rkidlad Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 3 minutes ago, MaeJoMTB said: I've never met a female that's past puberty. who looked like she wasn't. You seem confused, past puberty = adult, prepuberty = child. And if you want to argue 'mental maturity', that would set the age of consent in Thailand at around 35 years old. You've lost me. I'm not talking about whether someone has hit puberty or not. That doesn't change the fact that they're still not mature enough (mentally) to be having sex. Some kids mature physically more quickly than others. This doesn't all happen at the same age. I wanted a tattoo when I was 15. Now I absolutely don't. Can you see the problem? This is why we judge it on their mental capacity. Our bodies mature at different speeds. Our consciousness develops with time and knowledge. As for your '35 years old' comment - if we use that logic, then a 14 year old here is how old mentally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purdey Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 18 hours ago, puffy said: You are right I am not defending the guy. He is a depraved criminal who disgustingly abused a position of trust and deserves to rot for many years in a Thai prison. I was simply answering his question as to why he was not called a pedophile in the news article and I think my previous answer is probably why. The definition of a pedophile is not age related but as I said an attraction to prepubescent children. This guy may well be a pedo, the issue I have with the word being used incorrectly is that it diminishes the depravity of the word. And it can put a 16 year old boy who has sex with full consent with his 15 year old girlfriend in the same bracket as an old man who abuses a 5 year old. Please don't take this as meaning I don't find his actions totally despicable as I do. I also agree with you the term "inappropriate romantic relationship" could be seen as trying to normalize such behaviour. I can definitely settle on him being called a child molester. Hang on, he is still under investigation but there seems to be an assumption of guilt immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfdgfdfdgs Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 1 hour ago, rkidlad said: I’d say his relations with a 14 year old might lead you on a linear path to a conclusion. But that's guessing. I'm not a fan of guessing, I prefer to deal with the facts at least until the guesses are so circumstantially incriminating that they become tantamount to evidence. If you look at the infamous convicted rapists/murderers who target young people for a primarily sexual motive, there's usually some sort of correlation in the ages, and very few of them have a range of ages that encompasses, say, 15 year olds and also 8 year olds. We don't know what the 14 year old looks like, she might be passable for 16, in which case it's entirely possible that the guy has no paedophilic tendencies whatsoever. Which is why it's inappropriate to make assumptions and use sensationalist language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkidlad Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, dfdgfdfdgs said: But that's guessing. I'm not a fan of guessing, I prefer to deal with the facts at least until the guesses are so circumstantially incriminating that they become tantamount to evidence. If you look at the infamous convicted rapists/murderers who target young people for a primarily sexual motive, there's usually some sort of correlation in the ages, and very few of them have a range of ages that encompasses, say, 15 year olds and also 8 year olds. We don't know what the 14 year old looks like, she might be passable for 16, in which case it's entirely possible that the guy has no paedophilic tendencies whatsoever. Which is why it's inappropriate to make assumptions and use sensationalist language. He knows how old she is. This isn't a drunken nightclub scenario. He's supposed to be someone who protects the children. Not someone who goes round guessing the ages of the young girls at his school, and then getting into a relationship with them because "she looked 16". Can you not see how very wrong this all is? Why are you arguing over this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanemax Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 17 minutes ago, Purdey said: Hang on, he is still under investigation but there seems to be an assumption of guilt immediately. It seems that he is guilty and he is just awaiting his Court appearance for sentencing and for the Judge to confirm his guilt . But yes, until the Judge confirms his guiltyness , we should continue to refer to him as *guilty but yet to be sentenced* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfdgfdfdgs Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 1 hour ago, rkidlad said: Yes, the US office of science (just one of thousands of examples) is edited and updated by the public. Reassuring, huh? Is that sarcasm? Do you mean you think it isn't edited and updated by the public? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfdgfdfdgs Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, rkidlad said: He knows how old she is. This isn't a drunken nightclub scenario. He's supposed to be someone who protects the children. Not someone who goes round guessing the ages of the young girls at his school, and then getting into a relationship with them because "she looked 16". I didn't say he didn't know how old she is. Read it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanemax Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 1 hour ago, MaeJoMTB said: I thought age of consent was based on the people in powers whims. Science would surely support the idea of 'consent after puberty', which is pretty much what Thailand does. No Thailand doesnt , 18 years old is Thailand's age of consent (16 with the parents permission) You do seem to be quite fixated with young girls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkidlad Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 6 minutes ago, dfdgfdfdgs said: I didn't say he didn't know how old she is. Read it again. You read it again. You said she might be passable for 16. I said he knows how old she is. She's 14! He knows this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattd Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 29 minutes ago, sanemax said: It seems that he is guilty and he is just awaiting his Court appearance for sentencing and for the Judge to confirm his guilt . But yes, until the Judge confirms his guiltyness , we should continue to refer to him as *guilty but yet to be sentenced* I thought he hasn't even been arrested yet, let alone