Posted: Dec 14, 2016 11:31 pm
The_Metatron wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:[Reveal] Spoiler:
No. It doesn't.
Not giving a person access to their addiction is not at all the same as persecuting someone for having an addiction in the first place.The_Metatron wrote:
You guys are having fun jumping on what I say, until you have to answer how you'd behave if it affected your own kids. Well then, all bets are off, aren't they?
No, you are increasingly posting in a dishonest manner misreprsenting not only our posts but the context of this thread in which they take place.The_Metatron wrote:
Like with Thomas, it appears we found your limit to pedophiles' self control, haven't we?
Nonsense.
Stop making shit up. I've now twice pointed out that I would not let anyone who I do not know well enough watch my children anyway. Not just because they might molest them.
And again, allowing paedophiles acces to children, or thiefs to someone else's valuables or pyromaniacs to flammable materials, is not at all analogous to persecuting people simply for having these attractions.
I'm fabricating nothing.
You are.
You keep conflating letting someone predilicted to children watch children, thereby bringing them in a compromising situation, with persecuting them merely for having those instinctual but not necessarily harmful attraction.
The_Metatron wrote:You just described your limit to the efficacy of empathy or propriety.
Horseshit, no matter how many times you disengenuously and counterfactually assert it.
The_Metatron wrote:
You trust it just fine until it's your kid at risk. Then suddenly, it isn't so preventive, is it?
It's a pathetic, dishonest straw-man, is what it is.