a Jill Lewis is shown as the speech, computer and journalism teacher for secondary-level students on the Web site of Living Stones Christian School in Alvin.


Not any more, she isn't. I just checked and there is a blank spot where they removed the name and photo of the "speech computer and journalism" teacher. They didn't remove the subjects that this teacher taught...

Maybe they need a computer teacher...

She makes him the coolest kid in school, and has to go to prison? Hardly seems fair.

Where were these teachers when I was in school?

"...she had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old student in an isolated Friendswood area in December"
---
Maybe it was a 'field' trip lesson for the sex education class.

I agree with you Wayne and Cipher, how 'come' I wasn't lucky enough to have that kind of 26 year old teacher when I was 17 in school...Dang!!


ATF ( Who wonders if the student got an 'A' on this field 'exam' )

If this was a dude having sex with an underage female, I very much doubt any of you would be laughing. Molestation is molestation and I hope she gets what she deserves under the justice system.

King Beernutz:

Thank you. Indeed, if it was an underage female, there would be no such humor toward the situation. But because it was a male, and because males are ALWAYS supposed to want, like, desire, and crave sex, NO MATTER HOW OLD THEY ARE, it's okay to joke about it. There couldn't POSSIBLY be anything wrong with a seventeen year-old male having sex with a twenty-six year old woman. After all, he IS a male, right? And aren't we all the same, us males? All sex-crazed horn dogs that, no matter our age, are never actually taken advantage of? Because sex is all we want out of life, right?

Look, guys, I don't mean to be so sarcastic here, but this is a serious situation. It is outright misandric to speak of the victim this way - because that's what he is, a victim. He's not 'lucky'. And it's not okay for us to take the attitude that he is 'lucky,' simply because he's a male. It's no wonder there's a male crisis in the US - indeed, perhaps the world. When this is what males are reduced to - no matter our age - it's hard NOT to expect males to be little more than Johns.

Too serious, you might say? Well, sure, so long as you're willing to agree that when people get their undies in a wad when a twenty-six yea old guy taps a seventeen year old girl's ass, they're getting too serious about THAT. Any takers? Anyone think it's cool for a nearly thirty year old guy to use a seventeen year old girl for sex, even in the confines of a RELATIONSHIP? Anyone? No?

Because's she not a male, right?

I'm glad to see not everybody is joking about this...

Is a male teenager who has sex with an adult woman really a victim? Is Vili Fualaau still being victimized by his former teacher Mary Kay Letourneau even though they are now married and appear to be a loving couple?

I honesty don’t know.

I know that as a woman I’m supposed to feel all offended by the guys making jokes about the “lucky” boy in the case cited here. I know that laws should be applied equally regardless of the gender of those involved.

But, I can’t help thinking that our jokesters may be right. Maybe there is a difference.

Is an adult woman who has sex with a boy more of a pathetically immature neurotic than a coercive abuser? In years to come, will the male in this and similar cases look back on the “affair” as a traumatic event or a fond memory? Again, I honestly don’t know.

I’m not trying to pick a fight with anyone; I’m just asking questions. Does anyone know of any research that provides some answers?

Not every male who has sex with a minor gets jail time either. I once had neighbors who allowed their 17-year old daughter to date a 25-year old man, even going so far as to allow the girl to visit the man alone in his home. The man went to their church and they believed the two would conduct themselves in a “Christly manner “ Long story, short, she got pregnant and married her molester. This happened about 10 years ago and last I heard they were still together and had another kid or two. The weird thing was my neighbors were more upset that she got pregnant than that the father of the child was 25.

The point of my little tale is that sometimes the situation is complicated and it is not all one way for men and another for women. You may not hear much about these situations because everyone is going for maximum damage control and minimum exposure. Another point is, though I consider this man was a child molester, he probably does love her and their kids a great deal and has turned out to be a pretty good guy and there is a good chance he has never touched another under an age person in a sexual way since. I have to confess that in this situation not putting him in jail was probably the right thing to do. Please note how many times I used probably-I lost touch with everyone in the family many years ago.

My personal views are that society must draw lines. They will always be somewhat arbitrary but they must be there. If the age of consent is 18 then you muzzle your sexual impulse and WAIT. People will probably still talk and snicker about a 18-year old man and a 26-year old woman, but it is a hell of a lot better than spending time in jail and being branded a child molester.

Teachers shouldn't have sex with their students. What's so difficult to understand about that?

There are no age limits for marraige in the bible(as far as I remember) and that was the exact excuse used by a preacher I knew to marry off his sixteen year old daughter to a thirtytwo year old assistent pastor.(sick fuckerz)

It didn't turn out so well for anyone involved. I know. I'm related to these morons. My family is full of assholes like this. One uncle thinks stoneing kids is still an option(lets hope he never has any) another thinks the bible angels and god(s) were really aliens.

It seems to me that if you let christianity in to run things for you, you have to give common sense, logic, and reason tickets on the next train out of town.

thackerie:

I suppose it's going to be different for everyone. I'm going to marry my fiance' in July; when women hit on me and go so far as groping me at my job, I don't like it. I work in a large manufacturing plant with a lot of black women and Latino women. I'm in my twenties, I work out regularly, I'm handsome, and I'm the veritable 'nice guy,' surrounded by lots of women that have had enough of 'bad boys'. To put it bluntly: sometimes, the women I work with cross the line. I've had my ass grabbed, my crotch 'brushed up against,' fingers traced slowly and seductively down the muscular curve of my back, kisses blown at me, solicitations for 'Saturday nights,' etc. These women are nothing if not attractive themselves, and if I was single I'd be going for it. But I'm not, and I don't appreciate the advances. But guess what? There are LOTS of other married guys at the plant who DO appreciate such advances.

My point? We're all different. Some underage males will no doubt treasure a sexual encounter with an older woman, if they are emotionally mature enough for it. I've been hit on by fifteen and sixteen-year old girls, some of which were privy to such terms as 'snowballing'. No doubt, had I crossed the line and got with that, they would have enjoyed the experience, or at the very least would have tried to convince themselves that they did. If the young male in this story can enjoy it, why can't they, right? When they were older, they might look back at the encounter with fondness, wondering whatever happened to me.

But that's not always the case. People are different, and will approach such things differently. But that doesn't make taking advantage of an underage person any more right or proper. Even if that underage person is a male. Sometimes they work out. Sometimes, that male has mental issues because of it. That's the way it works. When someone takes the leap and goes through with it, you never know how it's going to turn out. My problem lies with the misandric notion that we can joke about underage males being sexually active with older females, but not the other way around.

Despite society's obssesion with To Catch A Predator, young girls are no less innocent than young males. As I mentioned above, I've been hit on by some very young girls - and I suppose that's only natural. Sexuality is a natural part of human life. As kids grow older, they are going to start expressing it. The question is, is it okay for us, as adults, to take advantage of that, all because they MIGHT be able to handle it? Can we joke about that? Can we joke about the fourteen year old slut dating the forty-year old teacher? No? Why? Because it's not proper to call females sluts, even when they clearly lack the moral distinction to not fuck anything that moves? Even when it's OBVIOUS that they are sluts? If we can't blame them, I don't think we should blame the young males for being young males - for being nothing more than a John.