charged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfdgfdfdgs Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 24 minutes ago, rkidlad said: You read it again. You said she might be passable for 16. I said he knows how old she is. She's 14! He knows this. Why are you telling me to read it again? I already know he knows how old she is. Why are you telling me that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLang Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 On 1/24/2018 at 6:10 AM, doremifasol said: Why hasn't been called a pedophile? He is. Only if you don't know what a pedophile is. The term wouldn't cover have relations with an average 14 year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkidlad Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 22 minutes ago, dfdgfdfdgs said: Why are you telling me to read it again? I already know he knows how old she is. Why are you telling me that? Because her being passable as 16 only holds any relevance if he doesn't know. Knowing she's 14 and saying she looks 16 is in no way, shape or form an excuse to be having sex with a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfdgfdfdgs Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 No it doesn't. You still haven't read what I wrote properly. Nobody said it was an excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkidlad Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 5 minutes ago, dfdgfdfdgs said: No it doesn't. You still haven't read what I wrote properly. Nobody said it was an excuse. I really don't know your angle here. I'm saying anyone who gets into a relationship with a 14 year old is a paedophile and you're saying they're not. This is what it all boils down to. I won't budge on this. But you can keep on. I really don't know why you'd want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, rkidlad said: I really don't know your angle here. I'm saying anyone who gets into a relationship with a 14 year old is a paedophile and you're saying they're not. This is what it all boils down to. I won't budge on this. But you can keep on. I really don't know why you'd want to. Well you continue be wrong semantically, but we all agree with your moral argument. Edited January 25, 2018 by canuckamuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naam Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 10 minutes ago, rkidlad said: I really don't know your angle here. I'm saying anyone who gets into a relationship with a 14 year old is a paedophile and you're saying they're not. This is what it all boils down to. I won't budge on this. But you can keep on. I really don't know why you'd want to. your angle is that you have never seen 14 year old girls who look like 20 or 22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkidlad Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 Just now, Naam said: your angle is that you have never seen 14 year old girls who look like 20 or 22. Yes, I have. My niece. She looks older than she is. Speak to her for a minute and you realise that's she a child who knows very little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farcanell Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 3 hours ago, dfdgfdfdgs said: No they don't. The dictionary definition states that paedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children. It will always say the same thing, irrespective of which dictionary you read. Really? i didn’t specify a dictionary definition.... but simply “definition” shrinks bandy all sorts of terms around.... under 5 = infantiphile or something... prepubescent = pedo... post pubescent child = hebo something .... (and apparently, according to science journals, they want to add more breakdowns.... up to 8 of them, I think it was!) But... general usage by common folk, according to wiki, is relating to sex with a child. And the common theme in definitions I have seen is the word “child”. make of this what YOU will, but at day’s end it’s all just semantics, as we are talking about a child predator, who knew the age of the child (and may have deliberately targeted One that was 14 years and 1 day old deliberately, so as not to be called a pedo by folk hung up on 13 years and 363 day’s, vs 13 and 364/5 day’s) and despite being in a position of trust, seemingly engaged in a sexual relationship with the child and furthers, seems to be a serial offender unbelievably, this gentleman (if that lights your fire) is being initially investigated by the very department that has most to loose, if he is found guilty by them, prior to any police investigation ( noteworthy here is that if it’s true that he was transferred because of a similar act, then the education department that’s investigating him, becomes culpable in this new offense) anyway... back to definitions.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfdgfdfdgs Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 37 minutes ago, rkidlad said: Yes, I have. My niece. She looks older than she is. Speak to her for a minute and you realise that's she a child who knows very little. I could be wrong but I doubt the guy is courting a 14 year old for her views on modern art or her political persuasions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkidlad Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, dfdgfdfdgs said: I could be wrong but I doubt the guy is courting a 14 year old for her views on modern art or her political persuasions. Nor her knowledge of anything really. Just lust over a child. Pretty abhorrent, I'd say. At least there are people fighting his corner so he's not being confused with being a paedophile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farcanell Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 3 hours ago, SpicyMeatball said: Why dont you TV Sherlocks & Columbos wait until all the facts are in before roasting this guy. None of you have the facts or has any of this been proven in court. Its all speculation & heresay at the moment. Your all just a bunch of old, cranky whinnies chomping at the bit with no facts. Get a life! Lmao.... indeed, get a life mr meatball... log out of this opinion exchanging blog, turn your computer off... and go outside and play with a ball. oh.... and before you go, thanks for your opinion. It is welcomed, relevant and noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfdgfdfdgs Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) 32 minutes ago, farcanell said: i didn’t specify a dictionary definition.... but simply “definition” Kudos for the effort. I know words can change their meaning over time if they are exposed to a large proportion of society misusing them, (gay being a good example) but I don't think this is one of those examples. Paedophiles differ from ephebophiles quite