h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In this context, someone above the age of consent is no longer a child. If some countries set an age which is too low, this should be addressed, but it isn't part of the same discussion.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

hi Pattern-chaser,

<>

Well, we shall have to agree to disagree on that one, okay?

az

ps
how do you stop them? how do you prevent them from doing what they want to do? You cannot. You can only hope for the best, that this never happens to one of your own children. or anyone's. Sorry, getting emotional here. . . bye.

pss
THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS - none whatsover. Sorry, that is just the way I feel about it.

Sorry all,

Got really emotional there . . .

Please ignore my last couple of postings and carry on as you were!



az

Hey Az - it's OK.



Every citizen has rights (and duties too). Once you establish a reason why a citizen's rights can be taken away, you're on a slippery slope....



When I said that prevention should be as mild as possible, I hope I made it clear that it should be as mild as possible *commensurate with protecting children*. If there *really* was no milder way than execution, for example, then I would be in favour, as I'm sure most reasonable people would be. But I would like to think that there *is* a less brutal approach that would achieve the required aim.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Yes, well, I've always thought in these cases that if it had been *my* child then execution would probably be too mild for them. I'd rather go with slicing off testicles and penis while perpetrator was still alive and then shoving them down his throat until he suffocated to death on his own 'murder weapon'.

But then again, that's just me talkin'

az

ps
yes, all citizens have rights until they forfeit them.

I am a parent (of two) and fortunately I have little experience of abuse, but I have met a couple of victims. Their particular circumstances have always reminded me that I am fortunate.

However I was under the impression that paedophiles were often themselves victims of abuse and their sexual preference is the product of their own childhood experiences.

Protection of children and prevention aren't the only aspects. Treatment should also figure in there, shouldn't it? Our societies have in many instances already failed paedophiles.

Lumping homosexuals together with paedophiles sounds suspiciously like a religious position, particularly that of an (as Math would put it) Abrahamic religion, which would consider both to be unnatural.

The seriousness of paedophilia aside, I would sugest reading A852699 for a thought provoking view on another unnatural sexual practice.

Math: "The evidence for the British and German security services involvement in uncovering the 9-11 plotters was all over the British and European press in the months following the attack, but strangely never made it to the USA." - So it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a link, right?

"I see your point about the number of deaths, but strangely I see the word 'outrage' used when a boy walks into a shopping mall in Tel Aviv and sacifices his own life to attack his enemy, but the words 'collateral damage' when a remotely piloted missile or bomb hits an Iraqi market. Neither is right, both are terrible and could be avoided." - Agreed, though I can see a strong difference of degree. The deaths caused by the remote missile were accidental.

"We in the West are more than capable of stoping any war we please if we act quickly" - But each such intervention strains the resources of the nation, both economically and politically. Why should one nation bear all the burden?

"During the first three years of the Second World War you sold us munitions and other supplies, and loaned us the money to buy them. No American ship left port except voluntarily and for a profit. We didn't stop paying you back for this until the late 1970's." - No American ship left port except voluntarily and for profit, granted. But it was the US government that paid them. And then after the war, the UK received over $3B from Marshall Plan funds for economic recovery... only about 12% of that in loan form. And since that economic recovery made any loan repayment possible, in a way, it can be said that the US paid off its own Lend-Lease loans, and that those materials were given away. http://www.marshallfoundation.org/about_gcm/marshall_plan.htm

"When the USA's ancient ally France cried for help the beacon of democracy ignored her and the Statue of Libery must have wept. There was no real excuse for America leaving Europe to be conquered by a fascist dictatorship, other than it did not serve the interests of rich and powerful men. If they had wanted America to go to war an excuse could have been found overnight." - This is propagandist language, and doesn't belong in this forum. The US was still a young nation that had been dedicated to staying out of European conflicts since Washington warned them off of them. The laundry list of European wars we did not get involved with is quite impressive. And until the concentration camps were discovered, nobody knew that Hitler was any worse than Bismark or Napoleon.