That's my two cents. Rant over.

I have been jill’s student for several years. I have also attended the school since 1999. Jill is only human and humans make mistakes. She is guilty but she turned herself in and is trying to get her life back on track. Altho she is 26 the student also had to do with the accusations! He threw himself at her and she made the mistake of taking the bait. It is not an assault, it was a mutual thing between the two. The school is an amazing place and things like this happen at all Christian institutions but most of the time are not uncovered. Our principle fired her two days after the incident and she is doing everything she can to protect us, the students. Anyone that has anything to say against our school better watch it because the bible say that anyone who speaks against the children of God will be persecuted. We all need your prayer at this time.

and no he is NOT the coolest kid in school. all of the students there a greatly disappointed in BOTH of them.

Definition of Molestation-The act of one attacking or forcing another to engage in sexual contact. He had to do with it too! It is not merely jill's fault bacause she is older altho she is the only one who will be suffering consequences.



and no! mt school Does NOT need a new computer teacher. My principle has done an amazing job about compensating for our loss.

lsc student:"Altho she is 26 the student also had to do with the accusations! He threw himself at her and she made the mistake of taking the bait."

First, get to a real school as fast as you can. You spell worse than I do, and that's bad. Real bad.

Second, You are giving a classic example of blameing the victim. She overstepped her bounds and for that she needs to pay. Doesn't matter if he came on to her or not, SHE was in the wrong NOT him.

"Anyone that has anything to say against our school better watch it because the bible say that anyone who speaks against the children of God will be persecuted."

Silly threats from abook of myths don't scare anyone here. Your bible is a joke, your school is a joke and so is your god!

"We all need your prayer at this time."

Prayer doesn't do anything except fill the pray-er with a false sense of accomplishment.

"Definition of Molestation-The act of one attacking or forcing another to engage in sexual contact."

Not exactly correct there pal. What you described is rape.

molestation: The act of subjecting someone to unwanted or improper sexual advances or activity (especially women or children)


There is a subtle difference in that molesation can be a manipulation, as well as forced.

"He had to do with it too!"

So what. She was the one at fault.

"It is not merely jill's fault bacause she is older..."

Wrong! She was at fault and that's why she's suffering the consequenses. It wouldn't matter if he was shakin' his ass in her face. Her actions carried the consequences according to societal standards.

Now, go get some maturity and logical thinking skills and stay in school, don't do drugs, get a degree and live happily ever after...

....Or you might turn out like me.(and even I don't want that)

Wow!

All this talk about groping and sexual aggressiveness on the job, etc....What the hell happened here?

For me it is simple. It is immoral and illegal for a TEACHER to molest, grope, rape, or inappropriately touch a child/student/minor. PERIOD!

I don't care what your religous beliefs are, what your sexual preferences are, what clothes you wear or what you eat for breakfast!

IF YOU MOLEST KIDS YOU ARE A SCUMBAG!

BTW - I have 3 sons. If their teacher touched them in an inappropriate way there would be HELL to pay!

To Stronger now:
First of all I have severe dyslexia and spelling has never been my strongest point and I apologize for that.
Secondly my school has better scores than any other school in the area and that is just looking at statistics not by a mere ignorant opinion. Have you ever been to my school? NO. Have you ever met anyone from my school? NO. Therefore how can you make a judgment stating that my school is incompetent based on the actions of two people? You are making assumptions which is showing how ignorant you really are. If my school is so horrible then how do 80% of the students that graduate from our school complete college? Approximately 62% of our students receive scholarships for academic excellence? These are the statistics that clearly show it is an amazing school. You cannot deny the excellence of an institution based on two people making a mistake! number 3- He is NOT the victim!
"Victim- a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency."
She is now the one SUFFERING, not him! He is going on with his life as usual while she is in jail. Now I am not saying that she doesn't deserve it but he is not the only victim in this situation! Everyone that is still at the school who are suffering because of the actions of the two are the victims! "Teachers shouldn't have sex with their students. What's so difficult to understand about that?" I am not in any way saying that what they did was justifiable but PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES! Its really not that hard to understand. By looking at your previous passage you seem to have a grudge against your family for being Christians. They seem to be a case of radical Christians which you are obviously assuming that is how ALL Christians are, which is false and ignorant. "Silly threats from a book of myths don't scare anyone here. Your bible is a joke, your school is a joke and so is your god!" Silly threats? That's what your calling it? You won't be thinking that they are so silly when those silly threats come in to action. If my God is a joke then what about your god? Who do you worship? What comes first in your life? Your family? What about money? Or your job maybe? Your family will one day be dead, your money will do you no good when you die, and your job could be gone in an instant. And you somehow come to the conclusion that MY God is stupid? Then where did the earth come from? What about you and me? Do you believe in evolution? Prove it to me! There are way too many missing links in the fossil record to state that it is somehow true. What about the big bang theory? You can't make something out of nothing so explain that. What thing are you storing up now that will last an eternity? If you can't think of anything that will never perish or rot or die then what you have accomplished in life so far will be of no use. Praying, A joke? A false sense of accomplishment? I don't think so! Explain how people are healed from prayer. How lives are turned around daily for the better by prayer.
If I falsely stated what rape meant then I am sorry. OK well lets go by your definitions then. "molestation: The act of subjecting someone to unwanted or improper sexual advances or activity "If they both partook in this act then how is it only her fault? And did you ever think that the manipulation could have been on his part? "Now, go get some maturity and logical thinking skills and stay in school, don't do drugs, get a degree and live happily ever after...
....Or you might turn out like me. (and even I don't want that)"
Maturity? I think I'm OK in that department. Logical thinking? I'm fine there too. One question, Why are you preaching to me about how bad of a school I am at and saying how idiotic I am if you yourself are stating you haven't done much with your life? The bible says to get the log out of your own eye before trying to get the speck of dirt out of someone else's eye. If I am doing opposite of what this verse says then I am sincerely apologetic.

"Matthew 5:44
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you," I will be praying for you in that you will one day be saved.

And leaving on this note: If I offended anyone by this passage I am sincerely sorry! I tend to get very defensive when someone questions everything I believe in which I thank we all can relate to. Please do not take this as an excuse for their actions. Nothing can cover up what has happened but please, do not believe everything you hear and make a judgment based on someone's word that wasn't even involved in a situation. Thank you for your prayers

lsc student: "Anyone that has anything to say against our school better watch it because the bible say that anyone who speaks against the children of God will be persecuted. We all need your prayer at this time."

This is Ex-Christian.net. As Stronger Now pointed out earlier, we don't believe in the Bible and we don't pray to your god.


"Silly threats? That's what your calling it? You won't be thinking that they are so silly when those silly threats come in to action."

Ahh, feel the love...

"Your family will one day be dead, your money will do you no good when you die, and your job could be gone in an instant."

Yes, and those things will happen to you as well.

"What thing are you storing up now that will last an eternity? If you can't think of anything that will never perish or rot or die then what you have accomplished in life so far will be of no use."

