Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

[Teahive]

But you don't know that legal drugs are a bad thing because you haven't lived long enough to discover it, and are unable to apply the lesson of what happened to China. That is my point exactly! The Consequences are too far away from the initiating event!

Opium was illegal in China when its consumption first started to soar. China was up against an extremely powerful drug cartel, so powerful that they could openly dictate laws. It also seems they didn't have the medical system or social structure necessary to treat the addicts.

Why not take lessons from situations which are much closer to today? There are several modern first-world countries with more liberal views on drugs than the US.

Yes, once we eliminated the "bad thing" (fertility)which was preventing us from having all the sex we want outside of commitment, there is no reason to call the behavior "bad" any longer.

And the world is a much better place for it.

Not much better, not much worse. I have no issue with shaming and punishing parents that renege on their commitments. That's the problem, not sex. But I don't think abortion is a crime, either. Sex is not equal to commitment to having a child. In fact I think parenthood should be a similar pledge to marriage. One which also forms the foundation of personhood of the child.

Yes, and malaria is caused by a parasite, not by mosquitos.

If you could target malaria, trying to eradicate mosquitos would be sheer folly.

So what? The crime is still molestation, not "homosexual behaviour".

Yes, the crime is Terrorism, not Islamic extremism. We should not profile terrorists, but consider little girls and grannies just as dangerous as Jihadist Mullahs.

False analogy.

It is a common belief that just because someone believes in and practices one sort of aberrant sexual behavior does not mean that they will go beyond that particular flavor, and try to taste another flavor.

I would argue, that if you are of a mind to desire penile insertion of an adult male rectum, why should you object to that of a little boy? (And the numbers support this point) Is there really a clear boundary between the first behavior and the second?

Please explain why you think the argument and conclusion would be different if you replace "abberant" (by whose standard, anyway?) with "normal" behaviour, or replace male with female (and corresponding body parts) in the case of either person involved.

[Diogenes]

Instructor 'promoted' homosexuality rather than economics class material

"This case points out the outrageous way in which homosexual activists have turned our public schools into indoctrination centers, and are seeking to eradicate all religious and moral opposition to their agenda," he said.

"It defies common sense for schools to ban all sorts of unhealthy foods while at the same time promoting the homosexual lifestyle, which hard statistics show increases drug abuse, suicides and reduces the life expectancies by several years. Schools that promote such lifestyles are engaging in a form of child abuse," he said.

Robert Muise, the senior trial counsel handling the case, said, "Homosexual activists, with the willing and complicit support of public school districts and teachers' unions throughout the country, are using our public schools to foist their destructive agenda on our children, thereby creating a hostile learning environment for those students who oppose this agenda on religious and moral grounds. This case is just one example of the pernicious effect these activists are having on our students and in our community. We intend to stop it."

The center's report said, "The school district has promoted the concept that religious opposition to homosexuality is equivalent to bullying, hate speech, and homophobia in order to eradicate such opposition."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=378181

[Diogenes]

But you don't know that legal drugs are a bad thing because you haven't lived long enough to discover it, and are unable to apply the lesson of what happened to China. That is my point exactly! The Consequences are too far away from the initiating event!

Opium was illegal in China when its consumption first started to soar. China was up against an extremely powerful drug cartel, so powerful that they could openly dictate laws.

Yes, the Drug Cartel was called "the United Kingdom" and the law they dictated was "Opium will be LEGAL."

It also seems they didn't have the medical system or social structure necessary to treat the addicts.

There IS no such thing. Dope works directly on biochemistry. Tampering with the pleasure center of your brain cannot be repaired by medicine. (at least not yet.)

Why not take lessons from situations which are much closer to today?

There is no modern analogy for what happened in China. You people are trying to create one.

There are several modern first-world countries with more liberal views on drugs than the US.

As they are likewise doing everything else wrong, I see no reason to follow their lead on this. It will also be wrong.

Yes, once we eliminated the "bad thing" (fertility)which was preventing us from having all the sex we want outside of commitment, there is no reason to call the behavior "bad" any longer.

And the world is a much better place for it.

Not much better, not much worse.

It depends on how you measure it. I measure it in dead bodies and potential dead bodies. Wrecked lives and man caused poverty are also units of measurement, but bodies are easy to count and totalize. By the standards I use, things are way off optimum.

I have no issue with shaming and punishing parents that renege on their commitments. That's the problem, not sex.