"As for our Imperialistic tendencies towards the Falklands. If you read the history we owned (by purchase) the islands and had settled it with thousands of our own citizens (many who had been there for three and four generations). How would you react if the Mexican Government claimed Puerto Rico and then invaded it?" - The UN resolution in 1960 called for de-colonization and self-determination. All that would have been necessary to keep the Falklands as a legal member of the UK is to have a free election on the question of independence. Puerto Rico is a US territory by free election. They remain in the US by choice, and remain in territorial status by choice... they have rejected statehood several times.

"Race, religion and patriotism have all been used as excuses to mobilise the people, but are not the causes." - But if you don't mobilize the people, then there is no war. You have to sell a war, or the people will not support it... like Vietnam (and it was sold with limited success). Religion, nationalism, or racism may not be the root causes, but there would be no war without them.

Which is the point I've been trying to make all along. Individuals can do evil for all kinds of reasons, but to get groups to do it, you need special motivation.

************

Madent: "Historically, the masses involved in wars have been mobilised with many justifications. Frequently religious motives are proposed, and nationalism and racism also feature strongly. But other motivations also appear to exist." - Still waiting to find out what those other motivations are...

The question about paedophiles is certainly off topic, and no doubt I'm going to be shouted at for this, but here goes...

I think the question you need to answer is - why do you think paedophilia is wrong? I'm not advocating the practice by the way, so stop fuming. Legally speaking, a child isn't able to give consent to sex and so (legally speaking) sleeping with a child is rape. It's fairly obvious why rape is a bad thing. However, the legal trick (that children can't give consent) is contentious. What does consent mean, and why can some give consent and others can't? I think we can all agree that a 5 year old can't give consent, but what changes from age 15 and 11 months to age 16? Like all legal limits of this sort, you just have to draw the line SOMEWHERE even if age is not the primary concern, but how do we settle on 16 as the age, and why? I think some factors are: (1) physical maturity of the individual, but this would suggest an earlier age probably, (2) emotional maturity of the individual. It seems to me that (2) is the primary factor in determining age of consent, but I don't understand why this leads to a choice of 16 as the age. Suppose we lived in a less sexually repressed society where sex was considerably more openly discussed, even with children. Would this mean that individuals matured in the relevant emotional sense earlier? Should this then lead to a lowering of the age of consent?

Here's another question: do you think it's wrong to be attracted to a child? Can you justify this view?

Final question: why do you think that paedophilia is so much more serious than, say, murder that it justifies taking away all of a person's rights rather than just some of them?

So that this post isn't entirely a list of questions, my own views are as follows.

It feels to me, although I have no reasons for this feeling, as though the age of consent is about right. If I were to err on the side of caution I think 17 would be more appropriate (I'd also lower the voting age to 17 or maybe even less - I'm not decided on that). I don't think the legal side of it is clear cut - it doesn't make sense to call a 16 year old sleeping with a 15 year and 11 month old a paedophile. I agree with P-c that we should respond in as mild a way as is consistent with protecting children (and that means not chopping off their bits), in fact I agree with that as a general rule for punishment. In fact, I would go so far as to say that no punishment should be punitive, but that, I gather, is a slightly extreme view. As to how to prevent it, I think the best way must be to talk to children more openly, not harsher punishments.

hi Dogster,

My 'cutting of their bits' posting was not meant to be taken seriously and I meant no offense. I do not believe in capital punishment, though if I were the parent of a child who had been abused then I can well imagine having these feelings.

Having any sort of feeling is neither right or wrong - it just is. Acting on a feeling is another matter. All abuse of children is WRONG. And taking advantage of anyone in an abusive manner is not right at any age. As most parents of teenagers will know first hand, one 15-16 year old is not the same as another in terms of physical and/or emotional development. And so, no matter what the law says, any adult that takes advantage of their position of either being bigger, in a position of authority, being able to manipulate, is behaving irresponsibly and inappropriately.

'Age of consent' laws do not exist in order to give abusers the 'legal right' to rape.

<>

I didn't say that.

az

Hello again Matholwch, thanks for the reply.

>when wham! The Albaus Quarterly Gazette lands at my feet.

That made me smile....

