Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

Anthropology, Economics, History, Sociology etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Eric Pepke

#21  Postby Fallible » Dec 13, 2016 10:09 pm

Why would you hate someone when they hadn't done anything wrong?
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 49
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#22  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 13, 2016 10:10 pm

Keep It Real wrote:That they're completely wrong in the head?

So what? They're not harming anyone, except potentially the person having them.
And they can't help it.
We help people like that, we don't persecute them.

Keep It Real wrote:Imagine a racist who would never act on their racism. Would they be ok or would you have hatred for them?

At worst I would pity them, that they're stuck with such an irrational and negative view.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 32
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#23  Postby The_Metatron » Dec 13, 2016 10:12 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
The_Metatron wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:...

The_Metatron wrote:
Oh, but wait. Didn't you just say that was thought police? Just because those child pornographers have these fantasies, it doesn't mean they are going to act on them? Is that what you are saying?

But they are acting on them. They are producing child pornopgraphy ffs.

...

No, all we know is that they produced them.

Please explain how your answer is anything but an affirmation of the point you quoted?
IOW why start your answer with "No" if you're going to affirm what I already said?

The_Metatron wrote:So, what you're really saying here is that once a person has done a thing, they are certain to do it again, right?

No what I am pointing out, is that a buisiness can't thrive if they have no paying customers.

Nor can that business thrive unless those people who did the business, thinking it was an acceptable thing to do, decide to do it again.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21443
Age: 59
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#24  Postby Keep It Real » Dec 13, 2016 10:13 pm

Fallible wrote:Why would you hate someone when they hadn't done anything wrong?


I hate paintings that haven't done anything wrong. I hate tripe. Anyway, they are wrong in the head because they think racism is ok and right.
Dinosaurs = atheism
User avatar
Keep It Real
Banned User
 
Posts: 9341
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#25  Postby Fallible » Dec 13, 2016 10:16 pm

Why the fuck would you hate a painting? Not liking it I get. Hating it? And are you saying you hate it in the same way you hate genocide or whatever? 'Wrong in the head' is a colloquialism, but I guess what you're saying is they're mentally ill, and then that it's OK to hate someone who's mentally ill. Interesting position for you to take.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 49
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#26  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 13, 2016 10:17 pm

The_Metatron wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
The_Metatron wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:...


But they are acting on them. They are producing child pornopgraphy ffs.

...

No, all we know is that they produced them.

Please explain how your answer is anything but an affirmation of the point you quoted?
IOW why start your answer with "No" if you're going to affirm what I already said?

The_Metatron wrote:So, what you're really saying here is that once a person has done a thing, they are certain to do it again, right?

No what I am pointing out, is that a buisiness can't thrive if they have no paying customers.

Nor can that business thrive unless those people who did the business, thinking it was an acceptable thing to do, decide to do it again.

Still does not change the fact that paedophelia =/= thinking child pornography is normal or acceptable.
You're still conflating individual instances of actions with a sexual attraction.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 32
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#27  Postby PensivePenny » Dec 13, 2016 10:19 pm

Keep It Real wrote:That they're completely wrong in the head? Imagine a racist who would never act on their racism. Would they be ok or would you have hatred for them?


Who gets to say what is "wrong thinking?" Assuming, of course, you can know what someone thinks "in the head".
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 59
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#28  Postby The_Metatron » Dec 13, 2016 10:22 pm

Fallible wrote:Well, I don't think I believe you. You've already expressed a willingness to kill someone for thinking the wrong thing.

"... the wrong thing" eh? That's all that is to you? Wrong? To me, it's pretty fucking far from just "wrong".

I mentioned earlier in this thread that I have bias on this topic, didn't I?

If someone demonstrated, in my presence, that they got sexual gratification from naked, half burnt, nine year old girls, they would find themselves in grave danger.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21443
Age: 59
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#29  Postby CdesignProponentsist » Dec 13, 2016 10:26 pm

Keep It Real wrote:That they're completely wrong in the head? Imagine a racist who would never act on their racism. Would they be ok or would you have hatred for them?


That is a definition of a good person. One who acts in a socially acceptable and inclusive way despite holding ideas or feelings of racial superiority.

It is funny that you used this example as this is an known psychological phenomenon. It is called Implicit Bias. You are almost certainly racist at some level subconsciously. It is ubiquitous in a society and good people understand how to not fall into its trap.

All good people have bad thoughts. Its what they do with them (or not) that makes them good people.
"Things don't need to be true, as long as they are believed" - Alexander Nix, CEO Cambridge Analytica
User avatar
CdesignProponentsist
 
Posts: 12710
Age: 55
Male

Country: California
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#30  Postby Keep It Real » Dec 13, 2016 10:28 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Keep It Real wrote:That they're completely wrong in the head?

