[Vision2020] The age of consent

Thu Jun 15 09:57:53 PDT 2006

Wayne,

I was wondering if this was Jones.  If you recall, he jumped ship as soon as
I started posting to Vision 2020 and he hasn't been back.  This last round
of insults sounded much like what Jones was saying to Joe at that time.  But
I don't like to speculate, and I'm not sure it makes any difference.  What
is clear at this point is that the entire root is sick; this tree just can't
produce any other kind of fruit.  I find this amazing, but it is the sad
truth.

Michael

Michael,

What if, for example, the Princess turns out to be either the Cultmaster
himself or his loving handmaiden, Doug Jones?

W.

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Michael <mailto:metzler at moscow.com>  

To: vision2020 at moscow.com 

Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 8:29 AM

Subject: [Vision2020] The age of consent

I was going to respond to the princess' lengthy essay.  But after seeing the
princess' response to Joe, I've decided that it would not be good to do
anything to encourage the princess to continue writing further.  Joe claimed
to be a Christian, believe in the "text," and offered sincere argumentative
responses to the issue of 'consent.' I agreed with at least half of Joe's
points.  In response to this, the princess sarcastically insulted Joe.
Precisely where I thought he made good points, the princess makes an
irrational utterance in response followed by "Doh!" and then rudely asks "By
any chance are you a philosopher?" And then in a twisted sense of piety, the
princess begins her ambassadorship of the gospel of Jesus Christ: "The Truth
is the Second Person of the Trinity, seated at the right hand of the Father.
He has nail holes in His wrists. And yes, He did give us a Text. Just so
we're clear."  The Princess concludes her apologia from the heavenlies: "I
mean, let's get serious here. Are you people even reading?"

In "biblical" and moral terms, this is one of the most filthy posts I've
seen on Vision 2020; the arrogant, pious, hypocrites are the ones who
receive the "serrated edge" in the New Testament. If you want to know the
reason for Pooh's Think, this is precisely it. The leader of this kind of
Christian Madness, this twisted sociology of violence, is Doug Wilson, and
so I'd like to reserve my energies for him.  I would encourage other
Christians to not respond to the princess, encourage her, or bait her for
more displays of this kind of thing.

Thank You

Michael Metzler

Joe Campbell, who apparently still hasn't had his morning coffee, wrote:

>What if the daughter IS too young to consent to sex or marriage, Princess?

Then "sex or marriage" does not take place -- Doh!

>Firstly, what if the daughter lacks certain cognitive powers, like the 

>ability to partake in means-to-ends reasoning, because she is too young?

Then "sex or marriage" does not take place -- Doh!

>Clearly, consenting to a request is something more than merely acting 

>in accordance with that request. Otherwise, dogs would consent to a 

>great many actions.

Wow. That's profound. By any chance are you a philospher?

>Secondly, the whole time you make it seem as if the issue is a moral 

>one when in fact it is really a set of issues in the philosophy of law 

>that matter.

Ahh.

>When is society allowed to restrict the actions of others, and for what 

>reasons? Is society ever required to restrict certain actions, and 

>under what conditions?

When to do so would be in accord with God's will as revealed in the Bible,
for God's reasons. Yes, when to do so would be in accord with God's will as
revealed in the Bible.

>In answer to the second question, I say that society can restrict 

>behavior in cases of clear harms to clear persons for the purpose of 

>protecting members of the society from harm.

The other day you said your conscious is clear. Are you a clear harm or a
clear person?

>If the issue were a moral issue, then an appeal to the Bible would be 

>worth considering. After all, it has an undeniable role in the history 

>of Western ethics.

Mighty nice of you to say so.

>Another thing is that, as you and I both believe, it is The Truth. This 

>is part of the reason why both of us govern our behavior with respect 

>to this Text.

Well, The Truth is the Second Person of the Trinity, seated at the right
hand of the Father. He has nail holes in His wrists. And yes, He did give us
a Text. Just so we're clear.

>All is fine so long as we limit our own behavior. But it is unclear how 

>you can justify the actions of some other person merely by appeal to 

>your interpretation of the Text. Why would that reason matter to 

>someone who has some other religious text or to someone who has no text 

>at all? Why would it matter to someone who has a different interpretation
of the Text?

Jesus said, "Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I
in the midst of them, hoping against hope that somehow they would be able to
agree about something -- anything -- so that I can sleep a little easier at
night. But no, it's just total confusion and chaos about the meaning of
every little thing. Where's the Holy Spirit when you need him?"

>Lastly, to even suggest, in the current social climate, that young 

>girls have the power to consent to either sex or marriage is irresponsible,
IMHO.

Wel thenl, when somebody comes to ask for your young daughter's hand in
marriage, just say "No." If somebody comes you and asks for your daughter's
hand in sex -- regardless of her age -- just say "No."

I mean, let's get serious here. Are you people even reading? Or are you just
really, really dense and unable to comprehend? Or is my English ability so
atrocious that I can't even communicate simple ideas in a short email? First
Tom, now Joe. Who else is going to totally misread what I wrote? I guess
we'll find out . . .

-- Princess Sushitushi

  _____  

=====================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
====================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060615/bc30cdd2/attachment-0001.htm