BoardRoom/Soapbox Archive
	Article

The Christian willingness to override consent 1
By Lauren Sabina Kneisly

Time: Tue, 06-Apr-1999 22:20:24 GMT     
IP: 207.239.111.80

:Sabina
:I have no desire to engage in a "Sabina vs Nick
:Show".   

Oh, then why have you made our boardroom your
personal mission field?

:I just disagree with your assertion  
:that children should be allowed to have sex. 

No, you take that position not merely for
yourself, but also on behalf of your children, and
against anyone who may come in contact with your
children. It's not merely your personal decision
you've expressed here.

:The message I get from what you have written is
:that you view the world as a place where you have
:no responsibility and consequences for personal
:actions.

Never said that. I said those who are purposely
causing harm SHOULD face justice for their acts
against others.

:I view it this way, we are all individually
:responsible for our actions.  My children are my
:responsibility until such time as they are mature
:enough to make their own decisions.

There's a contradiction in there you can drive a
truck through.  You want responsiblity not merely
for yourself, but also for your children, while
denying them responsibility for their own actions.

:At 12 or 13 no child is in a position to
:understand the ramifications of sex.

Severe over generalization, and your experience
projected upon all others.

:I believe, based on your writings, you feel that
:it is OK for children to have sex.

I have no problem with those who you might call
underage having CONSENSUAL sex.

:I think you are wrong. 

Fair enough, you're welcome to hold that PERSONAL
belief. My problem with that enters at 2 points:
your desire to hold your personal decision and
project it onto others, and when you demand the
courts and government enforce your personal
morality. What you do with your own body is not my
concern.

:If you personally approached my child for sex I
:would have you arrested.  Period.  End of
:discussion.

Never said I had any interest in sex with your, or
anyone else's, kids.

:Once again you read things to suit yourself and
:make broad assumptions about me and about
:Christians in general.

Again, I disagree. I addressed you personally and
your specific writings.

:I stated that you were afraid of free discussion
:about your statements and you demonstrate that by
:twisting the discussion away from its original
:form.

To the contrary Nick, this has been a discussion,
and I have expressed my views. Please cite
particular instances of this so called 'twisting.'
I don't see it.

:The fact is you are a closed minded and
:intolerant individual who lacks the moral courage
:to admit that there are opinons that are different
:from yours and may just be right.

I just 'admitted' that your decisions for yourself
are absolutely valid and right for you. If you're
going to insist on calling me closed minded we're
back to rhetoric land.

:I won't allow this to become a Sabina vs Nick
:show because it never has been Sabina vs Nick.  It
:is Sabina vs Sabina.

Actually I titled it such, as HUMOUR. People out
there reading this crap may want to avoid such
drivel, and by properly renaming the thread, they
may find it easier to avoid.

:You threaten people because they include you in
:their prayers?

Where, Nick? I want citations of threats from me.
This is bullshit and you know it.

:Sorry, it isn't just me praying for you.  There
:are hundreds of people praying for you right now.

Well then, you've just made our point about PK,
and other such christian groups being willing to
overide individual consent, haven't you? I
consider anyone who is going to put their own
selfish desires ahead of other people's autonomy
as dangerous.  Rapists are selfish, they override
consent. Abusers are dangerous, they overide
consent. You are dangerous because you are willing
to override consent. Are you really willing to
admit that your so called 'spiritual practices'
(stalking behaviours) are more important than your
target's well being? Some religion!

:I guess that "old black magic" has failed you on
:this one.

Absolutely the contratry- I insisted I would NEVER
use magic #1 in a way that would harm others and
#2 on you. You accuse me of using 'black magic'
here, when I already swore to you, I would NEVER
take any of this to my altar. As I never did
anything how could it have failed?

:You threaten

Citation PLEASE!

:because you hate

Rhetoric again. I think I've mentioned quite a few
times, I don't hate anyone. Are you scared because
I don't fit your preconcieved notions
(i.e. hating) and you don't know how to respond?
So you fabricated threats from me? Typical.

:and want to bring bad things on people.

Citation, Nick?

:We pray because we love you.

Rhetoric and still haven't defined love.

:God loves you always.

Rhetoric.

:In spite of yourself, God always loves you.

Verminization and rhetoric.

:Your nonesensical view of life is boring 

Nonsensical to you, perhaps. If it's so boring why
are you still here? Conflict junkie perhaps?
Stalking bahaviour perhaps?

:and leads only to personal dispair.  

For you perhaps. Stop projecting. Some of us are
happy beyond your wildest dreams. You probably
can't fathom that, as you feel happiness only
comes from doing it your 'one true way', but
again, that's an assumption and projection. Some
of us have friends, not accountablity partners;
family, not unsaved loved ones; and spouses we
submit to in ways kinkier than you can imagine. No
despair here.

:I will ALWAYS pray for you.

Then you won't mind it I label you a self admitted
prey-her spiritual rapist.

Well, I'll just add you to the growing list of
folk willing to override consent and fixated on me
that I consider a threat to myself.  Should
anything premature and nasty ever happen to me,
don't be surprised by the police knocking on your
door.

-Sabina

Home · About Us · Features · Archive · Links · Contact
 
© 1997-2006 by the authors.