So what? They're not harming anyone, except potentially the person having them.
And they can't help it.
We help people like that, we don't persecute them.


You're right, they can't help it, and your arguments here that the fantasies are ok does nothing to help them. On the contrary - it validates their way of thinking. My arguments that paedophilic fantasies are in fact rape fantasies and as such abhorrent could help. If you want to help, say that paedophilic fantasies are rape fantasies. At least most people think rape fantasies are fucked up. Everybody can assimilate new information and adjust their thoughts accordingly. Or do you think once a paedophilic fantasiser always a paedophilic fantasiser? Do the right thing, young thomas.
Dinosaurs = atheism
User avatar
Keep It Real
Banned User
 
Posts: 9341
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#31  Postby The_Metatron » Dec 13, 2016 10:32 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
The_Metatron wrote:
No, all we know is that they produced them.

Please explain how your answer is anything but an affirmation of the point you quoted?
IOW why start your answer with "No" if you're going to affirm what I already said?

The_Metatron wrote:So, what you're really saying here is that once a person has done a thing, they are certain to do it again, right?

No what I am pointing out, is that a buisiness can't thrive if they have no paying customers.

Nor can that business thrive unless those people who did the business, thinking it was an acceptable thing to do, decide to do it again.

Still does not change the fact that paedophelia =/= thinking child pornography is normal or acceptable.
You're still conflating individual instances of actions with a sexual attraction.

Because the one so rarely leads to the other, is that what you're claiming?

If I assume you are a typical heterosexual, are you going to tell me you aren't going to act on that attraction? In fact, what could possibly stop you from trying? Unless I'm missing something here, sex is pretty much one of the two main motivators for pleasure. The other is eating. Biological imperative, and all that.

If I judge a pedophile's sexual attraction to have anywhere near the same imperative as my sexual attraction to adult females, there is almost no way they are going to fail to act on it, given the opportunity to do so. As with others, some will take an opportunity to do so.

Or, are you telling us here that pedophilia is sex drive lite? They want to fuck kids, but not that much?
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21443
Age: 59
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#32  Postby Fallible » Dec 13, 2016 10:33 pm

The_Metatron wrote:
Fallible wrote:Well, I don't think I believe you. You've already expressed a willingness to kill someone for thinking the wrong thing.

"... the wrong thing" eh? That's all that is to you? Wrong? To me, it's pretty fucking far from just "wrong".


So what? You know, for me, expressing a willingness to merc someone because they were fantasising in their own head is pretty fucking far from just wrong too. Is there any reason why I shouldn't just see you at least in the same light as the original fantasist? He's only got thoughts. You're willing to convert yours into action, and willing to let people know that. And yet you were telling me that no thought you had comes even close. I beg to differ.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that I have bias on this topic, didn't I?


Yes, you did. Again, so what? Is this supposed to grant you some kind of privilege?

If someone demonstrated, in my presence, that they got sexual gratification from naked, half burnt, nine year old girls, they would find themselves in grave danger.


Now you're shifting the goal posts, but it's still something which would class as unacceptable.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 49
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#33  Postby CdesignProponentsist » Dec 13, 2016 10:33 pm

Keep It Real wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Keep It Real wrote:That they're completely wrong in the head?

So what? They're not harming anyone, except potentially the person having them.
And they can't help it.
We help people like that, we don't persecute them.


You're right, they can't help it, and your arguments here that the fantasies are ok does nothing to help them. On the contrary - it validates their way of thinking. My arguments that paedophilic fantasies are in fact rape fantasies and as such abhorrent could help. If you want to help, say that paedophilic fantasies are rape fantasies. At least most people think rape fantasies are fucked up. Everybody can assimilate new information and adjust their thoughts accordingly. Or do you think once a paedophilic fantasiser always a paedophilic fantasiser? Do the right thing, young thomas.


Are you aware that many studies have shown that rape fantasies are the second most common sexual fantasy and the most common among women. They are common and normal. They are not abhorrent to the majority people who understand the difference between the fantasy and the actual act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_fantasy
"Things don't need to be true, as long as they are believed" - Alexander Nix, CEO Cambridge Analytica
User avatar
CdesignProponentsist
 
Posts: 12710
Age: 55
Male

Country: California
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#34  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 13, 2016 10:38 pm

Keep It Real wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Keep It Real wrote:That they're completely wrong in the head?

So what? They're not harming anyone, except potentially the person having them.
And they can't help it.
We help people like that, we don't persecute them.