Sex shares the same functional area of the brain with drugs. It is hardwired into human physiology. Sex, is in fact, a drug, albeit a naturally occurring one which the brain releases under certain conditions. It is intended to drive a necessary biological process, (reproduction) and is essential for the survival of the species.

Again, as with drugs, people want to tamper with biological processes for recreation, and then they don't want to be held responsible for the consequences of their tampering.

But I don't think abortion is a crime, either.

It was a crime until 1973, and I defy you to explain the legal theory upon which it's "legalization" is based. The will of the People was that it should be illegal, it is the will of a liberal court which decided otherwise. There is NO basis in law justifying their ruling, which was merely an exercise in raw judicial power.

Sex is not equal to commitment to having a child.

Just as driving is not a commitment to avoid running over someone.

In fact I think parenthood should be a similar pledge to marriage. One which also forms the foundation of personhood of the child.

The "personhood" of the child is independent of that of the parent. As Reptiles evolved into mammals, they ceased laying eggs and started carrying them within. That the eggs were once independent lives cannot be denied. What they once were, they yet remain.

Yes, and malaria is caused by a parasite, not by mosquitos.

If you could target malaria, trying to eradicate mosquitos would be sheer folly.

And yet that is exactly what we do. Oddly enough, it prevents malaria. We can thank Rachel Carson for causing the deaths of millions of human beings.

So what? The crime is still molestation, not "homosexual behaviour".

Yes, the crime is Terrorism, not Islamic extremism. We should not profile terrorists, but consider little girls and grannies just as dangerous as Jihadist Mullahs.

False analogy.

If 2% of the population is responsible for 20% of all molestations, and 100% of all boy child molestations, it is time to look at what is peculiar about that 2%.

It is a common belief that just because someone believes in and practices one sort of aberrant sexual behavior does not mean that they will go beyond that particular flavor, and try to taste another flavor.

I would argue, that if you are of a mind to desire penile insertion of an adult male rectum, why should you object to that of a little boy? (And the numbers support this point) Is there really a clear boundary between the first behavior and the second?

Please explain why you think the argument and conclusion would be different if you replace "abberant" (by whose standard, anyway?) with "normal" behaviour, or replace male with female (and corresponding body parts) in the case of either person involved.

That doesn't even make enough sense to warrant a response. In any case you dodge the point.

During normal sex, the partners swap hormones which are beneficial to both. Females absorb male produced hormones by direct injection, while males absorb female produced hormones by trans-dermal absorption. (see diagram, the absolute thinnest skin on the male body is the penis)

This swap of hormones produces feelings of satisfaction and happiness in both the male and the female, due to the interaction with the biochemistry of the opposite.

This effect is not reproduced by the male rectum or the contents thereof. I have long speculated that the hyper-promiscuity that is a common occurrence in male homosexuality is the result of not receiving the expected female supplied hormones during/after sex. The male brain is left with an "unfinished" feeling, and of course the response is to re-initiate sexual activity in an effort to acquire the missing female hormones.

This is why reports of 11 sexual encounters per night on average in San Fransisco bath houses makes a sort of sense. Obviously unsatiated, they attempt to gain satiation through repetition, not consciously realizing that they are fighting their own biochemistry because the physiological processes of the brain cannot be fooled.

I hope that better explains these things to you.

[Betruger]

This is why reports of 11 sexual encounters per night on average in San Fransisco bath houses makes a sort of sense. Obviously unsatiated, they attempt to gain satiation through repetition, not consciously realizing that they are fighting their own biochemistry because the physiological processes of the brain cannot be fooled.

What a joke. You know better than people what they want.

[Diogenes]

This is why reports of 11 sexual encounters per night on average in San Fransisco bath houses makes a sort of sense. Obviously unsatiated, they attempt to gain satiation through repetition, not consciously realizing that they are fighting their own biochemistry because the physiological processes of the brain cannot be fooled.

What a joke. You know better than people what they want.

Can you produce a more informed answer, or is snidery the best you can do?


edit: The internet is your friend.

http://www.reuniting.info/science/sex_in_the_brain

[KitemanSA]

Opium was illegal in China when its consumption first started to soar. China was up against an extremely powerful drug cartel, so powerful that they could openly dictate laws.

Yes, the Drug Cartel was called "the United Kingdom" and the law they dictated was "Opium will be LEGAL."

Actually, IIRC, the "law" was, "thou shalt not prevent US from selling to whomever we wish"; kind of like what the drug cartels are doing now.

[Diogenes]

Opium was illegal in China when its consumption first started to soar. China was up against an extremely powerful drug cartel, so powerful that they could openly dictate laws.

