Why does this sound like Quin’s got **Invisible Chimp **in his sights, and the Chimp is trying to talk him out of shooting him.
Qin is given a free pass more often than not. Most of us are aware that he is young, but if a mature anti-sex, pro-war, pro-death penalty, jingoistic poster hinted that homosexuals are freaks and can be cured (see below), he would be rightfully called to task. He’s not just a kid, he’s an angry, hateful kid with little if any positive input on any topic, which is too bad, because he does seem to be big of brain. Last time I checked, meanness is not a symptom of Asperger’s. (Before you flip out again, IC, Qin admits to trolling his family and classmates, too.)
Meanness may not be, but not being able to phrase things so they don’t come out mean is. So is saying something that other people would hide. I’d take out a loan so I could bet that there’s at least one other Doper who actually posts who believes the same thing.
Honestly, taking into account his Asperger’s, he’s not any different from 90% of the people I know.
Meh, I was like him when I was 15. Charging out into the world without nuance or humility. There is black and white, I thought, everything else is just quibbling. I look back on my journals at that time and just roll my eyes.
Defending your ideas takes courage, but other than being cowardly I don’t really care if the OP comes back to the OP. I don’t really type here for anyone elses benefit.
That bad?
I can’t see how you can derive that from my post. I was paraphrasing Flying Dutchman’s view on pedophiles not stating my view on homosexuals. And before you ask I not saying homosexuality and pedophilia is morally equivalent.
Then what equivalency are you suggesting?
**Flying Dutchman **argued that since homosexuals cannot control their sexual behaviour neither can pedophiles and that thus its useless to try to get them to control their behaviour. I on the other hand argued that anyone can control their sexual desires and behaviour including pedophiles.
and including homosexuals?
and heterosexuals, and polygamists, and monogamists, and onanists etc. Unless one is a sex addict one can decide when and when not to have sex.
Could you explain how exactly you are sure of this?
It’s a common theme of your postings: you make these declarations, but why should we believe you?
And how does one go about controlling sexual desires?
The issue is desires and physical attraction, not actions.
If one suddenly feels it, then I suppose you can’t help it but if you’re unheathily obssessing or dwelling over it one can employ some self-control and divert oneself to other matters.
Simple. I don’t jump on girls if I get horny.
I’ve been trying to decide when to have sex for years[sup]*[/sup] without any luck.
- That’s “decide when to have sex” for years, not decide when to “have sex for years”, in case anybody was wondering.[sup]**[/sup]
** Which they probably weren’t.
It’s really easy to say that when you’re a 14-year-old high school kid and probably not exactly beating the girls off with a stick. How can you really know what you would do if you were a 35-year-old lawyer or doctor earning a six-figure income (or a successful televangelist…or a charismatic minister ;)) and had women actually making themselves sexually available to you?
You’ve never been tested. You don’t know how you would react.
But these are two are not the same thing, you blithering simpleton.
Controlling behavior is possible, and in some cases easy. Controlling desire is a very different thing.
Well, what are you contending Qin has said that is worse than what most fundies say? What I’ve seen has been either the same or actually more moderate.
Take what he’s discussing here: he’s just saying that having sex is a choice. He’s saying that he can resist sexual advances from the opposite sex, and that he therefore expects everyone else can too, unless they have a mental disorder. Is that really controversial?
It may not be easy, but are you really saying that, if someone you found attractive wanted to have sex with you, yet you knew for one reason or another than you didn’t want to have sex, you would be unable to control yourself? Wouldn’t that mean that, if a 15 year old (who looked older) threw herself at you, you wouldn’t have any choice but to commit a crime? If someone who was married, you wouldn’t have any choice but to help them cheat? Do you really have that little control over yourself?
Heck, he’s actually arguing a rather liberal point of view: that someone who commits a certain type of crime is sick and needs to be fixed, rather than imprisoned or killed. He’s saying he doesn’t believe pedophiles and child molesters are irredeemable. He thinks that there really is a cure.
Not only do I not think his views on this are offensive, but I also think they are correct.
I’m still having trouble with this:
The British failed to “fully reform” Hindu culture? What the fuck does THAT mean? Failed to exterminate? Failed to school the great unwashed dark masses in The One True Religion?
And Mexico has a great benefit in geographic proximity to the US? The Great American Exceptionalism is something that can be absorbed by osmosis?
It does seem this post is indeed quite well marinated in very potent bigotry.