significantly because it is natural for every male to have a sexual attraction towards any female who is sexually mature i.e. roughly speaking, over the age of 13. It is wrong in our society, but it arguably remains programmed into our brains. When we are discussing legal matters I think it's important to be precise with the language that we use for this and other reasons. Finding a prepubescent child sexually attractive is not natural and it means you are mentally unwell. For all we know this 14 year old is 'well-developed' physically and so it is not accurate to call him a paedophile without any evidence to suggest that he is. Edited January 25, 2018 by dfdgfdfdgs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfdgfdfdgs Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 8 minutes ago, rkidlad said: Nor her knowledge of anything really. Just lust over a child. Pretty abhorrent, I'd say. At least there are people fighting his corner so he's not being confused with being a paedophile. I couldn't care less about him. If I make a mistake in the language I use (rare but occasional), I like it when people correct me. I can't read glaring errors without commenting on them because I think the people who made the errors do/should want to learn from their mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkidlad Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, dfdgfdfdgs said: Kudos for the effort. I know words can change their meaning over time if they are exposed to a large portion of society misusing them, (gay being a good example) but I don't think this is one of those examples. Paedophiles differ from ephebophiles quite significantly because it is natural for every male to have a sexual attraction towards any female who is sexually mature i.e. roughly speaking, over the age of 13. It is wrong in our society, but it arguably remains programmed into our brains. When we are discussing legal matters I think it's important to be precise with the language that we use for this and other reasons. Finding a prepubescent child sexually attractive is not natural and it means you are mentally unwell. For all we know this 14 year old is 'well-developed' physically and so it is not accurate to call him a paedophile without any evidence to suggest that he is. There's a very simple solution to all of this. When you speak to a girl who seems of age, listen to her. Watch her mannerisms. It will soon be apparent whether she's a child or not. If you're still not sure about her age, ask for ID. Better still, just don't go there. There's really no need to be chasing after girls who may or may not be legal. You might wanna question what it is you're doing in life and not think so much about the letter of the law or dictionary definitions in these cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farcanell Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, dfdgfdfdgs said: Kudos for the effort. I know words can change their meaning over time if they are exposed to a large portion of society misusing them, (gay being a good example) but I don't think this is one of those examples. Paedophiles differ from ephebophiles quite significantly because it is natural for every male to have a sexual attraction towards any female who is sexually mature i.e. roughly speaking, over the age of 13. It is wrong in our society, but it arguably remains programmed into our brains. When we are discussing legal matters I think it's important to be precise with the language that we use for this and other reasons. Finding a prepubescent child sexually attractive is not natural and it means you are mentally unwell. For all we know this 14 year old is 'well-developed' physically and so it is not accurate to call him a paedophile without any evidence to suggest that he is. Lol... yer right, a half hour effort!..... but I was simply defending my assertions that definitions differ. im more than happy with using terms like sexual predator, child molestor, pervert or the like. my concern in this debate is that the “accused” ( to be politically correct) may have been able to use inside knowledge to deliberately target a group that would attract a lessor charge / penalty but wording aside, I’m pretty sure that everyone would agree that the teachers actions are closer to “abhorrent” than “inappropriate” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfdgfdfdgs Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 5 minutes ago, rkidlad said: There's a very simple solution to all of this. When you speak to a girl who seems of age, listen to her. Watch her mannerisms. It will soon be apparent whether she's a child or not. As was already pointed out previously this is dumb advice. Lots of people act younger/older than they are all the time or just some of the time depending on their mood or how hungry they are etc. Try asking a 25 year old Thai girl to walk 500 metres along a road in the sun. You'll soon reduce her to a sniveling 9 year old kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfdgfdfdgs Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, farcanell said: that the teachers actions are closer to “abhorrent” than “inappropriate” Aren't all abhorrent actions inappropriate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkidlad Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 7 minutes ago, dfdgfdfdgs said: As was already pointed out previously this is dumb advice. Lots of people act younger/older than they are all the time or just some of the time depending on their mood or how hungry they are etc. Try asking a 25 year old Thai girl to walk 500 metres along a road in the sun. You'll soon reduce her to a sniveling 9 year old kid. It's really not. You're an adult. You're responsible for your actions. Dating women here in my early 20s was never a problem for me. I used common sense and adapted to my surroundings. Stop trying to victim blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farcanell Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 Just now, dfdgfdfdgs said: Aren't all abhorrent actions inappropriate? Indeed... but all inappropriate actions are not abhorrent.... and in the OP, the descriptive word was “inappropriate” hence my other concern that weak wording can normalize an action... as in.... “it’s ok... maybe inappropriate, but hey, what’s not these days” and im still spun out by the investigation being done by the ed dept... that’s like the Catholic Church investigating pedo priests.... look how that all worked out anyway.... the amusement I’m getting from this thread has become inappropriate ( vs abhorrent ???) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
(1).thumb.png.bbcb267af4aaf1122a444794828169f7.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now