You are storing up nothing for eternity. Sometime in the next 150 years or so, you will be just as dead as us. Only the molecules of your body go on, and they will not carry your thoughts into some celestial paradise.

But, even if we could live for eternity, that extra time would not add any meaning to our existence. Meaning is in what we do and how we feel about it, not in how long we do it or how long it lasts.

"Explain how people are healed from prayer. How lives are turned around daily for the better by prayer."

Placebo effect. Positive thinking.

"Do not believe everything you hear..."

You would be well advised to take your own advice. Your knowledge of science is truly abysmal. Transfer to a non-religious school if you actually want to work in a scientific field some day.

Oh, and the whole point of articles like this is to illustrate -- Once again -- that the Christian community has not been magically touched and transformed by a mythological Holy Spirit.

:-) Well, a thread that has no problem with blatant and transparent "honesty", how refreshing.

"Victim- a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency."

ISC student, let's play the game, okay. In philosophy, you can go either general, particular or in shades of gray. While we are trying to hone in on what "victim" means, you want to broaden it out in more general terms.

So, if you want to play the game; let's just keep pushing the term "victim" to the point that it loses meaning. Since everything in the Universe is connected, then of course, accordingly "everyone" and "everything" has received some "taint", as is therefore victimized as well, right?

More plainly, if this teacher has a cat and dog, and they were not fed because the teacher was in jail, then we can say that these potential pets are victims as well, right?

The point here, is that there obviously has to be more "context" around the word "victim"; like so many "other" words, when used.

It would seem "prudent" in my opinion, to not call a potentially unfed cat the victim of a sex crime.

A "victim", to me, is someone who experiences suffering, damage, or injury in "first-person". In other words, "you" are "not" a victim, and neither am I, nor is the Pope, or a blue whale in the middle of the ocean, due to chaos theory.

If we want to say that "you" are a victim, then it would seem fair to say, that you are not a "victim" of sexual molestation.

I enjoy analyzing posts, and while I don't always say what I would like, because of gaps in maturity and a point of diminishing returns; it would appear here we could honestly explore your situation, since it seems to have many ties elsewhere.

Since you aren't the "direct" victim of a sex crime, what is it that gives you the perception of being "victimized", such that you feel the "call" to respond on another's behalf; since we are truly exploring the very words "honestly" expressed by the teacher herself.

Some, cosmic ray must have hit this planet, because I am experiencing this same type behavior almost daily, in different venues, to include blog threads.

I digress, so, since you weren't the "direct" victim of a sex crime, then of course, this "victimization" of your "self", has to be "connected" to the sexual misconduct in some manner, or that is how the Universe seems to "work".

So, what is this "common bond", that you "perceive" to exist, such that you feel "any" engagement on the matter, is a form of "victimization" to you?

The "teacher's" actions, and words, are "their own", they are the one "responsible". How does "engaging" their actions, victimize you?

I'm not going to pull out psyche resources on this one, let's just throw it out there... How do you "identify" yourself with this teacher, so much, that you feel "victimized"?

Victimized, to the point, that you have felt a compulsion to discuss the issues.

One last thought... just because I like to connect data points from different threads... do you find the "teacher's" words/testimony, and her subsequent arrest, to be entirely "pointless" in the discussion - if we are seeking to understand their position, in all honesty?

Sorry to hear about your severe dyslexia, it seems you are working through the challenge quite well.

To end, you quoted the bible, just curious, how does your school present the bible to you? Literally, historically, etc?

eris.discordia:

Err . . . were you talking about me, with the whole comment of the "on the job groping and aggressiveness?" If you are, I think you might have missed the point of my comments. The joking about the male victim at the LSC School has everything to do with misandry. I'm sure you know what that means, but for those who don't know misandry is the opposite of misogyny. Instead of hating women, misandrics hate men. Misandrics are very often women, but in some cases the attitude of misandrics filters into other aspects of society. When a young male is victimized, and people, including other males, call him LUCKY, that is an example of misandry. It is misandric because it denegrates the male in question - in this case, the seventeen year old boy - by reducing the male to little more than a horny John.

The situations I sometimes run into at work are a parallel of this. Not because I'm a seventeen year old boy being taken advantage of by a twenty-six year old teacher, but because we are both males and we are both expected to LIKE being approached in such a way - even though he is not legally of age and I am engaged to be married. But because we're males, our situations really don't matter - we're just Johns. That's all I was really trying to point out. I think it is valid and related to the topic. If you don't agree, well . . . to each their own, then.

LSC Student:

Fuck off.

Hey LSC Student.

You're just pissed off because your kind has once again been exposed for the hypocrites that all of you are. You mother fuckers love to preach and point fingers when most of you live a double life.

You're just another asshole christian, and I seriously doubt that your so called, "Superb Education" exceeds the educational system of anyone who lives in other countries such as Canada and Australia. All this christian school is doing is teaching you how to be a Dumb Ass for Christ who lives in the dark ages of superstition. I suggest you attend a secular school, and get a real education about "Living in the Real World".

They need to come out with a book for christians like you called:

"LIVING IN REALITY FOR CHRISTIAN DUMMIES"

I'm sorry that I started all of this with my wise-ass remark - especially as it was my first time posting a comment here.

If the young man was damaged psychologically, then I apologize, certainly. Lsc student is assuring us that is not the case, but, obviously, we can't know.

I will say this - teenagers engage in illicit sexual activity. It's a story as old as civilization. I doubt seriously that this young man, whether or not he was the instigator, has been scarred for life. The young woman has probably suffered greater damage, in terms of her reputation. She'll be living with the consequences for years to come. Also, adolescence today extends until about the age of thirty; at 26, she's little more than a teenager herself. They're almost peers. And I'd imagine, if she's becoming involved with one of her students, that she has self-esteem issues to begin with - not at all uncommon in that world, as you all know.

If he's attending a conservative Christian school - and I would assume, in light of lsc student's remarks about "eternity" and "salvation", that it is - having a temporary sexual relationship with an older woman is far from being the most psychologically damaging thing that's happened to him. The best thing for him would probably be to be to have to leave the school, and to attend a public or secular private school.

And, lsc student - you may be correct in your assertion that the teacher was the initiator. We obviously have no way of knowing. But the statements being made here about "blaming the victim" are accurate. It's a ubiquitous problem in the conservative Christian subculture. Try to bear this in mind the next time that something like this happens - because it will.

I meant the student being the initiator.

Why is it that the Christians that come up here have the most horrible fucking sentence structure and grammar?

Ranman87

I don't think English is the Holy Spirit's first language.

Ranman87 Wanted to know:
"Why is it that the Christians that come up here have the most horrible fucking sentence structure and grammar?"

Because Christians believe that modern day education is evil, and we should all teach our kids the bible and shelter them from the evils of this world.

Christians like LSC Student are the fucktards they are because they don't believe in responsibility. No matter HOW BAD they fuck up in life, no matter HOW MANY people they hurt, no matter HOW MUCH damage they cause - it's okay! Because in the end, all they have to do is embrace Christ. They don't have to apologize to the people they've hurt. They don't have to be considerate of others, or be socially conscious or kind or compassionate. Christianity is about one thing: avoiding eternal punishment by embracing a certain belief. That is IT. And thusly, Christians will let themselves go in every way, because they have no need of responsibility.

