Fallible wrote:

PensivePenny wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:imo Fallible and Thomas Eshuis, you're paedophilia enablers, both of you. You say they think paedophilia is deeply wrong, yet they do it anyway. They need be disabused of this notion. You should be sanctioned by the board admin.

My emphasis above. Do you know what an enabler is? An enabler "authorizes" one with some ability. Assuming that ability is pedophilia, you are in essence giving them the control to decide their actions. How the hell do you square that with your belief that we have no control over our actions? No one can enable anyone if you believe man has no control over his actions. Selective determinism? Wishy washy determinism? Pick a side... you can't play for both teams.

I love how you're not letting this go.

For better or worse, I can be a little bitch at times.... tenacious as a Pitt Bull.

PensivePenny wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:imo Fallible and Thomas Eshuis, you're paedophilia enablers, both of you. You say they think paedophilia is deeply wrong, yet they do it anyway. They need be disabused of this notion. You should be sanctioned by the board admin.

My emphasis above. Do you know what an enabler is? An enabler "authorizes" one with some ability. Assuming that ability is pedophilia, you are in essence giving them the control to decide their actions. How the hell do you square that with your belief that we have no control over our actions? No one can enable anyone if you believe man has no control over his actions. Selective determinism? Wishy washy determinism? Pick a side... you can't play for both teams.

They are behaving unethically imo. Providing an environmental influence which says "it's ok to be a paedophile". They didn't decide this course of action; they are merely misguided. or do you take issue with the word misguided perchance?

Fallible wrote:Physical harm to the child, lack of bodily autonomy, lack of social and sexual awareness?

Yes, that seems obvious. But I want to be controversial. Some people have questioned whether it is necessarily harmful, that it depends on exactly what takes place (eg affection, nurturing and/or cuddling etc), that society's disapproval may be more of a negative influence than the relationship itself, that children are more sexual than we like to think, and that the studies done use unrepresentative samples and lack strong empirical foundation.

Keep It Real wrote:imo Fallible and Thomas Eshuis, you're paedophilia enablers, both of you. You say they think paedophilia is deeply wrong, yet they do it anyway. They need be disabused of this notion. You should be sanctioned by the board admin.

The mods' job is not to protect you from people pointing out that you are wrong.

Keep It Real wrote:

PensivePenny wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:imo Fallible and Thomas Eshuis, you're paedophilia enablers, both of you. You say they think paedophilia is deeply wrong, yet they do it anyway. They need be disabused of this notion. You should be sanctioned by the board admin.

My emphasis above. Do you know what an enabler is? An enabler "authorizes" one with some ability. Assuming that ability is pedophilia, you are in essence giving them the control to decide their actions. How the hell do you square that with your belief that we have no control over our actions? No one can enable anyone if you believe man has no control over his actions. Selective determinism? Wishy washy determinism? Pick a side... you can't play for both teams.

They are behaving unethically imo. Providing an environmental influence which says "it's ok to be a paedophile". They didn't decide this course of action; they are merely misguided. or do you take issue with the word misguided perchance?

You've been repeatedly corrected on this simplified misrepresentation. Why do you persist in regurgitating it?

Keep It Real wrote:imo Fallible and Thomas Eshuis, you're paedophilia enablers, both of you. You say they think paedophilia is deeply wrong, yet they do it anyway. They need be disabused of this notion. You should be sanctioned by the board admin.

And there it is. My post hinted at, and I should have done more than hint, the nature of this beast in the modern mind being such that no one can talk freely about it unless talking about torches and pitchforks, crime and punishment. Thank you for illustrating this for me.

But fuck. Just fucking WOW! You actually said this out loud on a forum devoted to reason.

Keep It Real wrote:

PensivePenny wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:imo Fallible and Thomas Eshuis, you're paedophilia enablers, both of you. You say they think paedophilia is deeply wrong, yet they do it anyway. They need be disabused of this notion. You should be sanctioned by the board admin.

My emphasis above. Do you know what an enabler is? An enabler "authorizes" one with some ability. Assuming that ability is pedophilia, you are in essence giving them the control to decide their actions. How the hell do you square that with your belief that we have no control over our actions? No one can enable anyone if you believe man has no control over his actions. Selective determinism? Wishy washy determinism? Pick a side... you can't play for both teams.