>Like many before you, you seem to assume that all those who profess a religious belief or experience conform to the narrow and dogmatic views of the Abrahamic religions. I think that you will find that most people who have chosen to walk the paths of the new 'old religions' are quite different in their approach

I'm not sure why you would make this assumption on my behalf? A long time ago I took a great interest in wicca, bought rune stones, crystals, cast circles etc., I did the sky clad thing (only on my own though, lol) and meditated on my questions invoking the earth mother and the dark lord, overall it was harmless and occasionally thought provoking. I was seeking answers, just as I was when I was a member of a born again church. I am quite interested in all types of religions. One thing I would say is that I have a lot more time for wiccan and "new-age" religions than many other types of religions, because they do not seem to feel the need to pass their own delusions along so dogmatically, and they seem to have more respect for humans and for individuality. However, a religion is a religion is a religion. Wiccans, new agers and those who "walk the paths of the new 'old religions'" don't know the answers either - they are just generally less annoying about it than the majority of the Judeo-christians/moslems/whatever * insert deity of choice *.

>For most of us (and I use the term 'us' lightly and with respect) have no desire for power,

So, you're (in the plural sense) not human then? Anybody who seeks a vaulted position of any kind, who seeks to espouse wisdom to others, who thinks they know the answers and wishes to share them - desires, however unconsciously and however fledgling a sense, power.

>do not evangelise our beliefs to the general populace and find no problem with the world and its neighbour believing what they damn well please.

That I will agree with, overall. New agers are not usually evangelists and usually don't seek to prevail upon others to accept their beliefs/delusions. However, if they ever become the majority religion and actually wield some power, let's take another look.

>I do not deny that people could have lived full lives without religion in any form. However, they chose not to, and many did, and still do, find comfort in it.

Unfortunately the "choice" is limited at best. Most people are potty trained into religion from an early age and most people apparently do not have the mental or personal ability to shake loose of that potty training. Also, some people live in fear of their lives even today if they do not tow the religious party line. Religious belief is, in part, the extension of childhood fears. Adults like to know the answers. If there are no answers, or no recognisable answers, they make them up. Enter religion.

>The frame it gives their lives is real and they want it.

The frame it gives them is entirely of their own mind and making, and yes they do want it.

>Neither you nor I can deny them that

I wouldn't want to. What they believe is their own choice.

>for many of them live lives of such grinding pain and poverty that there is little else to bring them hope

You believe then that delusion is better than accepting the reality of not knowing? I believe that accepting that we do not know the truth is better than delusion. I also believe that clinging to religion is not helping the really poor and desperately needy climb out of their pit of pain and poverty. It turns out that reality, while infinitely more difficult, is usually a better goad to improving one's lot than "oh well my life is miserable and I'm going to die in agony, but at least I've got the afterlife to look forward to - oh and that guy in the frock said to give him all our money, so let's do that...."

>Certainly science or modern humanism, to mention some possible alternatives, have so far singularly failed to alleviate their suffering

What makes you think that anything is going to alleviate human suffering? We are biological creatures, at this point in our evolution we suffer physical pain. Why imagine that people, as apart from other animals, should be exempt by nature from suffering? Perhaps if we out-evolve these particular biological forms things will be different, in the meantime we have an overcrowded planet with millions of different life-forms all fighting for the right to pass on their own DNA. There will always be suffering at this stage of life, whether it is human, animal, insect, fish and etc. Whilst I am wholeheartedly and selfishly on the side of the humans, I don't imagine, realistically, that anybody has an answer to wipe out human suffering, at least until we out-evolve these bodies not to mention our own tribal and blood-thirsty instincts.

>I too live a life in a universe that is infinite and unknowable. I seek truth in all its forms, a hopeless quest for it has no end, but it gives me, personally, purpose.

Good, I am glad you have found the meaning you seek from your life - and that's not sarcasm.

>My frame of reference is not so different from your own, yet I am unwilling to deny the wisdom of my ancestors, nor the experiences I have have had that as yet are unproven by science.

