Dak

bettina, paedophillia is also natural. natural does not nessesaraly = good, otherwize wed all be living up trees, eating bananas and going 'ook' (t.pratchett). also, being a male descended from monkeys*, my 'natural' responce to you disagreeing with me would be to hunt you down and hit you over the head with a club, before probably raping you as that seems to be quite common in nature, which is an even more relevant example that [math] natural \not= good[/math]. paedophillia is less unnatural than, say, wearing clothes and driving cars. actually, paedophillia and incest are rife in monkey* populations. this doesnt mean its ok, but id say that it means that the desire itself (and not the act) is forgiveable. ezekiel23: as stated before, you cannot KNOW that you are doing no harm. with an adult, if a mistake is made it is their fault and thus their right to risk making that mistake. with a child, if a mistake is made it is the adults fault and thus it is not within the adults right to risk making that mistake. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- * ok, i always get corrected when i say this, but to keep on topic can we limit the amount of posts correcting me as to our origins to one.

actually, if id been paying attention i could have worked it out as soon as id worked out two letters. eg, nowing what letters numbers Y and Z code for, then wed get: ax2 + bx + c = X ax2 + bx + c = Y and we could plonk in the alphabetic value for the letters coded for by z and y as x, eg if y = a, x = 1; and if z = b, x = 2: a + b + c = y a4 + b2 + c = z then just simultaniously solve them from there, work out the quadratic and then work out the code value of each word and so take it from there. but my aversion to maths made me do it the long winded way. (doh) as for any purely mathematical way, ie with no cryptology involved whatsoever... i dunno. maybe if you PM dave and ask him nicely, hell move this to the mathmatics thread and the resident mathmatical geneuses can have a bash. (if they do it in, like, 2 seconds i will not be a happy bunny)

i believe that is what shes saying

am i right in thinking that this allows people to 'bounce' their interactions with a site off of your site? two questions: will your site not just get blacklisted the second that someone at, for example a school, gets cought using it? and what if someone uses it to access paedophillia or bestiality? will it not look like it was your computer that acessed the site ie you will get into trouble for it?

what about an adult and a young adult, eg 35 year old and 17 year old? that can be backed up with logic and evidence. were never going to find a stone plaqu with a message written by the hand of god saying 'people are only ready for sex when they reach the age of 17 years' date=' 5 months and 3 days' so wheter its ok or not to have sex with someone of a given age is [i']always[/i] going to be an oppinion, or an interpretation of the facts. the fact that its 'just' an oppinion doesnt detract from its validity or, by itself, from its accuracy/truithfulness

bettina, the point i was trying to make is that its easy for us to say "wev never had sex with childeren", because we dont want to. iv never set fire to a building, but i dont think i deserve a medal for this for the simple reason that iv never wanted to burn a building down, iv never had that desire to resist. i have had the urge to sleep with people that i shouldnt... not childeren, but friends' girlfriends and other women when iv got a girlfriend, even a mates fiance on one occasion. i havent, but the temptation (and occasionally the option) was there. i didnt want it to be, it was really, really annoying, but at the end of the day it was still there dispite what i may wish, and i feel the fact that i resisted is more relevent than the fact that i had the urges in the first place. which i find relatively easy to analogise with paedophillia. iv also tried (and failed) many times to give up smoking (nicotine is more addictive than heroin, by the way), and so im well aware of the ways in which your subconsiouse can lie to you to get you to do what it wants -- 'todays not a good day to give up', 'ill just carry a pouch of tobaco around with me incase one of my mates wants a fag and doesnt have any', 'just one last ciggarette' and, presumably, 'well this child seems ready to have sex' and 'if the child wants sex then its ok' (actually, the 'shed learn sooner or later, and its better for her to learn from someone who cares about her and will make sure shes ok, rather than someone whos just interested in themselves and might not wear a condom' is a common justification used by insestuaose paedophiles) in fact, with reguards to my friends fiances, i have experiensed the 'subconsiouse lying to you to get its way' phenomena, even considering the philosophy that something is 'not immoral if noone finds out about it*' before realising what i was considering and mentally shaking myself. (*= I dont actually believe this by the way, but i did find myself entertaining it in an attempt to justify sleeping with my friends girlfriend - when i (consiousely) realised, i threw the thought out of my mind, but the fact it got there in the first place...) my point is that noone, not me or you or the paedophiles here could claim to simply be able to turn our sex drive off when its convinient, nor to chose our sexuality. some people are paedophiles. its not their choice, they just are. and as far as im conserned, the ones who resist deserve respect -- the sex drive is possibly the strongest drive in the human psyce, and thus the hardest to ignoor. its pretty obviouse that, being attracted to childeren, theyd entertain the possibility that it would be justified and have actually brought up some valid points. anyway, in summary: if someone is attracted to childeren and denies themselves the pleasure dispite the fact that there must be quite alot of pressure on them to fulfil their sex drive, then i think that is in fact the polar opposite of the definition of a monster. i dunno? id include the default acnowledment that i could be wrong, but would lean in favour of an explination along the lines of 'i dont have my sex drive attempting to hijack my thought prosesses' (same as the way a non-smoker can easaly see the error in the statement 'ill give up tomorrow' whereas i, with my nicotine-drive subverted thought prosess, think that giving up tomorrow is actually a good idea that will actually result in my giving up smoking)

quite. i feel that i was ready for sex at 11, but i wouldnt have sex with an 11 year old even if i was so enclined. the risk of messing them up is too great.