Uh-oh . . . is that Bill F. I hear, or Passerby, getting ready to misinterpret Dawkins or quote non-existent statistics? FUCK YOU! I really don't care about these modern Christians that cite social consciousness, eat Vegan diets, or ride bikes to save gas. NONE OF THOSE THINGS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH CHRISTIANITY. So I really don't wanna hear it. In the end, people living a purely Christian lifestyle - one based on the Bible's teachings - are disgusting, bloated excuses for humans. There are too many holes and gaps in the Bible to live a consistently resposible lifestyle. On one page, you can show me that I have to be kind to my neighbors - but on the next, if my neighbors don't believe what I'm saying, I have to turn my back on them?! WHICH SI IT, CHRISTIAN FUCKTARDS?!

Schools like LSC should be burned to the ground. Their scraps and remains should be used to build BETTER things, like secular schools, secular colleges, secular hospitals, or even a fucking Starbucks. Anything is better than another Christian indoctrination center. My fiance' went to a private Christian school - it took me YEARS to get her free of THAT brainwashing. And lemme tell ya', she's a much better person now than when she was being enslaved by their self-hating, rich white people rhetoric. So once again, LSC student - FUCK OFF!

trancelation wrote:
Some underage males will no doubt treasure a sexual encounter with an older woman, if they are emotionally mature enough for it
----
Trancelation,

I guess I should have known that there are some topics here that one can't use as a source for humor.
My previous post here was obviously meant to make some laugh (or maybe not so 'obviously' it seems now).


stronger now wrote:
"Teachers shouldn't have sex with their students"

I couldn't agree more with this statement Stronger makes here !

In today's business world the ethics being commonly enforced, actually not only include teachers and students, college professors and their young-adult students, but bosses and their direct subordinates as well.

So even if this 17 year old student had been an adult of 18 years old, it would have still been an ethical business problem (if not a legal problem) for this teacher to have an 'affair' with him.
Besides the obvious problem of favoritism towards this student in regards to his grades, it would also have the effect of diminishing this teacher's ability to properly teach any class this boy happened to be in.
i.e. It would most likely be difficult to keep one's mind on their job if one is distracted by their libido; as well as being difficult for the student to keep their mind on learning etc..


In regards to my previous post where I added to the existing 'thread' of a 17 year old school boy not minding to 'make-it' with their teacher; all I can say is when I went to school (long ago) this indeed was a sexual conquest fantasy of many a high school boy.
My attempt at humor was made within the light of this all too common fantasy that many boy's harbor.
It was NOT meant to be taken as my sanctioning real-life affairs between teachers and their students !

So I apologize to those of you that didn't appreciate my attempt at trying to lighten things up with a little risque humor.


ATF (Who must remind himself that our site here, is not www.xtain-school-sex-humor.com)

p.s. I just made that website address up, so don't think about going there...LOL

Lsc student,

Sorry to have misjudged your spelling issue. It was uncalled for.

"He is NOT the victim!"

Yes he was. No matter how much you want it not to be so, SHE broke the law and SHE stepped over the line regardless of HIS actions. It's just the plain facts.

""Victim- a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency."
She is now the one SUFFERING, not him!"

Are you implying that SHE was the victim? That's stupid! It doesn't matter what HIS actions were. She stepped over the line NOT HIM!!!Blaming the victim. Do they teach that at your school? And try to understand that YOU cannot know if someone is suffering or not. It can be a psychological defense mechanism to act unaffected. Even if he isn't somehow suffering, SHE is still the one at fault.

"By looking at your previous passage you seem to have a grudge against your family for being Christians."

No. It's because they are assholes. Christianity does seem to help this defect of humanity along. Do you think I should support the belief that stoneing children is cool?

"They seem to be a case of radical Christians which you are obviously assuming that is how ALL Christians are..."

Like the normal non-radical kind of christian that simply blames the victim in sex crimes? And how dare you assume that is what I think? Are you a mind reader? NO. So stop trying to put thoughts in my head and words in my mouth.

"If my God is a joke then what about your god? Who do you worship? What comes first in your life? Your family?"

I worship no one. I love and take care of my wife and kids. I have no job or money. Even if you cosider that some form of worship, It's still a better than worshiping your imaginary friend. Because my wife and kids are real.

"And you somehow come to the conclusion that MY God is stupid?"

I did "just" come to that conclusion. It was a very long and painfull process, filled with all kinds of real and insightful logic.

"What about you and me?"

Do they teach sex ed. in your school?

"Do you believe in evolution?"

I accept that evolution is the best theory for the diversity of life on this planet because it has the most credible evidence for it. If another thoery comes along that has more and better evidence for the diversity of life, then I will drop my acceptance of evolution in favor of the new theory. My "belief", as you call it, in evolution is backed by evidence. It is't blind acceptance out of fear. Do you have any credible evidence for your god?

"What about the big bang theory? You can't make something out of nothing so explain that."

The "something" was always here to go BANG every now and then. And if you can't make something out of nothing, where did your god come from?

"If you can't think of anything that will never perish or rot or die then what you have accomplished in life so far will be of no use."

I don't think so. I hope to leave some good and usefull things after I kick the bucket. Like children that can use critical thinking skills logic and reason. Children who know what a fathers love is supposed to be like. So, even if I never make much of myself according to everyone else's opinion, I'll at least have made the world a little better in some way. To have no god is not to be useless and hopeless.

"Explain how people are healed from prayer."


They're not. They are healed be natural causes and/or medicine. If prayer worked why do studies show it is no more usefull than placebo?

"If they both partook in this act then how is it only her fault?"

Because SHE was the authority.

"And did you ever think that the manipulation could have been on his part?"

Inconsequential. Even if he did everything he possibly could to seduce her, she is still to blame for her actions. It was HER actions that carried the blame because she was the adult and authority.

"Logical thinking? I'm fine there too."

Then why do you insist that your imaginary friend(god) is real?

"Why are you preaching to me about how bad of a school I am at and saying how idiotic I am if you yourself are stating you haven't done much with your life?"

Preaching? I was just giving advice kid. You can take it or leave it. As far as not doing much with my life, my life isn't over yet. I have done things, some really great things. It's partly because I was a christian that my life sucked in the past. Getting out of the cult of christianity was one of them.

"The bible says to get the log out of your own eye before trying to get the speck of dirt out of someone else's eye."

The bible also says to kill disobedient children. Does it say anything about getting advice from an elder who knows his past mistakes and wishes to help you avoid them?

To Those Who Made Jokes At The Beginning of The Post:

Just trying to give you something to think about. That's all. Nobody here is a bad person for making those jokes; I just take issues of misandry very seriously. Even the little jokes like that can add to misandric notions, and it's especially disturbing when other males make such comments. But I'm not trying to harsh on anyone or kill anyone's buzz. Just making a public service announcement. I'm aware that they're just jokes. I'm just saying: think about what you're saying, especially if you're a guy. That's all. It's easy to make jkes about this guy being 'lucky,' but really, aren't we just denegrating males when we do that? Just saying.

