nino_savatte
No pasaran!
TeeJay said:
Are you speaking from experience TeeJay? I only ask because you appear to have a great deal of emotional investment in this particular subject.
Paedophile in Charge of Hearts Football Club
- Thread starter pilchardman
- Start date
Are you speaking from experience TeeJay? I only ask because you appear to have a great deal of emotional investment in this particular subject.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Jesus, Nino, that's out of order.nino_savatte said:
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
1. If you check out the thread, you'll notice I've specifically stated I don't think the term to be appropriate here.TeeJay said:
2. The situation was not as you describe it.
pilchardman
Dances With Penguins
Yes, the law does indeed state that. I did not think otherwise. Nor did I say otherwise. However, as you well know, the law is not the same as ethics or morality, although they may sometimes coincide or overlap. In this case it is easy to see why the 41-year-old is able to take advantage of the law - the law that avoided that possibility would be too difficult to draw up or police.TeeJay said:
I can see that your reaction to this thread has its roots in my use of the term paedophile in the title. Let me ask you two things.
First, do you think a child sex offender (eg Rix) ought to have a second change, whereas a paedophile (in the specific terms you wish me to use) ought not to? If so, say so. If not, why the semantics?
Secondly, did you reply in the same way to the numerous Jonothan King threads? Because his victims were 14-15. If you did not is this a distinction you make involving homosexuality, or one you make involving football?
Let me now return to the hypothetical 41-year-old having sex with a 16, 17, 18, or 19 year-old. While that would be perfectly legal, it would nonetheless be morally reprehensible.
Rix, however, knew the girl to be 15. Which makes him a predatory sex abuser, as well as on the wrong side of the law.
I think anyone ought to have a second chance, subject to them not being a danger to children in their care etc.pilchardman said:
I don't really give a shit about football. I can't remember what I said about Jonathan King. Are you saying I said something different in that thread? Maybe you could quote it?
I might find it personally distasteful or unattractive but I don't think it is "morally reprehensible". People are free to do a lot of things that I wouldn't want to do.
I have already said I don't know the details of the case, so fair enough.
pilchardman
Dances With Penguins
No. I asked a question. You can answer it or not; it's up to you.TeeJay said:
You raise one point I'd like to respond to: "People are free to do a lot of things that I wouldn't want to do". Indeed they are. But the point I've been trying to make in this thread (and, indeed, in other threads) is about power. It is a point you dismissed, but perhaps because of the current context.
I'd like to quote two passages, if I may. They are not from works on children or young people, but about women.
OK. The point of those quotes is the power discrepancy between men and women. Abuse of power flows from power being unequal in the first place. I don't mean physical power, I mean social power. That's men and women.
A power discrepancy also exists between adults and adolescents. And whether you prefer to use the term "young people" or not, the age group we are talking about does not have the same social power, the same power flowing from sexual experience, or the same power flowing from life experience that an older adult has. An older adult can abuse that power, and - it is clear to me - an older adult has a responsibility not to.
You say "People are free to do a lot of things that I wouldn't want to do". This isn't about whether you or I want to do something or not. What we want to do is irrelevant. The point is what we should do.
You keep returning to discussion of taste and preference. This, I think, is because you are framing your discussion around what is legal or not. It allows you to adopt a position I paraphrase thus: "Ah, well, whether I would want to sleep with a 16 or 17-year-old or not, it doesn't really matter; it's perfectly legal. So people who want to do so are entitled to do so. Indeed, they have an allowable argument for sleeping with someone under the age of 16, if they reasonably thought them to be older". (I know those aren't your words; I'm condensing the logic of your argument into its constituent propositions, premises and conclusions. If I've missed one or other, please let me know).
Your argument hinges on what is legal, and leaves matters of what is acceptable pretty much to one side. I can see why; if it is difficult to decypher what is acceptable, falling back on what is allowed can be an attractive option.
However, I propose that once the discrepancies of power are understood, it is easier to see which behaviours are acceptable, and where ones own responsibilities lie.
pilchardman
Dances With Penguins
I already replied I did not imply that. (I said "No" when you asked).TeeJay said:
Acceptable to whom?pilchardman said:
I choose not to smoke (any more) and it would be unacceptable for someone to come and blow smoke in my face. But I am not in favour of saying it is unacceptable for people to choose to smoke if it doesn't have any impact on me.