Yes, the Drug Cartel was called "the United Kingdom" and the law they dictated was "Opium will be LEGAL."

Actually, IIRC, the "law" was, "thou shalt not prevent US from selling to whomever we wish"; kind of like what the drug cartels are doing now.

Per that last link I urged you to read regarding the history of Opium in China, the British did not stop the Chinese from growing their own opium. Indeed, they lamented the fact that it cut so deeply into their profits, but they took no military action to stop it.

World War II appears to be what broke England's stranglehold on the opium trade in China.


edit: here is that link. You ought to read it.

http://www.amoymagic.com/OpiumWar.htm

[Teahive]

Yes, the Drug Cartel was called "the United Kingdom" and the law they dictated was "Opium will be LEGAL."

Exactly. Legalisation was not the cause of the problem.

There IS no such thing. Dope works directly on biochemistry. Tampering with the pleasure center of your brain cannot be repaired by medicine. (at least not yet.)

No experience of any kind can ever be undone. I didn't even mention healing, I wrote treatment.

There is no modern analogy for what happened in China.

Which is precisely why it can't be transferred directly into the modern world.

It was a crime until 1973, and I defy you to explain the legal theory upon which it's "legalization" is based. The will of the People was that it should be illegal, it is the will of a liberal court which decided otherwise. There is NO basis in law justifying their ruling, which was merely an exercise in raw judicial power.

I don't think abortion is (should be considered) a crime. I do not pretend to speak for anyone else, nor am I referring to the law of a specific jurisdiction.

Sex is not equal to commitment to having a child.

Just as driving is not a commitment to avoid running over someone.

Accidents happen. When they happen, you try to minimise the consequences.

In fact I think parenthood should be a similar pledge to marriage. One which also forms the foundation of personhood of the child.

The "personhood" of the child is independent of that of the parent. As Reptiles evolved into mammals, they ceased laying eggs and started carrying them within. That the eggs were once independent lives cannot be denied. What they once were, they yet remain.

I mean personhood as the state of being a person in the eye of the law of a given society. It's not a biological issue but a social one. It requires society to accept the newcomer into their ranks. I think that introducing a child into society should be a conscious act by the parents and be accompanied with a pledge of support for the child. Someone else may step in and take over that role if the biological parents allow it.

If 2% of the population is responsible for 20% of all molestations, and 100% of all boy child molestations, it is time to look at what is peculiar about that 2%.

By all means, look. Don't jump to conclusions, though. Remeber correlation/causation and individual responsibility.

Where do you get the 100% figure from?

It is a common belief that just because someone believes in and practices one sort of aberrant sexual behavior does not mean that they will go beyond that particular flavor, and try to taste another flavor.

I would argue, that if you are of a mind to desire penile insertion of an adult male rectum, why should you object to that of a little boy? (And the numbers support this point) Is there really a clear boundary between the first behavior and the second?

Please explain why you think the argument and conclusion would be different if you replace "abberant" (by whose standard, anyway?) with "normal" behaviour, or replace male with female (and corresponding body parts) in the case of either person involved.

That doesn't even make enough sense to warrant a response. In any case you dodge the point.

To rephrase: "If you are of a mind to desire penile insertion of an adult vagina, why should you object to that of a little girl?" The answer, for both this and your question, is the same and has been pointed out to you several times in this thread. You do not accept it. I'm not willing to argue it further.


As for your biochemical explanation: Non-vaginal sex, sex using a condom, and masturbation produce feelings of satisfaction and happiness, too. And if hormones of the opposite sex are all that's required to make people happier and less violent, maybe medicine should strive to make them easily accessible to anyone who doesn't have regular hormone-swapping, hetero sex. I suspect that group is composed of far more heterosexuals than homosexuals, though.

[MSimon]

The Opium Trade

"If the trade is ever legalized, it will cease to be profitable from that time. The more difficulties that attend it, the better for you and us."
-- Directors of Jardine-Matheson

http://www.ctrl.org/boodleboys/boddlesboys2.html

[KitemanSA]

Yes, the Drug Cartel was called "the United Kingdom" and the law they dictated was "Opium will be LEGAL."

Actually, IIRC, the "law" was, "thou shalt not prevent US from selling to whomever we wish"; kind of like what the drug cartels are doing now.

Per that last link I urged you to read regarding the history of Opium in China, the British did not stop the Chinese from growing their own opium. Indeed, they lamented the fact that it cut so deeply into their profits, but they took no military action to stop it.