"What thing are you storing up now that will last an eternity? If you can't think of anything that will never perish or rot or die then what you have accomplished in life so far will be of no use."

So let's all just turn our backs on the things that make us happy, and sit around worrying all the time about losing everything we have and let's not enjoy our lives on this planet while we're still living. Let's all focus on dying instead of living why don't we?

That's exactly how these christian nuts think.

Christians live to die, and they also live in fear of their big bad sky daddy who they claim is going to one day return to this planet, and open up a can of whup ass on all of us heathens.

If it got to the point where I lost everything, and all I had to live for was an imaginary man named, "Jesus", I would get a gun and blow my fucking brains out if that was all I had to live for was some mother fucking man named Jesus.

Christians are such fucking retards. They all need to be gathered up and put in a mental institution and given electro shock therapy for their mental disease.

Christians are nothing more than martyrs for Christ. They are willing to sacrifice themselves and their whole entire happiness and future for the sake of their Jesus. What a bunch of pathetic losers.

ATF: "So I apologize to those of you that didn't appreciate my attempt at trying to lighten things up with a little risque humor."

:-) Nothing wrong with a little humor. But I agree, nothing wrong with a little sincerity as well, having multiple threads makes the conversation that much richer.

Most young adolescents have fantasies, it's natural. And, that goes for both male and female. And, I believe that on average, females physically "mature" faster than males, and therefore primed for fantasizing earlier than males.

The notion that males are always out for sex, is no more to the point, than all females are.

Social roles and expectation have determined not only sex roles for genders but; jobs and careers as well.

A typical social role or expectation is that "women" hold careers in cosmetology, etc. When a male holds such a job; there are "expectations" and "assumptions" made.

It takes an intelligent person, to confirm their assumptions. However, we know that there are many people who just live their life with untested assumptions, and we deal with them every day. From the religious, we get; all atheists are immoral, etc.

So, when a child hears that someone is an atheist, they immediately recall - immoral and apply it. Yet, they are not mature enough, to rationally confirm the assumption they were given as truth.

Regarding abuse and being a victim. A "victim" is someone who believes or makes such a declaration.

However, there are laws that protect individuals in society, that are likely not "capable" of identifying themselves as victims.

This teenager is a victim, if they "perceive" themselves to be a victim psychologically.

Even if this teenager doesn't declare or believe themselves to be a victim of sexual abuse, there are legal codes that can make the case.

And, legal codes were created in theory by rational adults, to protect those who are not capable of protecting themselves; in order to prevent placing any "undue" burden on an individual or society.

Anyway, I've enjoyed the posts, thanks all :-)

Dave8:

A victim is a victim whether they percieve it or not. Ever heard of Stockholm Syndrome? Or how about children younger than the male in our story, whom, as far as they know, are just "playing" with daddy and/or mommy? They are less of a victim because they don't know that such a word exists? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make much sense. I don't think sauch people need adults to rationalize for them. That sounds like breaking a law, but not being guilty because no one saw you do it.

Why, hello trancelation and thanks for the shout-out to a fairly infrequent visitor!

Actually, I wasn't overcome with any urge to contribute to this thread, so I'll just congratulate you on your engagement, and wish you and your fiancee the very best and much happiness in your life together.

Regards

Hello Trancelation, good to read your post.

Trancelation: "A victim is a victim whether they percieve it or not."

A victim is someone who is perceived to have been abused. To be abused means to be unjustly or wrongfully treated.

To be unjustly or wrongly treated, requires a set standard of values; either determined by the individual or society via laws.

I have been to a few countries, where a female can be married at the age of 12/13, where there is a honeymoon involved.

The cultural values established in these areas, do not lend support to enact laws preventing such activity.

If a 12 year old female in one of those countries, disagrees with her treatment, then of course, she will perceive herself as a victim, based on her values that are out of the social norm.

Values are used to establish what moral and immoral is as well. Someone who is abused is someone who has received immoral treatment, and is therefore a victim.

Morality, is a tricky subject. It does not exist metaphysically, except as a mental construct, conceived by a value assessment.

We can factually suggest that a married 12 year old girl has engaged in sexual activity, but in order to call the act abuse, or her a victim, one must suggest someone acted immorally, or against what is considered "fair" or "just".

If I or someone else said the female was a victim, we are imposing our cultural standards/values into the scenario, and suggesting an immoral act took place.

To be a victim, requires judgment, either by the individual or society/culture, where both are based on a value assessment.

I think we could agree that a person murdered is a victim; but the word "murder" itself, is a word to describe an immoral act performed in a certain manner. Society values life, and now there are laws on the books that describe what acts do not conform to our values - many times, in varying degrees and circumstance.

In this case, the person murdered does not claim to be a victim, we "claim" as a society that they are a victim.

In the end, a human must make a value determination; morals, justice, fairness, etc., do not exist metaphysically in nature, they are the perceptive result of a cognitive process, where a human compares treatment to value expectation.

Trancelation: "Ever heard of Stockholm Syndrome?"

Psychoanalytic refers to the syndrome as PAS/PASS, and is not considered a disorder within the DSM-IV. When Post Abduction Syndrome (PAS) is reported or suspected, it is not the individual experiencing this symptom or effect that claims themselves to be a victim.

This means, while the abductee is capable of making a value assessment and either assuming abuse or not, they don't after post-abduction. In the individual's mind, they are not a victim. They have "accepted" their treatment, to be "just".

However, as a society, we have established that physical injury/maltreatment to another person to be immoral, based on the value of life standard. So, while an abductee may not perceive themselves a victim, our society has established laws to reflect our values (per the majority), and to classify an abductee as a victim - per social standards.

Trancelation: "Or how about children younger than the male in our story, whom, as far as they know, are just "playing" with daddy and/or mommy? They are less of a victim because they don't know that such a word exists?"

The child example, is akin to the Stockholm syndrome, in that, the child doesn't register abuse, if they do, then they inherently perceive themselves as victims. If they don't, then society may base their assessment of abuse based on their moral code/laws.

If a physical act was imparted towards the child, then we must accept the physical act as it is objectively as fact.

If that child never remembered the act, and society was never apprised of the act, then we have factual physical actions, without judgment. No "perceptible" victim.

While I sit here and "ponder" such a physical act, and consider it "abuse", I understand that I am the one assigning victim status to the child based on my values.

Trancelation: "I'm sorry, but that doesn't make much sense. I don't think sauch people need adults to rationalize for them. That sounds like breaking a law, but not being guilty because no one saw you do it."

Many times, children, spouses, etc., need society to rationally make laws to protect individuals who are not capable of protecting themselves, that's what laws are for.

Again, if the child perceives themselves to be mistreated, they perceive themselves to be a victim, but it is based on "their" values, even if inherently understood.

If a child is not capable of understanding, then social norms and laws typically fill the need.

If neither the child nor society classified the physical act as abuse; then there is no victim determination. No one "knows" of the physical action, nor classifies/understands it as abuse.

However, me and you, could both agree that if such an act were to happen, and we were both "aware" of the act, that we would consider it abuse, and the child a victim... but we'd both be assigning victim status to a child, based on "our" values.