If by that you mean Pythagoras, Marie Curie or Einstein - to name but a few of our wise ancestors - then by all means Lay on, MacDuff. If however by that you mean the quasi-philosophical ramblings of a bunch of old dead guys, then count me out. Happy to read about it, maybe even learn from some of it, just not willing to live my life by it. The wisdom of our ancestors also includes believing that Thor is still running around with a great big hammer and that we should stick leeches on each other anytime we feel sick. We should always use our own minds to decide how we will live our lives, and by all means read and learn as much as we can and glean as much information as possible from our "ancestors", but by no means accept something as wise or true, just because an old dead guy said it - or for that matter simply because a healthy, living guy said it.

>My intended point was, if I can remember that far back, was a society needs a common set of core values. Something that most believe in or at least respect, or it cannot function as a society.

The only core set of values any society needs are "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (which sentiment, I am sure you know predates christianity by a long way), and Mind your own Damn Business. It doesn't cover everything, but as a general guideline for "society", it'll do just fine.

>Until recently in the 'West' those core values closely followed those of the Christian Churches.

No, they didn't. Read the bible, which is full of murder, pain, infanticide, rape, and rage, as are many other biblical-type books. The bible is full of blood, pain and fear, with occasional bouts of poetry and the odd insight. As with any other book and any other religion based on such a book, take the good, discard the bad and make up your own mind.

>The Churches were undoubtedly corrupt, abused by the men in power, and served many darker purposes.

As are all religions.

>But, and it is a big 'but', to the average man or woman christianity gave their lives hope and purpose.

No, it gave them a set of rules to follow so they didn't have to think too deeply about life, and it allowed the people in power to keep order. Perhaps it also afforded some comfort to those who felt they had nothing else to comfort them.

>Now the world has changed and in the West we are outgrowing christianity. Science, politics and secularism are in the ascendant. Unfortunately these 'movements' do not being with them an easily accessible or well communicated common set of values. So people search for something, anything to give their lives meaning.

Good luck to everybody in their search. If the truth is found I will be first to applaud. Meantime, one does not need to make up stories to give life meaning. If you don't know the answers (and nobody at this point does), don't just make them up - wishing doesn't make it so.

>It does not matter whether you or I believe that they can live without external direction.

True, I am sure my opinion is worth bugger all to most people.

>We are part of an educated elite and have the time and ability to squander on discussions like this.

Hmmm. I suppose in a world-wide sense....

>They need something to believe in

No, they do not "need" to believe in fairy tales to justify their own existence. * They * have just been trained into thinking they do. They are we and we are they, the only difference is geography. Leave the training behind. Leave behind the need for control. Leave behind the fear. It is what it is. Wishing does not make it so. Wasting your life on your knees - when you could in fact be enjoying every moment of it or trying to improve your lot here on earth and perhaps learning some real wisdom into the bargain - is singularly unappealing to me.

>how else can we explain the explosion in interest in the 'new age' and neo-pagan philosophies?

I think that whether or not you see any "explosion" is only a matter of interpretation.

And on that note, thanks again for the reply.


Hello Pattern Chaser, nice to hear from you,.

>Despite the bias ("imagining" implies deluded or mistaken belief)

There is no bias. Imagining simply means to form a mental image or concept of, to picture to oneself or to think of as probable. (Oxford Australian dictionary).

>You're stating a basic human truth, I think: there *is* nothing more comforting than believing you have the answers - to whatever questions. You have turned the unknown, the scary, into the known: cosy and comfortable.

I know, that's why I said it . That is one of the main reasons why people do not want to accept that they do not know the answers. It is much more comforting to believe they do.



This applies to any social grouping of humans, like trades unions, political parties or even charities, not just to religion.

Which is exactly my point. Religious groups are absolutely no different from any other groups of humans, in the sense that they are not exalted in any way, have no access to any hidden truths and the leaders of the groups have exactly the same needs and desires as any other humans who seek to be in charge - power.

>Albaus:
>Now you are overlaying your beliefs onto others. The people who benefitted from all this love perceived and understood it - lived it! - in the context of religion. Whether they were right or wrong to make this connection is immaterial. Their belief is sufficient. Voodoo and psychosomatic illness work because of belief; the cause *may* not be real, but the symptoms, the effects, most certainly are.