They are behaving unethically imo. Providing an environmental influence which says "it's ok to be a paedophile". They didn't decide this course of action; they are merely misguided. or do you take issue with the word misguided perchance?

It isn't the "misguided" with which I take exception... it's the "unethically" which doesn't seem to fit. I mean, I won't argue ethics here, but I don't see how ethics fits into the whole "we are robots" world view. How do robots acquire ethics? How do they know right from wrong? And then, choose to be something different than what they are. I just think you're being disingenuous with this whole "we have no control" thing. It's fine when it applies to you but apparently it doesn't apply to others whom YOU'VE DECIDED doesn't meet your expectations of "good."

Keep It Real wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:So why wouldn't you be friends with a pedophile? If it's an incurable birth condition then we have a handicapped individual and I see no reason to stand in judgement. If it is, as I think, an addictive paraphilia concerning forbidden things, then it's a condition or sickness and again I see no reason to judge.

Every paedophile I've come across acts like they think there's nothing wrong with paedophilia. I think they're monstrous because of this opinion - it gives me the creeps, and I am not friends with the horrors.

Here you illustrate another problem with our reasoning in general. If you watch enough Law&Order SUV and Nancy Face you start to think you know things. I have never met a pedophile. I talked to one guy as part of a research project that did ten years for making out with an eleven year old. And yes, he creeped me the fuck out due his lack of feeling that he did anything wrong. But then he had just done ten years and was living in a shack in Florida and couldn't get a job due his crime. So I kind of took his bitterness with a grain of salt.

What I did not do is project his personality onto knowledge of an entire class of people as a result of a twenty minute phone call.

Archibald

that society's disapproval may be more of a negative influence than the relationship itself, that children are more sexual than we like to think,

You need to explore that in the other thread about sexual repression....I think the door is opened to predators as kids are affection starved and curious with no outlet.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... 53680.html

PensivePenny wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:

PensivePenny wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:imo Fallible and Thomas Eshuis, you're paedophilia enablers, both of you. You say they think paedophilia is deeply wrong, yet they do it anyway. They need be disabused of this notion. You should be sanctioned by the board admin.

My emphasis above. Do you know what an enabler is? An enabler "authorizes" one with some ability. Assuming that ability is pedophilia, you are in essence giving them the control to decide their actions. How the hell do you square that with your belief that we have no control over our actions? No one can enable anyone if you believe man has no control over his actions. Selective determinism? Wishy washy determinism? Pick a side... you can't play for both teams.

They are behaving unethically imo. Providing an environmental influence which says "it's ok to be a paedophile". They didn't decide this course of action; they are merely misguided. or do you take issue with the word misguided perchance?

It isn't the "misguided" with which I take exception... it's the "unethically" which doesn't seem to fit. I mean, I won't argue ethics here, but I don't see how ethics fits into the whole "we are robots" world view. How do robots acquire ethics? How do they know right from wrong? And then, choose to be something different than what they are. I just think you're being disingenuous with this whole "we have no control" thing. It's fine when it applies to you but apparently it doesn't apply to others whom YOU'VE DECIDED doesn't meet your expectations of "good."

You are arguing that paedophilia isn't necessarliy unethical? I don't like you anymore, PensivePenny.

Macdoc wrote:Archibald

that society's disapproval may be more of a negative influence than the relationship itself, that children are more sexual than we like to think,

You need to explore that in the other thread about sexual repression....I think the door is opened to predators as kids are affection starved and curious with no outlet.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... 53680.html

To be perfectly honest, I'm not arguing a position I'd like to have to defend. At the end of the day.

archibald wrote:I have read that some pedophiles report not understanding why society thinks what they do is wrong.

"Shocking as that may be to those who don’t share their sexual attraction to children, this is why one serial sex offender told me he offends. He understands that society deems what he did was wrong, but he can’t understand why this is the case."
http://theconversation.com/psychology-o ... dren-59991

I have met few criminals who think they have done anything wrong. I still doubt that amounts to all criminals or even most criminals. In AA every week I meet a few driving under the influence people and almost without exception they have some excuse about why they shouldn't have to go through the system. After about a year the one's that sober up are stripped of these claims.

