Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

[Fallible]

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

[Thomas Eshuis]

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.

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.

[The_Metatron]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

...

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?

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.

[Keep It Real]

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.

[Fallible]

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.

[Thomas Eshuis]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

...


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?

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.

[PensivePenny]

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".

[The_Metatron]

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.

[CdesignProponentsist]

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.

[Keep It Real]

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.

[The_Metatron]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

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?

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?

[Fallible]

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.

[CdesignProponentsist]

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

[Thomas Eshuis]

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.

[Fallible]

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.

[Thomas Eshuis]

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

KIR seems to unable to distinguish between the two.

[PensivePenny]

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>?

[Fallible]

Quite.

[The_Metatron]

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:

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.

[Keep It Real]

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.