Didn't say they did. Just said that they demanded that China let them sell as they wished.

I suspect that if the US Government went into di-opoly competition against the drug cartels, the US would get into as big a mess as China was. But I don't think that is what ANYONE is proposing.

Your "lesson" from China is flawed. Unlearn it.

[Diogenes]

Yes, the Drug Cartel was called "the United Kingdom" and the law they dictated was "Opium will be LEGAL."

Exactly. Legalisation was not the cause of the problem.

Are you kidding me? Are you freakin kidding me?

There IS no such thing. Dope works directly on biochemistry. Tampering with the pleasure center of your brain cannot be repaired by medicine. (at least not yet.)

No experience of any kind can ever be undone. I didn't even mention healing, I wrote treatment.

Isn't it simpler to prevent the need for treatment?

There is no modern analogy for what happened in China.

Which is precisely why it can't be transferred directly into the modern world.

Why, did humans and narcotics evolve so much in the last hundred years that the outcome would be somehow different? Legal drugs would spread addiction faster now than it did then.

It was a crime until 1973, and I defy you to explain the legal theory upon which it's "legalization" is based. The will of the People was that it should be illegal, it is the will of a liberal court which decided otherwise. There is NO basis in law justifying their ruling, which was merely an exercise in raw judicial power.

I don't think abortion is (should be considered) a crime. I do not pretend to speak for anyone else, nor am I referring to the law of a specific jurisdiction.

You dodge the point. It WAS a crime. Right after the Civil war, the Abolitionists worked to outlaw it in every state in the Union. It was the will of the people from that point forward that it should be illegal. Were our justice system not dysfunctional, it would still be a crime yet today.

Sex is not equal to commitment to having a child.

Just as driving is not a commitment to avoid running over someone.

Accidents happen. When they happen, you try to minimise the consequences.

Yes, declaring any bystanders to be "non persons" and leaving them in a landfill somewhere certainly takes care of the "consequences."

In fact I think parenthood should be a similar pledge to marriage. One which also forms the foundation of personhood of the child.

The "personhood" of the child is independent of that of the parent. As Reptiles evolved into mammals, they ceased laying eggs and started carrying them within. That the eggs were once independent lives cannot be denied. What they once were, they yet remain.

I mean personhood as the state of being a person in the eye of the law of a given society.

If you grant society the right to define personhood according to their whims, then you have justified slavery. As one insightful person pointed out:

" Roe v. Wade is cut from the same cloth as Dred Scott v. Sanford: Certain classes of people are property."

It's not a biological issue but a social one.

So was slavery.

It requires society to accept the newcomer into their ranks.

You forget, the "newcomer" was accepted into their ranks. It was the 1973 court which threw them out.

I think that introducing a child into society should be a conscious act by the parents and be accompanied with a pledge of support for the child.

The question is not whether a child is "introduced to society" but whether a child is created. If one does not want a child, one should not create one. If one doesn't take the necessary precautions to prevent the creation of one, one should take responsibility for what one has done, not shed the blood of your children for matters of personal convenience.

This is how a civilization behaves. Child Sacrifice went out with Baal.

Someone else may step in and take over that role if the biological parents allow it.

Society should encourage the biological parents to not be so foolish.

If 2% of the population is responsible for 20% of all molestations, and 100% of all boy child molestations, it is time to look at what is peculiar about that 2%.

By all means, look. Don't jump to conclusions, though. Remeber correlation/causation and individual responsibility.

Where do you get the 100% figure from?

From the word Homo-Sexual. Homo meaning alike (same sex) and sexual meaning to have sex with. Males having sex with boys is by definition homo-sexual.

Please explain why you think the argument and conclusion would be different if you replace "abberant" (by whose standard, anyway?) with "normal" behaviour, or replace male with female (and corresponding body parts) in the case of either person involved.

That doesn't even make enough sense to warrant a response. In any case you dodge the point.

To rephrase: "If you are of a mind to desire penile insertion of an adult vagina, why should you object to that of a little girl?" The answer, for both this and your question, is the same and has been pointed out to you several times in this thread. You do not accept it. I'm not willing to argue it further.

In some cases men don't object. These people are called "child molesters." and are considered deviant/aberrant. They OUGHT to make up 98% of all child molestation cases, but yet we have this 20% that prefers little boys, whereas it OUGHT to be 2%.

As for your biochemical explanation: Non-vaginal sex, sex using a condom, and masturbation produce feelings of satisfaction and happiness, too.