I don't see the distinction here. People, solely people, are responsible for any good they have managed to squeeze from religion. What they believed was immaterial, it was their own selves which allowed them to find any good in themselves. And it was their own doing when evil came of religion too, it just gave them an excuse for their bad behaviour. People behave as they want to, religion is often the crutch or the excuse for their behaviour - it does not cause their behaviour and it does not cause any good or evil in itself. People do what they do, and religion is a symptom of the human need for answers and desire for control.

>You can tell people that what's happening is caused by themselves, with no outside influence or help

But I don't tell people that. I don't know if there is a god or any outside influence. I do know that all the religions I have come across have been feeble attempts to make sense of a universe which is unfathomable, and have nothing to do with any possible god or outside influence.

>but don't be surprised if you are treated with contempt, or just ignored.

It is much easier, always, for people to believe something comforting, however silly, than just to admit they don't know. I don't mind if I am treated with contempt or just ignored, that is a reflection only of someone else's needs. I don't need them to "believe" in me. I rarely even talk about such things, except within the context of this sort of debate, or if a friend specifically questions me on my beliefs. If someone needs to be contemptuous of or ignore the simple truth of the words I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows, then good luck to them.

>Your perspective, true and accurate from where *you* stand, has no more validity than theirs. Not a jot. I do not and I will not say you are wrong in this, but your beliefs have no more justification than theirs (or mine ).

Of course not, I thought that was obvious. I only want other people not to try to foist their own delusions on others, that's about it really.

>The fulfillment of shared belief shouldn't be overlooked. There is no particular virtue in following your own unique and individual belief system, or in rejecting one followed by others.

I suppose that depends on what you find fulfilling. I, personally, do not find fulfilment in agreeing with a whole bunch of people that Aphrodite will make me infertile if I don't put some flowers on her altar - or whatever....I don't need to have others chanting beside me or agreeing with me as to matters eschatological to feel fulfilled. Actually, I don't think anybody does, it's just a matter of training, but that is only my belief of course. I don't actually have any belief "system". It is immensely liberating.

>Oh, and if I thought you meant *my* beliefs when you referred to "delusions", I might be offended.... Luckily, of course, you didn't mean any such thing!

I don't mean yours in particular of course, just everybody's in general....I am sure I believe things which would also be perceived as delusional by others, and that doesn't offend or worry me in the slightest. I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows- that is fast becoming my mantra on this thread

And on that note, thank you Pattern Chaser for your repy.

Apologies for the length of this post.

Interesting, Albaus. I don't see there's anything for me to add, but I wanted to acknowledge what you said.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Name: King Nechtan mac Derile

Chair title: Head of the Department of Atemporal Chronology

Any beliefs you'd like to list so we can make fun- er... discuss them:
I believe that Scotland will win the World Cup before I die.

Welcome, 'King Nechtan mac Derile' to the Freedom From Faith Foundation.


"I believe that Scotland will win the World Cup before I die."
Well, that's certainly a leap of faith! I wish you a long life filled with hope.



Albaus,

I believe that's 'toe the line' not 'tow the line'. sorry but I couldn't find anything else to disagree with.

F

Madent > Historically, the masses involved in wars have been mobilised with many justifications. Frequently religious motives are proposed, and nationalism and racism also feature strongly. But other motivations also appear to exist.

BtM > Still waiting to find out what those other motivations are...

Madent > I believe that the most obvious alternative motivations are those behind revolutions. They are rarely (if at all) religious, by definition they can't nationalist and neither are they racist.

How would you describe the movitation of the masses in the revolutions of the US, Russia, France, China, etc?

There is a recurring theme I'm starting to see here. I see words such as "delusions" or "imaginary" or "made-up" to describe the views of believers. I see all believers being assigned the worst features of religion: dogmatic, evangelistic. I see veiled personal insults. And so on.

In short, I see in the language of some contributors a contempt that is not justified by factual verifiable evidence. [Even if it was, courtesy requires some consideration for others.]