Likewise, I may choose to only sleep with people a few years removed from me by age. Of course it is unacceptable for someone to force themselves on someone else sexually - it would be assault or rape. But I am not in favour of saying that it is unacceptable for two people to choose to have sex if one of them is 16-18 and the other is much older. Frankly it is none of my business, no matter how distasteful I find the idea personally.
Of course there is a matter of when consent is possible. UK law states that consent is completely impossible for under 13s (hence automatic rape charges). It recognises that some kind of consent may be possible for 14-16 year olds, but still deems sex at this age illegal (although not automatically rape).
You are taking a very generalised point about society and applying this to individual people having sex. It might or might not apply it specific cases - it ceratinly doesn't automatically apply in every case, and in any case "inequality" in a relationship doesn't automatically make it morally wrong - no two people are completely equal in all respects.
What makes sex and/or relationships 'morally' IMO wrong is abuse, exploitation, violence, coercion etc. This can happen in all sorts of relationships to varying degrees regardless of age and gender.
Ultimately who people choose to have sex with is none of my business. I would only feel that I should take a position if someone was being actually abused.
pilchardman
Dances With Penguins
That is not analogous.TeeJay said:
Indeed. But it is structurally present in certain situations.
post 45TeeJay said:
post 78
post 79
I suppose you might ask why I said "I hope that he is dissuaded from trying to participate in public life (eg newspapers, TV etc)" (not: I didn't say he should be banned): Because I have always found him an unpleasant, slimey fuck in any case and he loves to wind people up.
I don't think this is contradictory to what I have said in this thread,and has nothing to do with either homosexuality or football.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
In none at all? Because you know what's coming?
pilchardman
Dances With Penguins
For the third time, I did not imply you said anything. I said twice I did not, and if you took the initial post to mean that, then you have the two subsequent posts to clarify the matter.TeeJay said:Personally I think you should either quote what you think I said or retract the suggestion that I did say anything.
To clarify again: the initial post was a question. Not an accusation. "did you reply in the same way to the numerous Jonothan King threads?" As opposed to "you did".
pilchardman
Dances With Penguins
You don't think abuse, exploitation, coercion is structurally present in certain sexual situations?TeeJay said:
Certain/specific sexual situations are coercive, abusive and exploitative. I am taking issue with this concept of "structurally": that you can take generalisties about society and apply them to specific cases regardless of the details of the case.pilchardman said:
Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by the term? You haven't really explained it in any great length.
So why did you follow it up with very specific accusation about homosexuality and football?pilchardman said:
A casual reader would actually think you had read my posts on that thread and were making conclusions - this kind of leading inference is not allowed in court.
I'd be glad if you set the matter straight.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
No, i meant i expect that you know what responses you'll recieve - that age, consent and maturity acting together do create situations that you deny exist.TeeJay said:I know what's coming?
From you: a load of drivel I expect, as per usual.
pilchardman
Dances With Penguins
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
It is. It's not a response to the points raised by pilch though. Not an adequate one anyway. Those points still stand there waiting your further reply.TeeJay said:
pilchardman
Dances With Penguins
You are misunderstanding the point. It was:TeeJay said:
You seem very keen to make a distinction between paedophilia and illegally having sex with someone below the age of 16, but older than 13. Why is that? Is it a distinction you pursue in all discussions of sex with underage persons, or do you have a particular reason you are pursuing it in this case? (I provided one example of a person much discussed in this respect, and enquired if you had taken part in the discussions of him in the way you have addressed this thread, and if not were there reasons for that).
pilchardman
Dances With Penguins
Which specific case do I jump to? (Or are you using a different understanding of the term "specific"?)TeeJay said:
pilchardman
Dances With Penguins
I see you have changed this post. And I further note you have changed it in a way that suggests you still have not understood what I was driving at.TeeJay said:
I am sorry if my meaning was not clear to you.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
TeeJay said:
TeeJay said:
.
pilchardman
Dances With Penguins
You replaced links to the whole threads with links to your posts on those threads, and changed the text that accompanied the now vanished links.TeeJay said:
Which is up to you. But as I said, I can only imagine you did so because you still have not understood what I was driving at.
But it's going to get really tiresome if you are going to pretend you haven't.
Similar threads
