Daughter and !!!!!

jamespir

Zazen999 wrote: »

Unfortunately, this 'we only know one side of the story' seems to be trotted out by James every time he gets pulled up on his 'views'.

He hasn't sussed it out that each person has a user name, and only writes their side of the story; that's the nature of an internet forum.

But supporting a 64 yr old taking a 14 yr old on holiday; quite frankly; says it all.

waht if it was a 64 yr old woman ? would you be concerend then

lynzpower

James

I seriously think that you should take a step back from this forum and look at the way people consistently respond to you and the things that you write.

My IQ is phenomenally huge too love, but it doesn't mean I'm not wrong at times. Im sure most posters on this thread would say the same.

Intelligence is knowing when you are wrong, conceding, and learning from it and developing that knowledge for the future.

Zazen999

jamespir wrote: »

waht if it was a 64 yr old woman ? would you be concerend then

I take it you mean concerned?

Yes, I would be. Of course. But it isn't! You can't say that you shouldn't be concerned about one thing because of another; you have to take each situation as it comes. And in this one, the 64 year old has form. Ergo; there is a risk that the younger daughter is in danger of the same thing happening.

patchwork_cat

jamespir wrote: »

waht if it was a 64 yr old woman ? would you be concerend then

Yes, ofcourse, child abuse is not a sex linked characteristic!

DrScotsman

Omg, I can't believe this.

I don't agree with most of james' posts on this thread, however this is only the second thread I've seen where his posts seem to have a ring of logic to it (sorry for the offence james). However I've mostly seen james left alone for his posts, but you pick on him on THIS thread?

Like I said, I don't agree with everything he's said, but it seems to me that "Think of the children" incites some of you to get insanely overprotective. Hell you're churning out insults now!!

Zazen999

DrScotsman wrote: »

Omg, I can't believe this.

I don't agree with most of james' posts on this thread, however this is only the second thread I've seen where his posts seem to have a ring of logic to it (sorry for the offence james). However I've mostly seen james left alone for his posts, but you pick on him on THIS thread?

Sorry, I usually ignore him.

So you think that accusing the father of being jealous is logical.

Interesting.

jamespir

lynzpower wrote: »

James

I seriously think that you should take a step back from this forum and look at the way people consistently respond to you and the things that you write.

My IQ is phenomenally huge too love, but it doesn't mean I'm not wrong at times. Im sure most posters on this thread would say the same.

Intelligence is knowing when you are wrong, conceding, and learning from it and developing that knowledge for the future.

to be fair i dont care im not wrong (its called difference of opinion )

DrScotsman

Zazen999 wrote: »

Sorry, I usually ignore him.

So you think that accusing the father of being jealous is logical.

Interesting.

I said they had a ring of logic, I didn't say EVERY single thing he said was logical.

jamespir

patchwork_cat wrote: »

Yes, ofcourse, child abuse is not a sex linked characteristic!

whatever happend to being innocent till proven guilty he wasnt proven guilty of anything so therefore he must be innocent

patchwork_cat

DrScotsman wrote: »

Omg, I can't believe this.

I don't agree with most of james' posts on this thread, however this is only the second thread I've seen where his posts seem to have a ring of logic to it (sorry for the offence james). However I've mostly seen james left alone for his posts, but you pick on him on THIS thread?

Like I said, I don't agree with everything he's said, but it seems to me that "Think of the children" incites some of you to get insanely overprotective. Hell you're churning out insults now!!

Sorry I fail to see the ring of logic. James' posts on this thread are not logically displayed in an analytical manner, but more antagonistic in a troll like inflamming manner. There is no logic in condoning a 60 year old with a 14/15 yeard old child. It is wrong and immoral to feel sexual attraction to a child and IMO wrong to feel attraction when that child reaches an adult if you knew that person whilst they were a child and you were an adult.

Modern society has certain social mores that are accepted and we live by the culture of the society we live in. Morals are for the protection of the species and we all have to live within the accepted constraints of behaviour.

It would appear that this man has breached accepted behaviour and this should be stopped and any further children should be protected. As a parent to protect children at all costs is a feature that I have that I am very proud of, and I am not going to apologise for having a well developed sense of protection!!