And, again, the child would be a victim in "our" minds, alone.

When I was growing up, I didn't have a lot, but I was peacefully content, and spent a lot of time in the woods, abbey, etc.

It wasn't until I left home, and joined the military, that I found out how poor I was, or was I.

Thanks for the post, have a great one.

Dave8,

If a child slave living in a society that placed no victim status on slaves and condoned the practice of slavery, what gives us the moral right to try and change that child's lot in life if the child accepts it's status in it's society?

To leave the child and it's society be? Or to take some form of action in the child's better interest? Which is the better moral action to take and why?

Is the society, in a sense, brainwashing the child? Or is indoctrination into a slave/master type of thought pattern not something to be fighting against?(can you see where I'm going with this?)

After some more thougt the child slave question doesn't seem as fitting. But I would like to know about the indoctrination stuff.

Dave8:

Your posts still don't make sense to me. A victim is only a victim when they realize they're a victim, or when someone else relaizes it for them? I'm sorry; we're just going to have to agree to disagree. One need not be aware of having cancer in or der to have cancer.

Bill F:

So you're not going to take quotes out of context in order to back up logical fallacies?

Works for me!

Stronger Now, hope I can answer the questions with some better clarity.

Stronger Now: "Dave8, If a child slave living in a society that placed no victim status on slaves and condoned the practice of slavery, what gives us the moral right to try and change that child's lot in life if the child accepts it's status in it's society?"

On a purely psychological stance, no, experimental psychologists aren't concerned with identifying "values" as inherently right or wrong. They measure how well adjusted a person is while living in their environment. When a person deviates from the cultural norm, they are classified as deviating from the norm - deviates.

A psychologist may counsel a child, in such a country, and come to determine the source of psychological conflict, but counseling psychologists are concerned with guiding individuals to become well adjusted, through therapeutic methods, not identify values or cultural norms that are "right" or "wrong".

In the U.S., the answer of interfering is out of the hands of the psychologist; they are professionally required to report criminal acts; and physical or psychological abuse to a child, is considered abuse by our society.

Now, of course there is the "legal" aspect of this that forces a psychologist or psychiatrist to act in accordance with the law, and laws sum up, the values of a society.

If you are asking, me, as an individual, if "I" would interfere on behalf of someone I believed to be a victim regardless of what a society's laws/values are, I'd say, that whatever my response is, my answer would be totally based on my values alone, and may not be legal in that country.

As a way of life, I do try and help those I feel are in need, however, only after understanding the underlying issues.

Let's say, I believe a child slave to be a victim of abuse, based on my value of individual freedom; and I remove the child from their environment in order to help them. Some cultures will not accept that child back, they are marked. I have now removed that child from their family, and everyone they know. Is that emotional abuse?

Could the child suggest they are a victim of my good intentions? It depends on the "values" of the child. The child may or may not consider their self a victim, based on "their" perception alone, and what "I" think is really besides the point on the matter.

If I broke the "law" to snatch the child from their country; then that "society" (especially the family) will consider me immoral or one who has chosen to "abuse" one of their citizens.

The only person I can confidently suggest sees my actions as "moral" - is me.

There are no absolute morals, which are based on values, which establish who a victim is, and who isn't, or shouldn't be.

We should not commit murder; is an absolute statement, but are we immoral in our own self-defense? Because, there is no "absolute" moral standard, we each have our own standards to abide by, while navigating societal laws, which may be close or far off the mark from our values.

Stronger Now: "To leave the child and its society be? Or to take some form of action in the child's better interest? Which is the better moral action to take and why?"

Let's say, that I enter a country that I don't believe is abiding by my values, and my values are further represented by my nation. Should I engage the society? Should I expect my nation to follow my lead?

If I were to say yes, then would it be wrong to object to overthrowing all sovereign nations because our national values are more appropriate for global living?

In a way, it's the absolute demand that the U.S. has the absolute moral/values high-ground that tends to draw a title of arrogance to us. I have been overseas many times, and in many different countries, and I can attest that the basic U.S. tourist per my experience, not only "expects", but is "insulted", when a foreigner doesn't speak their language or act according to particular U.S. customs - shaving legs, etc.

In Marseille France, it is not uncommon to for parents to allow a young daughter to provide sexual services to a stranger as a teenager, in their parents home.

Here, in the U.S., such an incident would be considered by "some", to be inhumane - because of how they believe a young teenager should act or be treated.

While "I", may not agree with allowing teenage girls to prostitute, I realize it is "my" values that I use to make such a statement.

Stronger Now: "Is the society, in a sense, brainwashing the child? Or is indoctrination into a slave/master type of thought pattern not something to be fighting against?(can you see where I'm going with this?)"

:-) Yes, I do understand the implications of what I am suggesting. If a child is brought up by religious fanatics, and I attempt to "reconfigure" their thought processes, because of my values, or my nation's values, am I on the moral high-ground?

If I take that child from their family, I am declaring that "my" values are more "correct" than their families'. The child may be emotionally scarred, from the situation, and I have created a situation, where I believe I have saved them physically, but may have left them believing they were emotionally and psychologically abused - a victim of my good deeds.

However, is it "my" perceptions that is important in this scenario, or does the child get to perceive themselves as a victim? If I perceive myself a hero, and a child perceives themselves as a victim, who wins? I'd say the child, no matter what I said or believed, as the child is the party of interest in the scenario.

If I wanted to take the time to do something about what I felt was "inappropriate", I'd have to take the time to win the hearts and minds of the people I was attempting to support using my values - as I did in Afghanistan. Once I have connected with that society/culture, change towards a more beneficial relationship could be had for most - a democracy allows such transformation to occur.

I'll say this; I believe we "all" act according to the values we believe are more correct, and it's because we don't all agree, that we have had to establish governing bodies (domestic and international) to regulate the differences of opinion – it’s the basis for civilized (civilization) living.

Have a great one.

Trancelation: "One need not be aware of having cancer in order to have cancer."

Totally agree, it is a fact that a person either has or doesn't have cancer.

However, one person may well perceive themselves a victim of a vile God, while another person perceives themselves the recipient of a terminal illness based on non-religious reasons.

I'll try and use a more concrete example, like you did.

Abortion... is an aborted fetus, a victim or not? What makes the difference?

A fetus, isn't cognitively aware of being aborted if aborted early enough; who is the one making the moral determination (victim) on its behalf?

Spanking children... when a parent spanks a child, and brings bruises to their bottom, is the child a victim? What makes the difference?

Parents smoking... when a parent smokes in a closed house, with their infant, and the child inhales second hand smoke, is the child a victim? What is the difference?

Sexual assault... when a male yells "no", in the middle of sex with another male, is the one who yelled "no" a victim? What makes the difference?

Teaching children... A teacher tells a popular child in class to quit talking, while in front of their peers, is the child a victim? What makes the difference?

The only way to establish a victim status, without the input of the recipient, is to establish a moral absolute based on one's personal beliefs/values.

In the abortion question; what if a mother was to die, if she went through child labor... is it moral to abort now? Is there a victim in this scenario? Why?

