Repealing age limits for sexual relationships.

What does the above have to do with anything that I have said? If you do not know the difference between sex and a kiss then I question your objectivity or level of sexual knowledge. Are you equating a kiss from mom, dad, son or daughter as being equivalent to having sex with them? If not then what is your point?

 

More to the point, wherever you get debating propositions which are morally bankrupt by inspection, no one in his or her right mind would wish to go.

Your advice is neither valuable nor welcome, in case you're taking notes.

Considering the source, the assessment is not concerning in the least, trust me.

More precisely, when the proposition in question is clearly diabolical, "discussion" of said proposition is the first step in achieving a resolution in favor of the diabolically inclined.

 

"You don't need to be Many in order to be right."

You also dont get to decide what is 'right' for other people, which is what you would be doing by having sex with a child who is not mature enough to make wise decisions for themself.

"It's one of the most popular lies, promoted by Christianity. For example Rome Empire fell with the spread of Christianity, when people forgo sexual hedonism and become more pious."

Nope. Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire prior to the split into Eastern (Byzantine) and Western. The Eastern (Byzantine) Roman Empire was even more christian than the West, and outlived it by (1000?) years. The Western Roman Empire inherrited the resource-poor regions of the Roman Empire Propper, and coupled with an increased organizational capacity of the germanic barbarians from small tribes to large armies, was innevitably conquered. Nothing to do with christianity.

"Actually there are right things, and there are wrong things and it doesn't matter how you perceive them personally. Moral taboos regarding sex are wrong and dangerous, especially for children. That is why we must to fight them."

Taboos exist for a reason. Homosexuality, for example, used to spread disease more easily. Thats not so much a problem now with the availability of condoms and advances in medicine. But it was regarded as 'bad' because it was dangerous, not just 'immoral.' In the same way, sexualization of children has been taboo in the more 'civilized' world because it causes increased incidence of mental illness; adults who never propperly learned to regulate their emotions having been emotionally stunted by too-early sexualization, resulting in more violent, turbulent, unstable societies as a whole.
Some taboos from ancient times do indeed need to be done away with (like taboo against gays). Child sex is not one of them- its still very relevent.

"These words makes no sense."

You're probably not a spiritual person, right? If not, there isn't really any more I could do to help you understand. Maybe look into decalcifying your pineal gland. If nothing else, it should be interesting research

"And I still do not understand what is the difference between sex and hug, both of which are emotional?"

Its a difference of severity. Kinda like how bruising your knee and passing a kidney stone or childbirth are all 'painfull.' One can be demonstrably traumatizing, the other not so much.
I can appreciate that sex isnt any more emotional for you than a hug. I view it similarly. But we are a minority in that level of emotional resilience (or detatchment, depending on whose perspective). Its a bigger deal for most people (especially women).

 

Then (as I believe Ive asked you before in other threads...) what is your purpose here?

 

I learned this while researching Borderline Personality Disorder and Compound Post Traumatic Stress Dissorder:
People have a genetically preset emotional capacity. Think of it like a bucket. If the average person has a 5 gallon bucket, then people on the extreme ends can have anywhere between a swimming pool and a thimble of emotional capacity. Emotional experiences fill the bucket and time spent void of emotional experience drains it. How fast it drains depends on the learned ability of the individual to manage their emotions. A 'well rounded' person who developed normally will be able to 'drain their bucket' in a controlled fashion- holding onto positive emotions (draining slower) and expelling negative emotions (drain faster). The ability to do this is learned by dealing with emotions as a child and adolescent. For example, a toddler can be 'emotionally devastated' when a toy breaks or when mom wont buy them a candy bar. Learning how to cope with this 'devastation' is the baby steps in learning how to cope with lifes more serious hardships down the road. If the child is not given a reason to control these emotional breakdowns, they wont. Thats why its not good to just let children scream endlessly about crap. However, they have to be allowed *some* outlet because simply shutting it off doesnt teach them how to effectively 'suffer' the bad emotions either, and they will be ill-equipped to deal with lifes tragedies down the road when 'shutting off' isnt an option. And to complicate the whole thing, there isnt any good way at this point to know whether the child has a large bucket or a small bucket until you've been able to experience their reactions and progress for quite a long time.

Now, at long last, to the point relevent to the OP. For many people, sex illicites very strong emotions, whether good (healthy) or bad (unhealthy). Children have not learned how to manage their emotional 'bucket' and the strong emotions tied to sex are generally too much for them to manage. This leads to emotional trauma- a damaging of their ability to learn how to manage their emotions in the normal way previously described, and to cope, they replace emotional management by either emotionally shutting down (the bucket is full, it wont drain, theres no more room for emotions), or by uncontrollable outburts or panic attacks (a sort of 'automated emergency bucket dump') depending on the situation. Emotional management is one of those abilities that we must learn within certain stages of psychological developement. Children who are traumatized who are not helped to reverse the damage by a certain level of developement are forever cursed with an emotional dissorder, which manifests as a behavioral or personality dissorder, leaving them prone to shutdowns, violent outburts and generally not being able to cope with the innevitable troubles of life.

