleles coming together is not as unlikely as it sounds. its more elagantly, and also more extremely long windedly, explained with maths. if someone can remember the name of the equasion (hendelman-hasselbach equasion?)

well then (donot read this red alert, or anyone who is trying to solve bettinas code (or my one from the post afterwards) [hide] what i said = ...contains canadians [/hide]

if you cant say it with a sentance, its harder (but not impossible) to think about.

even when they cant/chose not to, it still doesnt nessesaraly make them evil. note that im not saying its ok; its still wrong and should be stopped, but is not inherantly evil. thats all im saying IMO, theyre only evil if they rape kids, or know its wrong to have sex with kids even with their consent but still do.

yes, i solved bettinas one but didnt want to say and spoil it for pingu. if someone can tell me how spoiler tags work ill tell you what it meant. i tried but it doesnt work.

indeed, and when i said analogouse to a paedophiles i mean to a non-practacing paedophiles the whole point was to show bettina that non-practicing paedophiles are ok, which didnt actually need showing, but its a long post and by the time i made my point i forgot what she actually said. i forget what my point was originally going to be... something along the lines that its understandable that they might consider it ok to sleep with childeren, and in cases where the paedophiles sleep with consenting childeren, it is more misguided than evil... doesnt make it ok, i hasten to add. but i feel discussion is more productive in this case than condemnation... something like that anyway, i forget.

the OP was "what are your thoughts on paedophillia/paedophiles" so his comments seem on topic

and also, inaction is an action your 16 and bettinas 17, so i guess neither of you may have had the experiense of a sex drive pushing you toward an immoral target (eg friends girlfriend). i have. it sucks, and i had to resist, which also sucked, even though i really didnt want to resist (which in itself sucked). hence how i can annalogise my sex drive to that of a paedophiles. if youv never fancied a mates girlfriend then i guess its not as good an analogy.

you can analogise your sex drive, and the control it has over you, with that of a paedophiles. by the way, is anyone here still arguing that the AoC should be changed/abolished? bourbohemian seems to have left.

ok, but surely if your dad felt that way and descided not to, there must have been a point during which he considered that it might be ok, even if it was only a transitionary stage en rout to desciding that it wasnt ok? eg, i considered it might be ok to sleep with my friends girlfriend en rout to reaching the conclusion that would not. anyway... in the uk it would be perfectly legal for you to have sex. in the us it would not be ok... so its quite likely that there is some inaccuracy in at least one of the AoC laws, unless americans mature slower than britons.

i dont follow..? ::edit:: ok i jus worked it out. my appologies for misinterpriting you. and i agree. people who have sex with childeren should go to jail, reguardless of presence/abscence of consent from the child.

bettina, if something is worth getting offended at then it is worth getting offended at in a calm, rational and logical manner. if they attempt to logically argue that sex with minors is ok, then, if we are truly correct, then it shouldnt be too hard to logically refute their argument. and i disagree with instinctively going "that feels wrong therefore it is" for the simple reason that, fair enough if we followed our instincts then wed not have sex with minors, but if paedophiles followed their instincts then they would, because a paedophiles instincts tell them that having sex with minors is ok. that is why i believe that rational logic beats emotion-driven feelings anyday of the week. emotions are good, but shouldnt be allowed to make our disisions for us. that is what seperates us from monkeys

i have absolutely no idea what does it mean? is it a puzzle?