You're right, they can't help it, and your arguments here that the fantasies are ok does nothing to help them.

I said nothing of the sort KIR.
Please adress what I actually post, rather than straw-men.
I said the thoughts themselves do not harm anyone beyond the person who has them.
It's when someone acts on those thoughts that they become externally harmful.

My arguments that paedophilic fantasies are in fact rape fantasies and as such abhorrent could help.

There's a difference between pointing out that acting on their fantasies is harmful and illegal, and dismissing entire individuals as scum for the uncontrollable thoughts they have.


If you want to help, say that paedophilic fantasies are rape fantasies. At least most people think rape fantasies are fucked up.

Personal feelings are irrelevant. Raping children is demonstrably harmful and (therefore) illegal.
Having uncontrollable thoughts about it is not, nor should it be.

Everybody can assimilate new information and adjust their thoughts accordingly. Or do you think once a paedophilic fantasiser always a paedophilic fantasiser? Do the right thing, young thomas.

Firstly you can stuff the condescending ageism.
Secondly, yes, there's no evidence to suggest paedophelia can be cured, especially not through force of will or moral arguments.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 32
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#35  Postby Fallible » Dec 13, 2016 10:39 pm

Anyway, if you think you don't have abhorrent thoughts, you're not paying enough attention. Our minds go down all sorts of dark alleys. A lot of the time they pass straight through, and we can calm ourselves with the notion that we're 'normal' again.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 49
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#36  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 13, 2016 10:40 pm

CdesignProponentsist wrote:
Keep It Real wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Keep It Real wrote:That they're completely wrong in the head?

So what? They're not harming anyone, except potentially the person having them.
And they can't help it.
We help people like that, we don't persecute them.


You're right, they can't help it, and your arguments here that the fantasies are ok does nothing to help them. On the contrary - it validates their way of thinking. My arguments that paedophilic fantasies are in fact rape fantasies and as such abhorrent could help. If you want to help, say that paedophilic fantasies are rape fantasies. At least most people think rape fantasies are fucked up. Everybody can assimilate new information and adjust their thoughts accordingly. Or do you think once a paedophilic fantasiser always a paedophilic fantasiser? Do the right thing, young thomas.


Are you aware that many studies have shown that rape fantasies are the second most common sexual fantasy and the most common among women. They are common and normal. They are not abhorrent to the majority people who understand the difference between the fantasy and the actual act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_fantasy

:this:
KIR seems to unable to distinguish between the two.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 32
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#37  Postby PensivePenny » Dec 13, 2016 10:40 pm

The_Metatron wrote:
If I judge a pedophile's sexual attraction to have anywhere near the same imperative as my sexual attraction to adult females,

That's probably fair, I would imagine.

there is almost no way they are going to fail to act on it, given the opportunity to do so.


So, if you couldn't get a woman to consent to sex, you would act on it <edit anyway>?
Last edited by PensivePenny on Dec 13, 2016 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 59
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#38  Postby Fallible » Dec 13, 2016 10:41 pm

Quite.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 49
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#39  Postby The_Metatron » Dec 13, 2016 10:43 pm

Fallible wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:
Fallible wrote:Well, I don't think I believe you. You've already expressed a willingness to kill someone for thinking the wrong thing.

"... the wrong thing" eh? That's all that is to you? Wrong? To me, it's pretty fucking far from just "wrong".


So what? You know, for me, expressing a willingness to merc someone because they were fantasising in their own head ...

You know I'm pretty good with using words. I am perfectly capable of writing the words that would portray exactly what you just wrote. But, I didn't, did I? I wrote this:

The_Metatron wrote:Alternatively, if some motherfucker actually exists that gets sexual gratification from seeing a photo of a naked girl with half her skin burnt off, I will volunteer to remove the burden of further existence from said motherfucker.

Now, if you insist that I meant "to fantasize", feel free. You should be aware that isn't what I wrote, though, because it isn't what I meant. I'm betting you know that, too.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21443
Age: 59
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#40  Postby Keep It Real » Dec 13, 2016 10:45 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:
If I judge a pedophile's sexual attraction to have anywhere near the same imperative as my sexual attraction to adult females,

That's probably fair, I would imagine.

there is almost no way they are going to fail to act on it, given the opportunity to do so.


So, if you couldn't get a woman to consent to sex, you would act on it <edit anyway>?


AFAIK they think children can consent. Therein lies the wrongness.
Dinosaurs = atheism
User avatar
Keep It Real
Banned User
 
Posts: 9341
Age: 40

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Social Sciences & Humanities

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest