# Why defend fundies if we are at war with ignorance? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 26, 2004, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-defend-fundies-if-we-are-at-war-with-ignorance/231235 "2004-02-26T03:56:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 28
**Author:** ![jkim78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@jkim78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jkim78)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-defend-fundies-if-we-are-at-war-with-ignorance/231235/541 "2004-03-08T06:32:28Z")
> [@iampunha](#): > > I remain in steadfast support of laws protecting children from pedophiles because, among other reasons, the very nature of the manifestation of pedophilia provides for nothing for the child. The child is raped, molested, abused, what have you. The pedophile’s principle thought (beyond, of course, the naked child) is to avoid getting caught. > > The notion that a pedophile-victim system is in any meaningful way comparable to two human consenting adults of any gender is so preposterous as to seriously call into question what education you have on the matter, jkim. Or, really, what education you have beyond being able to type. You keep bringing up paedophilia as a paedophile/victim system. Exactly what planet were you born? I think even a 13 year old knows what he/she/it wants. We illegalize that in the form of carnal knowledge, but they still know what they want just as much as we do. Were you never 13? Didn’t you want to bed that pretty female class mate who was miss popularity?.. well… you being gay and all, I guess not. Take a 16 year old slut, and a fat old rich horny 50year old, and you still have what not of a paedophile. The girl isnt getting _raped_. She isnt getting abused. She’s providing a _service_ in exchange for money. She’s in it for the money. And it’s **still** paedophilia. ok? Now where’s that rape, molestation, abuse and the rest of whatever you mentioned in this scenario? How about if the 16 year old wants to marry an 89 year old Hugh Heffner type rich cunt who wont make it to the end of the year? Who’s abusing who? How about if the little kid really…[err… yes… wait for it… (drum roll please)] … **loves** …[yeep… used the magic word]… the old fart and really wants to get married but doesnt want to wait! You still havent differentiated yourself from paedophiles, beastoes, necroes, etc all the perverts, except in **legality[age of consent]** in which case you still havent differentiated from incest. Which means if you want your homo marriage, then let incest, paedophile marriage above birthgiving age(13 or puberty whichever comes first), beast marriage and the rest run rampant too… why not fight for their right too? ---
**Author:** ![jkim78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@jkim78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jkim78)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-defend-fundies-if-we-are-at-war-with-ignorance/231235/542 "2004-03-08T06:35:27Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Looks like english to me. What the fuck are you on about? And where exactly in my post did I present two contrasting ideas? Like I said, learn to read english before you reply. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-defend-fundies-if-we-are-at-war-with-ignorance/231235/543 "2004-03-08T06:52:48Z")
> [@](#): > > You keep bringing up paedophilia as a paedophile/victim system. Exactly what planet were you born? On the planet where my grandfather and his mother-in-law molested each of his ten legitimate children. In some cases the children went on to molest other children (their siblings and, some years later, their own children). I’m not talking about the hazy line between a thirteen year old with a fifteen-year-old boyfriend. I’m talking about a man in his forties molesting children. > [@](#): > > Didn’t you want to bed that pretty female class mate who was miss popularity?.. well… you being gay and all, I guess not. You continue to amuse, **jkim**. For one, I was too busy sincerely wishing there were more than two people in my grade who didn’t delight in metaphorically shitting on me. For another, at thirteen the idea of sex frightened me. Hell, it frightened me to an extent (though much smaller) a year and a half ago. As I am not a walking erection, there’s a certain (very much minuscule, but remnant nonetheless) fear each time. > [@](#): > > You still havent differentiated yourself from paedophiles, beastoes, necroes, etc all the perverts, except in legality. In **jkim** world, I’m sure this is the case. Note the words below, though, sport: homosexuality bisexuality asexuality heterosexuality incest pedophilia necrophilia agoraphilia zoophilia dendrophilia Note the meaning of philia and the meaning of sexuality and you will arrive at your answer … unless, of course, in **jkim** world, sexuality means “something that, unless it is preceded by hetero, describes a disgusting illness, and in the case of hetero describes a disgusting sex act unless the two people involved are married, in which case it is the loving bond, ordained by God, of two people for the purpose of procreation under His watchful eye”. And in point of fact, I from both a personal level and a legal level have no issue whatsoever allowing two relatives who are dutifully informed and able to consent to marry to do so. It is none of my business. I also have no issue allowing a similar situation to occur regarding a 14-year-old and an older-than-14 individual to marry. If the 14-year-old is dutifully informed and able to make a mature decision for herself, so be it (this is what a court is for, see). Re: bestial marriage, non-human animals do not have the required legal standing, and as such are ineligible to be married. Thanks for playing, though! > [@andros](#): > > Well, I think _that_ certainly qualifies as assholery of the first order. I feel assured, as should you, that the paramecia and anaerobic bacterie s/he encounters in the cess pool will be more than proud to bestow upon this individual the honor of which s/he is so worthy. My only regret is that they will actually have to come close to actual contact with this being who has clearly shown his superiority to life forms. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-defend-fundies-if-we-are-at-war-with-ignorance/231235/544 "2004-03-08T07:09:15Z")
> [@jkim78](#): > > You keep bringing up paedophilia as a paedophile/victim system. Exactly what planet were you born? I think even a 13 year old knows what he/she/it wants. We illegalize that in the form of carnal knowledge, but they still know what they want just as much as we do. Were you never 13? What the fuck are you on about? Sexually active teens (even with adults) has nothing whatso-fucking-ever to do with paedophilia. Paedophiles are attracted to sexually immature children. That whole “puberty” thing is a major turn-off for them. From 13 on, I was sexually active with adults, because they were easier to get into bed than girls my own age, and when you got them there they had a clue about what to do. I still think paedophiles should be locked up as far away from children as managable, because that’s a whole other deal? Are you really that stupid, or are you just pretending? ---
**Author:** ![Achren](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/898d66/32.png) [@Achren](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achren)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-defend-fundies-if-we-are-at-war-with-ignorance/231235/545 "2004-03-08T07:23:32Z")
iampunha - I can’t express myself well, just know that I’m sorry for the type of family you have. Guh, no one should have to grow up that way. gobear - I’m glad I went from that thread you linked in the first post to this thread here. I have a much better understanding of who you are now and like you the better for it. 🙂 Siege - tapes? copies? sweet! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![jkim78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@jkim78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jkim78)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-defend-fundies-if-we-are-at-war-with-ignorance/231235/546 "2004-03-08T07:29:29Z")
> [@iampunha](#): > > On the planet where my grandfather and his mother-in-law molested each of his ten legitimate children. In some cases the children went on to molest other children (their siblings and, some years later, their own children). I’m not talking about the hazy line between a thirteen year old with a fifteen-year-old boyfriend. I’m talking about a man in his forties molesting children. You’ve talked about molesting, which sounds to me like sexual child abuse… one form of paedophilia, and one form that should be and is rightly so illegal. But then you say a thirteen year old and a fifteen year old boyfriend… hmm how about if that boyfriend is twentyfive? or fifty? So it’s ok for a fifteen year old to get a thirteen year old pregnant and then get her to get an abortion cuz he cant financially support the two of them, and not a thirtyfive year old, who can support both the girl and the potential child financially, and at the same time would like to spend the rest of his life with the girl? This is still molestiation? You really have to draw comparison between similar situations… hold every-other variable the same except the key ONE. When you compare two homosexual adult couple to a paedophile heterosexual couple, you’d keep constant all other factors except for the gender and age of the participants. **All other factors, including the willingness of participants should be equal when comparing!** > [@iampunha](#): > > You continue to amuse, **jkim**. For one, I was too busy sincerely wishing there were more than two people in my grade who didn’t delight in metaphorically shitting on me. For another, at thirteen the idea of sex frightened me. Hell, it frightened me to an extent (though much smaller) a year and a half ago. As I am not a walking erection, there’s a certain (very much minuscule, but remnant nonetheless) fear each time. Maybe this fright of sex and sexual confusion turned you gay? Who knows. I know that most boys my age, when I was thirteen, wanted to fuck the pretty blonde girl that sat in the front row, or Elle McPherson or Kylie Minogue or whoever else was popular and female back then. Thirteen is also the common age when kids start opening their eyes to porn if you’ve noticed? Searching in daddy’s desk drawers for a hidden issue of playboy, or five finger discounting an issue of hustler because they cant buy it even if they have the money… etc. And those stolen issues of hustler sold like hotcakes at the lunchtime playground. Sold for like 50 bucks an issue if i remember right. (and no, I didn’t buy or sell them… I borrowed them from friends who had bought them.) > [@iampunha](#): > > In **jkim** world, I’m sure this is the case. Note the words below, though, sport: > > homosexuality > bisexuality > asexuality > heterosexuality > incest > pedophilia > necrophilia > agoraphilia > zoophilia > dendrophilia > > Note the meaning of philia and the meaning of sexuality and you will arrive at your answer … unless, of course, in **jkim** world, sexuality means “something that, unless it is preceded by hetero, describes a disgusting illness, and in the case of hetero describes a disgusting sex act unless the two people involved are married, in which case it is the loving bond, ordained by God, of two people for the purpose of procreation under His watchful eye”. Yes. I’m a religious advocate. And that’s why I start a thread stating that all organised religions are nothing more than dangerous cults and that they are all a sham. All makes sense now. Nope… You really got me wrong here. Sexuality means something that, unless it is something that is built into our bodies biologically for a specific **purpose** that our physical make-up requires in order to sustain the existance of self and self-like, describes a disgusting whatever you said. So, to put it into context of sex, if you can make a baby with the act, and both of you want this act, then shoot. The penis and vagina were placed there for reproductive purposes, and the feeling of horniness there to make people do the act so that the species wont die out… so that’s how it’s supposed to be done. Simple as that. Of course, any person prior to puberty should **not** be participating in sex… even if they want it so. > [@iampunha](#): > > And in point of fact, I from both a personal level and a legal level have no issue whatsoever allowing two relatives who are dutifully informed and able to consent to marry to do so. It is none of my business. I also have no issue allowing a similar situation to occur regarding a 14-year-old and an older-than-14 individual to marry. If the 14-year-old is dutifully informed and able to make a mature decision for herself, so be it (this is what a court is for, see). Re: bestial marriage, non-human animals do not have the required legal standing, and as such are ineligible to be married. Thanks for playing, though! So you’re in fact supporting my argument? ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-defend-fundies-if-we-are-at-war-with-ignorance/231235/547 "2004-03-08T07:33:41Z")
OK, this thread is too long, I’m closing it. I’m also banning jkim78, who didn’t seem to take my last warning about hate speech seriously. Since quite a few of his posts are on just this subject, perhaps he can find a message board of other people who won’t mind him spewing forth his vile insults. Lynn For the Straight Dope [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-defend-fundies-if-we-are-at-war-with-ignorance/231235.md?page=27)