If we are to retain the civilised environment for discussion that the FFFF has always offered, we need to address this phenomenon. This is not a plea for everybody-is-always-right liberality. On the contrary, mutual respect is the price we pay to be able to express our own beliefs loud and clear without offering offence.

So: say "there is no evidence to support your belief in God", but be aware that there is no evidence to refute it either, and don't refer to "your so-called God" or "your mythical imaginings". This is not respect!

Restrict yourself to the beliefs (or whatever) under discussion. Never address the individual believer. This is no more relevant or helpful than shooting the messenger, and it contributes to bad feeling. "Be excellent to each other."

Finally, if you feel this post is unnecessary, say so ... with courtesy. There's no need to confront or challenge me; this is not a forum that supports conflict, but it *is* a forum that supports the freedom to express yourself without fear of personal abuse. That's what I just did, Now it's your turn, if you wish....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

hi Pattern-chaser,

<>

Does one need evidence to support their belief? I don't think so - that's why it is called a belief and not a fact. Also, most religions require some sort of 'leap of faith' from what I can understand. I think I have sometimes put quotation marks around the word God, but only to show that I am talking about somebody else's god, not my own. No disrespect is intended by that, so I hope none is taken.

az

Thanks for the comment, Az. I'm sure no-one would consider "God" to be discourteous. As usual (?), it's those to whom politeness is most important who are concerned that they might have inadvertently offered offence.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"How would you describe the movitation of the masses in the revolutions of the US, Russia, France, China, etc?"

The US Revolution was a birth of nationalism... one nation versus another's right to make its own.

The rest of them were still nationalist in nature... it's just that two groups had different ideas of what sort of nation they should have. For example, the Russian czars believed that the nation existed to support their imperial rights, while the poor believed that communism was the inevitable improvement over dictatorship, and wanted a nation in which everyone was treated equally.

This is, naturally, a very generalistic view. There were certainly economic factors involved, for instance. But if just one person is starving, he can steal a loaf of bread. When many are starving, they can riot. It takes some nationalistic rhetoric to stir them into war and the invention of a new tool whose sole purpose is cutting off human heads.

Hi Blatherskite,

Can you really regard racism as a separate cause? Is it also not just another form of Nationalism? At least at the level of organisation where it can be used to motivate people to go to war, rather than 'mere' persecution of a minority?

If you include racism as a motivator then you really need to consider, say, political activism (at the level where it leads to revolution) as an alternative too.

Both of these can unite a subdivision of the population sufficiently to lead to war *within* a country; as of course can religion. Nationalism on the other hand should unite virtually the whole population, while my suggestion - which you dismissed earlier - of international security may unite the populations of a number of countries simultaneously.

I am assuming here that we are discussing motivators sufficient to lead to the organised carnage commonly referred to as war - not just ordinary violence or rioting.

F

I think my original proposition has gotten lost somewhere along the way, so let me summarize.

I'm saying that in order for large groups of people to get behind Really Horrible Acts, which is necessary for such acts in large scale, leaders have to appeal to nationalism, racism, or religion.

Really Horrible Acts don't necessarily cross national borders. For instance.. see the French Revolution or Stalin's purges.

Also, wars aren't necessarily Really Horrible Acts. It depends on the conduct and the ideologies involved. For instance, I wouldn't say the French Revolutionary War was a Really Horrible Act. The people rose up against the government because their lifestyle was deplorable, and they were fully justified in rebelling... and rebellion was the only method of redress available. But after the victory was won, and the beheadings began, the Really Horrible stuff began.

******

Which brings me to why I dismissed the "international security" thing. For one, I think it's just another buzzword for rampant nationalism.

For another, I'm not seeing how the removal of an oppressive, religious, misogynistic regime qualifies as a Really Horrible Act. And the jubliation in Baghdad as the tanks rolled in says a lot about how horrible the latest engagement was. The coalition casualties were people who volunteered for service and accepted the risks. They went to great lengths to avoid innocent civilian casualties, and this war had astonishingly low incidence of such when you consider the urban nature of most of the fighting. There were astonishingly high rates of casualties among the rabid supporters of a genocidal megalomaniac, which can only be a good thing.