 

Christianity transformed the Roman empire, it didn't destroy it. The HRE has shaped modern civilization. Whether Christ was the son of God, or not is completely irrelevant to his undeniable influence on humanity. The Romans united the known world using Christ as the tip of the Roman spear. Latin, the universal language, democracy, advances in science, architecture, navigation, and rule of law, were all introduced to the world by the HRE. Beyond your criminal sexual deviance, you suffer nihilistic delusions about the world around you. I don't usually delve into faith or sexual preference, but your thread, and posts are truely appalling.

 

Same situation, she'll never be left alone.

 

I never said this. You cannot select morals, you can only realize them. And objective morals count not only to me, but to everyone.

 

Equivalent in it's damage, not in it's meaning.

 

You can call morally bankrupt whatever you want: homosexuality, witchery, non-christian religions. It doesn't mean they are immoral, but maybe they have different understanding of what morals is. For me the main and only attribute is damage, if you have damage or risk of such damage, that is immoral.

 

Only if it's right. You cannot be reasonably inclined to what was proven wrong.

 

You can never decide what is right, you can only understand it. And in the case of children they need to understand it as early as possible.

Yes, Christianity spread before the split, that is why the split cannot be caused be sexual hedonism, the society already've been Christian, and then... darkest ages in Europe history with total devotion to Christianity. And there even is clear correlation between religiosity of society and it's sustainability today, most sustainable societies today are less religious ones.

Agree, that is why we need to find out why this taboos was existed in the past, and why we need (or don't need) them today. Isn't that stupid to fallow this rules just because they were useful in the past without consideration is there any point to fallow them today?

Here you compare different levels of physical damage, in the case of hug and sex you comparing what? Level of "spiritual connection" which does not exist?

Neither it's for children. Under the age when they become nurtured "to understand" the big difference between two.

 

Researches you present refers to negative emotions only. There is no signs that child can be traumatized by positive emotions too, not to mention that giving a gift to a child you can make him emotional to the limit, which is uneasy to implement on sexual level.

 

So men and women should never establish a personal/financial relationship (partnership) with another person?

 

WRONG. Yes you do need informed consent to even touch another person.

When it comes to hugging children then it's informed consent of the child's parent/guardian. If you hug a child against the will of their guardian is an act of assault on the child.

Don't believe me? Try going out into public and just start hugging all of the children you meet. You're going to be promptly arrested and hauled off to jail.

 

Financial side is just result of personal side, I'm against personal side.

 

Do you really want to say that it's okay to f... a child as long as his parents don't mind? Really?

 

Children can be 'spoiled' by positive emotions.

I dont think that really applies to sex though. What evidence do you have that children can emotionally benefit from sexual contact?
(To clarify the parameters of the question: by 'children' i mean people who may be physically mature for sex but not yet emotionally mature for sex. Our 'age of consent' laws are pretty general and directed for a majority effectiveness of sexual protection. Some people will reach 'sexually emotional maturity' before they are 'legal' and some not until after, and for the purposes of this discussion, we should ignore the legal definition and discuss from the viewpoint of actual, individual maturity level. The professional psychological community is fairly unanimous in the consensus that 'healthy' (beneficial, or at least non-detrimental) sexual contact requires a level of emotional maturity and self-responsibility that most people dont develope until well after physical sexual maturity.) So, the question again after my attempted clarification: What evidence do you have that the professional psychological community is wrong, and children can have positive sexual contact prior to emotional maturity?

 

To call it like I see it. You're welcome.

 

The graph does not indicate cause and effect. One could just as easily draw the conclusion that the power vacuum left by the fall of the roman empire caused the dark ages, or that a third global/social dynamic caused the fall of the roman empire, the spread of Christianity AND the drop in scientific advancement.
Additionally, after the dark ages, christianity did not die off, yet scientific advancement still exploded. The renaisance is commonly attributed to the split of Protestantism from Roman Catholicism. If Roman Christianity is responsible for the decline in science, then Protestant Christianity is responsible for not only its resurgance, but its acceleration.
Historically, the 'Classical Liberal' movement (private property, equitable Rule of Law, Free Market, individual sovereignty instead of monarchy, representative govt limited by contract) is commonly accepted as having been a direct result of Protestantism (the schism of religion from govt), and the acceleration of scientific advancement a direct result of that individual liberty.
You can blame Christianity... but that doesnt mean its Christianity's fault, and most Historians and social analysts disagree with your placement of the blame.

 

I think I found the problem you are having understanding why sex with 5-year olds is bad.

 

Psychological community can believe in whatever they want, as well as general population, it doesn't matter as long as they do not present evidences that what they believe in is true. And I don't need any evidences, because I'm not claiming anything, I deny that sex is harmful for children, and I can do it because what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

The psychological community hasnt asserted anything without evidence. Psychology is a science just as much as anything else is. Their 'assertions' are based on countless clinical studies and observations of human behavior.

If you want your denial of their assertions to be taken seriously by anyone but NAMBLA, you're gonna need some evidence to back it up.

 

Correct. As well as nothing indicate that democracy, advances in science, architecture, navigation, and rule of law, were all introduced to the world by the HRE.

Christianity did not die off, but it looses it's authoritarian power and control over people. It become weaker and weaker over years.

Protestantism itself is a result of liberal reappraisal of classical Christianity, cause/effect relationships here is not evident.