So that isn't surprising. If you have someone who is in the criminal justice system they are going to spend most of their time explaining why they shouldn't be. On pedophiles in general, if there is such a thing, you wont hear from them at all unless they fall into the criminal subset.

However! There is a recent documentary, British, where they interview a few of these. Think it's on Netflix.

Keep It Real wrote:

PensivePenny wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:imo Fallible and Thomas Eshuis, you're paedophilia enablers, both of you. You say they think paedophilia is deeply wrong, yet they do it anyway. They need be disabused of this notion. You should be sanctioned by the board admin.

My emphasis above. Do you know what an enabler is? An enabler "authorizes" one with some ability. Assuming that ability is pedophilia, you are in essence giving them the control to decide their actions. How the hell do you square that with your belief that we have no control over our actions? No one can enable anyone if you believe man has no control over his actions. Selective determinism? Wishy washy determinism? Pick a side... you can't play for both teams.

They are behaving unethically imo. Providing an environmental influence which says "it's ok to be a paedophile". They didn't decide this course of action; they are merely misguided. or do you take issue with the word misguided perchance?

'You are misguided, my child, but worry not. I will show you the way to righteousness'. OK, Vicar.

I'm sure anything you advise from your lofty position of having exchanged a few pixels with as many as two whole possible paedophiles must be right.

archibald wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:Archibald - I would say it's all paedophiles. Deep down.

That's gotta be unlikely and a guess, surely? For almost every state of mind there are wide varieties in the population.

It's all pedophiles, all the way down.

archibald wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:Archibald - I would say it's all paedophiles. Deep down.

That's gotta be unlikely and a guess, surely? For almost every state of mind there are wide varieties in the population.

It's all pedophiles, all the way down.

SpeedOfSound wrote:However! There is a recent documentary, British, where they interview a few of these. Think it's on Netflix.

I do wonder if it is possible that we overreact to it nowadays. That probably sounds heretical. On the other hand, they are probably driven underground. I think I read once about a scheme in Germany where they could get confidential advice and therapy without the contact person having to report on them.

I think some people participating in this thread were recently inquiring elsewhere about what "virtue signalling" is. They need look no further beyond KIR's contribution to this topic. Entirely concerned with making sure everyone knows he is more "anti-paedophile" than everyone else; entirely unconcerned with actually decreasing the incidence of kiddy fiddling.

archibald wrote:

Fallible wrote:Physical harm to the child, lack of bodily autonomy, lack of social and sexual awareness?

Yes, that seems obvious. But I want to be controversial. Some people have questioned whether it is necessarily harmful, that it depends on exactly what takes place (eg affection, nurturing and/or cuddling etc), that society's disapproval may be more of a negative influence than the relationship itself, that children are more sexual than we like to think, and that the studies done use unrepresentative samples and lack strong empirical foundation.

Ok, some people have uestioned some stuff.

...

And soooo...

...




Incidentally, my letter after P in the alphabet isn't working and I'm tired of copy and pasting it. Soz.

Keep It Real wrote:
You are arguing that paedophilia isn't necessarliy unethical? I don't like you anymore, PensivePenny.

I can live with that...

Don't make this about whether pedophilia is ethical or not... it's irrelevant to my argument. My argument is that you, an individual are using some kind of voodoo to determine what is and isn't acceptable behavior. If you want to believe you have no control of your actions, what gives YOU the fucking right to demand others control THEIR lives. The sword cuts both ways.

I'm a moral nihilist as far as that is concerned... I don't believe in objective ethics. Then again, neither should a robot.

However, that doesn't mean I wouldn't incinerate every pedophile on Earth. It also doesn't mean I would. It would just be an action I did because I chose it.

Nicko wrote:I think some people participating in this thread were recently inquiring elsewhere about what "virtue signalling" is. They need look no further beyond KIR's contribution to this topic. Entirely concerned with making sure everyone knows he is more "anti-paedophile" than everyone else; entirely unconcerned with actually decreasing the incidence of kiddy fiddling.

Fucking bullshit Nicko. And fuck you too, for good measure.