And yet for some reason, homosexuals tend to be promiscuous on a scale unheard of among heterosexuals, and the most significant cause of death among them is suicide. It is as if they are starving to death while eating as much as they can.

"Gay" they are not.

And if hormones of the opposite sex are all that's required to make people happier and less violent, maybe medicine should strive to make them easily accessible to anyone who doesn't have regular hormone-swapping, hetero sex. I suspect that group is composed of far more heterosexuals than homosexuals, though.

Likely so, but I don't think enough people have put the pieces together well enough to realize it. As far as I know, I am the first person to suggest the idea, (back in 1991) and I do not know for a fact that it is the reason for the behavior, but it is the best explanation of it for which I have ever heard.

Yes, young men might benefit from using a synthesized hormone for that period of life they spend sans willing girlfriend.

While we are on the subject, who considers sex with a condom as satisfying as sex without one? I'm betting no one.

[Diogenes]

Actually, IIRC, the "law" was, "thou shalt not prevent US from selling to whomever we wish"; kind of like what the drug cartels are doing now.

Per that last link I urged you to read regarding the history of Opium in China, the British did not stop the Chinese from growing their own opium. Indeed, they lamented the fact that it cut so deeply into their profits, but they took no military action to stop it.

Didn't say they did. Just said that they demanded that China let them sell as they wished.

I suspect that if the US Government went into di-opoly competition against the drug cartels, the US would get into as big a mess as China was. But I don't think that is what ANYONE is proposing.

Your "lesson" from China is flawed. Unlearn it.

A lot of you seem to believe that it is the "cartels" and the "government" which CAUSE the addiction. This seems entirely nonsensical to me. I see no possible answer but that it is the DRUG that causes addiction. Nobody gets addicted to carrots or apples no matter how hard they are pushed.

I say if you make it available, it will eventually addict most people. How you can believe otherwise I simply cannot understand.

[Betruger]

This is why reports of 11 sexual encounters per night on average in San Fransisco bath houses makes a sort of sense. Obviously unsatiated, they attempt to gain satiation through repetition, not consciously realizing that they are fighting their own biochemistry because the physiological processes of the brain cannot be fooled.

What a joke. You know better than people what they want.

Can you produce a more informed answer, or is snidery the best you can do?


edit: The internet is your friend.

http://www.reuniting.info/science/sex_in_the_brain

It's not snidery. You are just that ridiculous. Argue with you? What for? You have no power over anything other than your one vote. In any case time is on my side. You'll be history by the time I start to have enough spare time to do anything about these things IE by the time I'm past 40 years old or so. Unless we are today at the prologue to some SF timeline where most everyone today happens to be lucky enough to live to see the day of rejuvenation/life extension. Which'd mean immortal Diogenes. In which case near the top of my todo list is to get as far away from you and your kind as possible. Like.. Some other star system. Light years away from you and your legislated morality.

[Diogenes]

What a joke. You know better than people what they want.

Can you produce a more informed answer, or is snidery the best you can do?


edit: The internet is your friend.

http://www.reuniting.info/science/sex_in_the_brain

It's not snidery. You are just that ridiculous. Argue with you? What for? You have no power over anything other than your one vote. In any case time is on my side. You'll be history by the time I start to have enough spare time to do anything about these things IE by the time I'm past 40 years old or so.

If you have no time to defend your comments, you certainly have time to make snide remarks. I guess it all shows what you consider important.

Unless we are today at the prologue to some SF timeline where most everyone today happens to be lucky enough to live to see the day of rejuvenation/life extension. Which'd mean immortal Diogenes. In which case near the top of my todo list is to get as far away from you and your kind as possible. Like.. Some other star system. Light years away from you and your legislated morality.

The "morality" is legislated by nature. You just don't want to accept it. Running away from reality seems appropriate for you. Funny thing is, it follows you wherever you go.

[KitemanSA]

A lot of you seem to believe that it is the "cartels" and the "government" which CAUSE the addiction. This seems entirely nonsensical to me. I see no possible answer but that it is the DRUG that causes addiction. Nobody gets addicted to carrots or apples no matter how hard they are pushed.

I say if you make it available, it will eventually addict most people. How you can believe otherwise I simply cannot understand.

Back when Morphine could be purchased from the neighborhood chemist, there were no stampedes of folks trying to get addicted. To a LARGE extent, it IS the cartels (and their friendly neighborhood pushers) that DO cause addiction, since most folks don't try addictive drugs on their own.