Is there such a thing as a victimless crime? The fact that laws are created based on values, suggests that "all" crime, must in fact have a victim; victim as one who is treated against accepted societal values. Even a person who attempts to commit suicide is a victim of their own doing, as suicide is considered illegal in many states.

A child narcissist, per DSM-IV, will likely "always" consider themselves unfairly treated unless they are "always" the center of attention (like our resident troll), and thus - victim of the WM and all of us heathens.

Trancelation: "A victim is only a victim when they realize they're a victim, or when someone else realizes it for them?"

Trancelation; can you please define victim and how a victim can be identified? We may still agree to disagree, but I'd appreciate your views on the topic, have a great one.

Dave8,

While I consider what you said I still don't fully agree. If humans are indeed "created"/born equal, that is, we are all born helpless with the potential to achieve indepenence, then couldn't there be derived a most likely means to that end? Isn't the child less apt to be able to make independent logical and rational decisions and therefore subjected to tyranny of the mind by it's society?

It seems that a psychological standard for the developed logical self decisionmaking ability could be achieved at adulthood, regardless of which society they belong to. The imposition of a society that condones indoctrination of a child is the interference with the child's development of logical decisionmaking for it's own interests and independence.

What I am trying to ask is whether it could be argued that since all children are not able to be independent at birth but have the right to be eventually, that any drailment of the potential for independence is tyranny, and as such, immoral because of the infringment of the right of independence not fully achieved?

Please excuse my misspelled rambling reiterations as I seem to be having deeper thoughts than my vocabulary can yet reach.

Stronger Now: "While I consider what you said I still don't fully agree."

No worries...

Stronger Now: "If humans are indeed "created"/born equal, that is, we are all born helpless with the potential to achieve independence, then couldn't there be derived a most likely means to that end?"

Stronger, the idealist view that we are all created equal is a fallacy to me. We are born with physical constraints, cognitively, physically, etc.

However, I believe what we may be talking about is; the freedom to maximize our potential, whatever that potential may be.

I asserted that society for the most part, as well as the individual are the only two factors regarding "fair" and "just" practices in society. When a person receives treatment that is not "fair" or "just" by their personal standard, or societies', then they are deemed a victim by either the individual or society.

What you are referring to, is natural law, and freedom to achieve our potential. This humanistic view, also an Army slogan, "Be all you can be", was adopted from Abraham Maslow, in his hierarchy of needs. He viewed people as having a need to seek self-actualization and to be allowed to be all you can be in order to satisfy that need.

Much earlier than Maslow was the "demand" for basic natural rights. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "unalienable rights" of man.

The declaration made it clear, that "life, liberty (national independence from foreign tyranny) and the pursuit of happiness (individual freedom), were "values", that the early society desired and cherished. The individual freedom was further expounded upon by Maslow, as he identified why individual freedom was important psychologically; people have a need to become and know their actual "Self".

Our laws at their core, are there to protect what "many" people in society still value; life... liberty... and individual freedoms. When a U.S. citizen, is not allowed these "unalienable rights" considered inherent in our being, per natural law, they are considered to be victims, by society.

I haven't thought about it long and hard, but I would suspect that "any" violation of those three values, has a plethora of laws attached to them.

Abortion? When does a fetus become a U.S. citizen, and rate unalienable rights, inherent in our nature?

Suicide? Each state has to make a value determination between the values of "individual freedom" and "life".

What is being suggested; is that government has established its values, and laws were enacted to support those values. Thus, any infringement upon those values creates a victim. There is no such thing as a victimless crime; all crimes have victims, per society.

I'll still add that the individual and society may have entirely different views on their own victim status.

Stronger Now: "Isn't the child less apt to be able to make independent logical and rational decisions and therefore subjected to tyranny of the mind by it's society?"

Yes, if a society doesn't value individual freedoms.

However, it's a tricky business with children. They are for the most part, irrational, because they have so little life experience to cross-check against their limited perception, and unbridled imagination.

Children, require controls, and protection. However, it is in this area that "many" differ on how to achieve this.

The controls and protection measures employed, may conflict with the "potential" to become (individual freedom).

The discussion would break into trying to determine which "controls" and "protection" measures "limit" a child's potential.

Some parents won't let their child watch TV, in order to "protect" them ;-)

Some "methods" and "sources" of control may or may not be more restrictive than others. However, differences of opinion, on sources and methods; comes down to how a parent or group perceives "law".

There are two distinct legal threads that conflict in the U.S., one is "natural law", and the other... "spiritual law". The U.S., Supreme Court Justices, tend to lean one way or the other philosophically. This becomes important, when a bench is loaded down with one side or the other; when issues like abortion surface.

The values that underlie natural law, and spiritual law, are much different in particular instances.

Children are expected to "obey" their parents; and parents whether they choose to or not; set controls based on their values, whichever values they happen to hold.

Do children growing up under one set of values, end up in mental conflict over time, living in a society with counter-values? Perhaps. However, in order to prevent continuous cognitive dissonance, some parents isolate or choose, which friends and social groups to engage in society.

The point here is that there are varying "values" in our society. A child who is treated in a certain manner; may be a victim according to natural law, but not a victim according to spiritual law.

The government for the most part, tends to stay out of the business of "telling" a parent how to rear their child, in most cases. However, abortion is a constant issue that divides those who adhere to natural law, and those who sit on the side of spiritual law.

One, who accepts spiritual law, will likely believe that a "spirit" dwelleth in the body of a fetus, immediately upon fertilization.

Thus, many religionists (based on their 'values'), see a victim, immediately when a fetus becomes aborted... because they tend to associate the word "soul", to a "fully-developed", internal being.

The conflict between natural and spiritual law advocates; comes down to "being". Spiritual law advocates will suggest that "spiritual murder" occurs anytime after fertilization, if aborted, while natural advocates will take a more reserved approach, seeking to see only "one" being holistically, where "being" is typically a discussion of "consciousness" - cognitive awareness.

In any case; society, a parent, some preacher, a scientist, etc., will establish a "value" by which they will use, to determine whether an act creates a "victim".

Interestingly, "life", even though it is considered an "unalienable right" of mankind, per our basic national foundations; a naturalist and a religionist are going to "perceive" and "define" the word "life", in very different ways.

This goes back to the basic premise; there can not be an "absolute" moral code/law; unless one claims they’re omniscient, and the speaker of Universal Truth, by which "all" people, should follow.

We subjectively perceive our reality, and our values for the most part are determined by our environment and biological limitations.

As a naturalist, I am not going to agree with most all (if not all) religionists on what it "means" to be a "human being" (life) - as I accept the term human being to mean; a fully "conscious", physical being only.

The manner in which I perceive my reality; determines my values, and what I perceive to be "fair" and "just".

There is no restriction that suggests I can't call myself a "victim", or for society to consider me a victim, of an unfair or unjust act.

However, this word, victim, is much like the word Christian; it has to be given "context" in order to hold any meaning; philosophically that word can be used to hold infinite meaning or be meaningless.

To say that "x" is a victim is not enough for clear communication... Its clearer, to say, person "x", believes their self to be a "victim" based on their value determination.