WHAT!?! you mean that juveniles were, untilll recently, given the death penalty in america?

nope. monkey vomit ahahahahahaha

nope. blue fluf. now, whats yellow and smells of bananas?

lol @ callypigouses no 2! ok, whats blue and fluffy?

...zybgcobn zcbcwocbn (he he)

actually, i should have said: this ones quite bitching. clue: first, work out where the gaps go, ie which groups of numbers = a letter...

there are computer viruses that dial up paedo sites, which could account for the high number -- which is of course another sourse of work for the police, sorting out the ips that acess the sites under the instruction of a virus, from the ones that acess them under the instruction of the user. out of interest, what are your views on child internet porn, if i may ask?

are there no studies done that utilise the different contries ages of consent? from my memory, i believe that US = 18, UK = 16, Austria = 14, Brazil = 11. surely that gives enough acess to people who legally and presumably without stigma sleep with a wide age-range of childeren, so wouldnt mind coming forward and being honest? ::EDIT:: oh and thinking of that, in line with the original "what is a paedophile" question: what relevense does the local age of consent have? when i was 19 i had a sexual relation ship with a 17 year old. in the UK (where we were) this is fine, in the US this would make me a paedophile. soo... what if it was in the UK but she was american? or what if i was american and she was british. what if we were both british but went on holiday to the US? and do the americans on this forum view that relationship as 'paedophillic' even though it was within the laws of my contry? what if i was ostrean and had had sex with a 14 year old when i was 17 (which would be completely legal). what if i now, as a 23yo, i, a non ostrean, went to ostrea to have sex with a 14 year old. confusing, neh?

oh right. iv seen it used on other v8 sites to avoid interpreting anything as other than text, and used to show people how to use the tags, like i was trying to use it above. mainly on computer sites come to think of it. probably a bit annoying if a piese of coding happens to be the same as a smiley tag or if it contains or something and a bit of the code gets changed from 17%~2:) into 17%~2smile.gif or the bit gets ignored and then the computer crashes when the code is cut-and-pasted into a program, so maybe they tinkered with it to change the way is read. either way, it explains why i couldnt do what i was trying to do above. ta.

bowing to sayos judgement: bettina, my previouse question was entirely a philosophical question. i am trying to make a point, and will do so based on your answre to my question. i again state that i meant absolutely no offence by the question, hope sinserely that you do not take any offence, and appologise unreservedly if it causes any offense.

if, by marking up code, you mean displaying text unformatted by the tags, then why did my attemp to do so fail spectaculaly in post 5?

ah, did not know that. we live and learn. might perusal it in my library.

okeydokey then, in antisipation, id like to withdraw my previouse question and replace it with this one... bettina, was there ever a point, while you were going through puberty, when you felt that you could have ended up gay? or bisexual? or a paedophile? this is a seriouse question and id appreciate a seriouse responce, and i appologise if the question offends you in anyway.

Bettina, let me put it this way: assume that the bible is absolutely correct, and that 'men who lay with men and do the unclean act' or however is worded is the truth, ie homosexuality is evil. immagine a homosexual. he is attracted to men. however he has never had sex with a man. biblicly speaking, is he evil? will he be going to hell? ie are actions more inportant than thoughts, or are thoughts more inportant than actions?

hair, fibre and DNA evidense will dissapear from a living body which changes its cloths and bathes in just a matter of days, whereas it can persist in corpses for years (in the case of hair and fibre) and the police are usually a bit more vigilant in caching the perpotrator. so it really isnt safer to kill than just leave, espesially if the paedophile has no reason to expect the child to tell anyone.

are your saying that if child sex was out in the open and ok it could be better monitered, guided and regulated? interesting... i guess thats true, but not enough to outweigh the downsides, i feel. and a differense with alcohol v sex: (in the uk) it is legal for a child of 5+ to drink alcohol, the idea being that this means their parents can choose when they drink or not and then at 18 the desision becomes the persons rather than their parents. sex is just <16=no, [math]\geq[/math]16 = yes. i suppose i could maybe see the validity having two ages of consent, one at which you can have sex with your parents permission and one when you can diside yourself, eg in america it could be <16 no sex, 16-18 sex with parents permission, 18+ own desision. that might work? (just throwing some ideas around) and by the way, my parents did let me drink occasionally, and even let me get a bit drunk at christmas's, and tought me all about moderation, but i still went out and did my liver in. if i was actually allowed to buy alcohol myself, id probably be dead . and my parents found out, and made me give my word that i wouldnt take alcohol from there again, and then i started brewing my own -- some people are hell bent on making the mistake, but we shouldnt make it easy for them. as i said before, i would have been extatic had a female paedophile found me when i was 11, and to be honest looking back im 99% sure i wouldnt have regretted it. as it was, i lost my verginity at 17 (over AoC in uk) and boy did i regret that insident in almost every consievable way. and i dont think id have made that mistake had i have been 'educated' at the age of 11. BUT as i also have said, had a male adult have approached me sexually, id have probably said yes and looking back im 99% sure i would have regretted it. so all in all, i think the AoC (and the fact that i was ugly and spotty) served me well. i extend the same logic to the AoC pertaining to all childeren as a whole. i feel that you may be picking the worst examples available here. i know in england its not standard to register a 16yo for having sex with his 15yo girlfriend (AoC in UK = 16). but yeah, 'sex=dirty' does nothing to promote a healthy, well balanced and glitch free mind. even childeren should be told the truith about sex. but, i still maintain, not have it.