After a year of grueling discussion, the more prudish group prevailed, and the parents decided that there would be no sex in the Kinderladen.
Well, for the most part.
After a year of grueling discussion, the more prudish group prevailed, and the parents decided that there would be no sex in the Kinderladen.
Well, for the most part.
(To clarify, Troy McClure agrees with me on all points. He declines to distinguish between apes and monkeys. He doesn’t, at least initially, want to be like an ape or a monkey. He has a thing for fish. I’ll shut up now.)
Christoph @5:08 – re. this monkey business – blech. You remind me of David Suzuki (by his own account) shaking his head in sorrow and anger at a “no animals allowed” sign, because we’re all animals, people!. Colloquially bonobos can be called monkeys.
No, it’s dishonest. Bonobos are either our second, or by some genetic analyses, our nearest, living relative. You made them sound like they were some randomly conveniently chosen odd monkey with no basis for choosing them.
The idea we should live like bonobos is fundamentally flawed, but you lied in how you presented them.
You also talked about how they are numerically insignificant, as if that is a key point, when it’s irrelevant. They’re genetically similar to us is the rational for studying them.
And we DO share much in common with them even sexually. We both mate — a lot — for pleasure and recreation, in addition to frequent non-coital sex play.
This doesn’t in any way excuse child abuse. However, it is factual.
“Nowadays, the stimulation of a child’s sex organs by an adult is clearly seen as criminal sexual assault. But for the revolutionaries of 1968, it was an educational tool that helped “create a new person..”
Nowadays? It is not like this was taking place ca. 1750. I am pretty certain there were laws in Germany in 1968 that made sexual interference with a minor a criminal offense.
Yes, no kidding, Kursk. This is ridiculous that this wasn’t prosecuted, and isn’t being investigated now.
You have an idiosyncratic definintion of lying, Christoph. I won’t follow my initial impulse in replying to what you wrote at 4:45 because Kate’s running a nice classy website here.
And study them monkeys all you want – that’s got nothing to do with what I said.
Please don’t respond; you’re tedious.
I define lying as intentionally misleading.
Ah, hell.
Anyone familiar enough with primate taxonomy to be aware of the formal, not everyday-conversational distinction between apes and monkeys knows enough about the subject to be aware that bonobos are (pretty much) a sort of chimp. Anyone not so familiar just reads “ape” as “type of monkey”. In other words, someone who knows enough about this stuff to be “fooled” by my “lie” would by the same token know enough about it not to be “fooled”. People were talking about “monkeys” long before taxonomists came up with this basically academic distinction; it’s a perfectly reasonable colloquial usage. Consult Troy McClure.
I wasn’t giving a seminar on the primate family tree and I wasn’t trying to trick anyone into thinking that we’re less closly related to our swingin’ relatives the bonobos than we actually are; as if that would have made the slightest difference to the point I was making anyway.
I’m done with this, Christoph.
Black Mamba, I accept your explanation. You were speaking colloquially as you said.
I apologize for not realizing this making a mountain out of a molehill.
God, this was some sick shit. This is precisely why the left is constantly bleating about police states and calling police officers “pigs” in the manner of their filthy-junkie-hippie forbears: they want unlimited license to practice any kind of insanity they want. “If it feels good, do it” – remember that one? to this day, we have the John Howard Society crying for the rights of pedophiles.
Pig scum must die.
‘kay then, Christoph.