Or, citizen "x", is a victim, based on society's laws/values.

I do not believe; that there is a "third" party, standing by, to suggest a Universal Truth in regards to Absolute Values; like God.

The sheer fact, that me or you may not "agree" with each other on the topic of "values", supports the premise that we live in a society where people have "different" perspectives on life, and thus "values".

A deeper topic on this discussion rests on the "meaning of life".

I consider the "meaning of life", to be an individually defined prospect. Thus, there is no "One" single objective in life for everyone to adhere to. That makes establishing an "Absolute" set of "Values" to be quite impossible, since values reflect each individual’s objective(s), in life - either deliberate or non-deliberate.

A religionist, typically believes the "meaning of life", is to "get to the next life without disobeying spiritual law", and thus, inherit Heaven. There is only one "Objective" in this life for them; and all values support that objective.

So, yes, a child may well live in a "restricted" environment, which may limit their "potential" to become - freely... However, what "you" or "I" may see as "potential" based on how we "perceive" the meaning of life... and the "potential" it holds... is "much different" than a religionist, and how "they" may perceive "potential", which is centered on the afterlife.

In order to suggest "my" belief, in the meaning of life, and the potential it holds, is nobler than another's, is purely based on "my opinion".

While I could show all the physical and psychological benefits and economic gains, to be had with "my" belief and values, it would be a conflict of interest for me to "force" or "disallow" someone else their beliefs and values - even if religiously defined. It would by hypocritical for me to suggest I held to individuality and growth potential for all, and then demand that all those who were religious be forced to believe as I do.

My belief, establishes an open door for everyone to become according to their potential; it is the more religiously affiliated groups that tend to suggest that "everyone" must, adhere to "their" specific values, spiritual laws, and "meaning of life".

While I don't force my views on to others; I do not feel the need to support the religious objective, and stifle growth through isolation.

I can openly increase the sphere of awareness of others, through open dialogue, without demanding them to accept my values, etc. As a persons' sphere of awareness increases, so does their ability to achieve self-actualization... which ultimately reduces "Self" confusion, and increases the likelihood that they will move away from those beliefs that "cause" or "inherently" support - mental confusion.

While I am a benefactor of a society that has citizens who have achieved self-actualization; the individual benefits as well; mutually.

Stronger Now: "It seems that a psychological standard for the developed logical self decision-making ability could be achieved at adulthood, regardless of which society they belong to. The imposition of a society that condones indoctrination of a child is the interference with the child's development of logical decision-making for it's own interests and independence."

While I agree with your assessment; we would have to "force" our values, and how we perceive "meaning in/of life", and the "potential" thereof, to "assimilate" those who don't agree without due process, that we are privileged to have in the U.S.

In short, you and I may see the objective of life, to expand a persons' sphere of awareness, and believe in opening up that potential for all children; but we'd have to do that by demanding others live according to our beliefs.

Stronger Now: "What I am trying to ask is whether it could be argued that since all children are not able to be independent at birth but have the right to be eventually, that any derailment of the potential for independence is tyranny, and as such, immoral because of the infringement of the right of independence not fully achieved?"

Yes, it could surely be argued on those grounds; however, it would seem prudent to not reject a tyranny, in order to establish a new one. The human drive to be free, is going to find a way to remain diverse in values, even when a tyranny is established, it's why tyrannies don't seem to last.

The U.S. in its early beginnings responded to tyranny by establishing a democracy, or majority rule. While "I" believe children should have the "potential" to find "meaning in life" as their actualized "Self", I accept diversity of values because our values change as we mature and based on our environment and experiences.

It's why we can demand a jury of our peers, that have similar experiences and environmental exposures as we have, if sent to court.

A dictator whose values suggest that "nothing" justifies the physical assault of a child; will likely incarcerate a large number of parents, if they enforce their law absolutely.

Because we are not all the same, and because children don't behave the same; there is a lot of lenience given to parents, on how to "best" rear their child, depending on their particular physical and environmental circumstances.

However, there are specific laws, based on the "value" of "life" (neglect) that have been created to protect children from specific acts from parents, etc.

Each person determines their values, and society as a whole has value standards/laws. Any crime, or act, that conflicts with either an individual's or societies' sense of "fair" or "just", creates the potential for the claim of "victim".

It is best to give "context" to the word victim, when used in a democracy where diverse and even conflicting values are prevalent. What one child may consider “unfair”, another may not, thus making one a victim in their mind, and the other not a victim.

What we, or society consider fair, is based upon our "subjective" belief, of what is just and fair.

To end, everything we do, has a physical “act” assigned to it as a “fact”. Physical acts express what “is”, and there is no denying what “is”… but when we attempt to say what “ought” to be, in regards to morals, fairness, justice, etc., we must accept that we make such determinations based upon our “own” personal values & objectives. Human beings are different from animals, when we show the capacity and ability to project what we believe “ought” to be (or what “ought” to have been), as opposed to just living according to what “is”, instinctively.

Here’s a question for you Stronger Now, if two animals get into a fight, and one kills the other, is the killed animal a victim?

Thanks for your post; have a great one.

It depends on the situation.

If the animals were dogs, and they were owned by Michael Vic...

I understand the need for human involvment for there to be a victim claim. I appreciate your honest feedback, but I think it would be best for me to just ponder this for a while longer. You have given me much to consider.

You go have a great one too!

Many Thanks
-Stronger Now-

Don't know if anyone is still going to read this, but I knew this person about 8-10 years ago. Did anyone stop to think about her HUSBAND and how he feels in this situation? Poor guy, I hope he dumps her ass and gets on with his life! I know for a fact that she was cheated on in high school by her boyfriend and she thought the world would end and cheating was the worst thing you could do to someone, now she was in a committed MARRIED relationship and she committed adultry! I don't feel sorry for her at all!

I agree, Labgirl. In addition to abusing her fiduciary relationship as a teacher, she also cheated on her spouse? Definitely grounds for divorce there.

That's funny that you say this "labgirl", because it's clear that you do not know Jill as well as you think you do.Do you know her well enough to speak about her marriage? I personally doubt it.And the fact that you know so much about her past and her present is interesting because I'm almost certain that since you haven't,I assume, spoken to her in over 8-10 years it's highly likely that you have NO idea her situation anymore.
I'm one of Jill's best friends and I have been for many years and I know that many people think they know so much about her however, if you are not her true friend you really don't know the half of it.
One thing I do know is that no one in this world is perfect and mistakes are made. I'm sure that all who have posted any comments about how wrong she is or was has made big mistakes in life and has no room to point a finger including myself.But the funny and sad thing is that so many are fascinated with this sort of stuff.We must admitt that in our high school years we all knew at least one person who did this very same thing.Instead of focusing on what matters in the world the media and everyone who worships it so to speak, focuses on things of this nature.
Just to let Labgirl and the other who replied know Jill is doing a wonderful job with this entire situation.Since you are so caught up in her life and what she has done I figured I should let you know that.
My point is,noone knows Jill and her life and all the things that have happened to her, so to judge her isn't a fair thing to do.Honestly NOONE in this world has any right to judge another person even if you think you know the whole truth.