Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

Anthropology, Economics, History, Sociology etc.

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

#241  Postby Corneel » Dec 15, 2016 11:01 pm

zoon wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:
scott1328 wrote:
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.

This is you, Metatron, phantasizing about a vigilante execution for thought crime.

No more, no less.

Admit that it is rhetorical hyperbole, and we can all walk away from this nonsense.

I suppose there is an element of that too, Scott.

But, after reading all of this, how safe would you feel around me describing a fantasy you hold such as I've defined? You can't think that would be a good idea.

You know, the thing is, Fallible is dead right that I'm not unique in holding such thoughts. To what I object is the hypocrisy I see from others about it. Skinny Puppy illustrated it well, earlier. Fallible didn't deny it, either. Bring this scenario home, to where it may affect your own kids, and all bets are off.

I think the reason for making viewing of child pornography illegal is that actual children are being harmed in the making of the films, and one of the few ways of offering some protection to those children is to cut off the revenue which the filmmakers get. It's not about the evil thoughts of the viewers, if it was, then any number of books would be illegal, including Lolita and quantities of crime novels.

It's also the reason that the legal status of lolicon, shotacon or similar is a lot murkier and possession of such can meet either lighter or even no punishment at all (depending on jurisdiction).
"Damn it! Why am I arguing shit on the internet again!?"
"'cuz sometimes you just need a cumshot of stupid to the face?"

(from Something Positive)

The best movie theme ever

Ceterum censeo Praesidem Anguimanum esse demovendum
User avatar
Corneel
 
Posts: 1754
Age: 52
Male

Country: Mali
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

#242  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 15, 2016 11:12 pm

The_Metatron wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:...

Yours.
You repeatedly claim humans almost always act on their sexual attraction, as it they only operate on instinct and try to have sex with everyone who they're attracted to.

...

Prove this.

You fucking show where I said any of that highlighted bit and I'll resign from the forum.

Fail to prove it, and you do the same. I fuckin' dare you.

Put your fucking money where your mouth is.

First of all I've no interest in your schoolyard challenge. Especially since it's yet another example of you trying to avoid adressing my actualy points and arguments.

Secondly I've already repeatedly demonstrated that your line of reasoning not only implies this, but that at several points you've outright stated it.
Each time I did, you either snipped that part of my post, or blindly declared, without clarification, that it was not what you were saying.
And I'm not the only one, multiple people have pointed out that your argument hinges on the claim that people act on their sexual attraction most times, ie that they try to have sex with most people they're attracted to, regardless of consent.

Once again:
The first time you hint at this is with this more broad assertion:
The_Metatron wrote:
This topic wouldn't even fucking exist except for the plain truth that people tend to act on their fantasies.


Here SAM points it out as well:
SafeAsMilk wrote:

Yeah, no shit people do act on their fantasies. Also, just as obviously, many people don't. Your attempts to judge (and assertion you'd murder) people based on your assumption is very hypocritical. Cuz murder is an action, y'know. One you say you're more than willing to go out and do, not just fantasize about.



Here you again assert through comparison with the sex drive of non-paedophiles, that paedophiles are virtually guaranteed to act on their sex drive:
The_Metatron wrote:
Now, are you going to tell us that a pedophile's sexual attraction to children is any less imperative than yours? Or mine?

I doubt that it is, actually. In the same light that I have no doubt that homosexuals are as attracted to their own sex as I am to the opposite. With the same force.

Bearing that in mind, I see no reasonable expectation that pedophiles will not act on that drive. Just like you and I act on ours.

I already pointed out to you that as far as I am concerned and most people I know, that's bullshit.

And here Fallible makes the same point:
Fallible wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:
Bearing that in mind, I see no reasonable expectation that pedophiles will not act on that drive. Just like you and I act on ours.


This is such bollocks. For a start, there are any number of people who can't get a girlfriend or lack confidence, or who have certain convictions/beliefs, are celibate, or are in a relationship where the other party doesn't want sex, or are perhaps just incredibly picky, meaning that they live their lives without sex, despite having a definite sexual orientation. There are also those who are gay, but who for whatever reason don't feel comfortable with that, and who therefore have sex with members of the opposite sex instead. The vast majority of them don't go and rape somebody.

So you see, it's not just something I've invented out of thin air or a misrepresentation on my part. It's genuinly you either failing to clearly state your actual position or now trying to deny what you actually posted.

But let's continue: here you assert that people rarely do not act on their attraction:
The_Metatron wrote:Are you serious? Are you telling me that they won't? The existence of the species is pretty fucking solid evidence that yes, heterosexuals tend to act on their sexual attractions, don't they? Here we are.


Here you assert maany paedophiles won't be able to control their sexual behaviour, because most humans can't:
The_Metatron wrote:

There is little doubt that pedophiles exist who are able to control their urges. What I think you and Thomas don't want to face is the idea that many of them, or perhaps even most of them, will eventually fail in that endeavor. I base that estimate on the power that the drive for sex has on human behavior.




Here you again insinuate people cannot control their sex drive, by appealing to the failure of abstinence education.
The_Metatron wrote:
Yeah. It's controllable, sex drive. Sure.

I have two words for that controllability on which you depend: abstinence education.


Now go ahead, ignore it, blindly dismiss it out of hand or play incredibly transparent and disengenuous semantic games.
It will only serve to demonstrate you're not interested in an honest discussion.
"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: 34
Male

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

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

#243  Postby The_Metatron » Dec 15, 2016 11:35 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:...

Yours.
You repeatedly claim humans almost always act on their sexual attraction, as it they only operate on instinct and try to have sex with everyone who they're attracted to.

...

Prove this.

You fucking show where I said any of that highlighted bit and I'll resign from the forum.

Fail to prove it, and you do the same. I fuckin' dare you.

Put your fucking money where your mouth is.

First of all I've no interest in your schoolyard challenge. Especially since it's yet another example of you trying to avoid adressing my actualy points and arguments.

Yeah, that's what I fuckin' thought.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Secondly I've already repeatedly demonstrated that your line of reasoning not only implies this, but that at several points you've outright stated it.
Each time I did, you either snipped that part of my post, or blindly declared, without clarification, that it was not what you were saying.
And I'm not the only one, multiple people have pointed out that your argument hinges on the claim that people act on their sexual attraction most times, ie that they try to have sex with most people they're attracted to, regardless of consent.

Once again:
The first time you hint at this is with this more broad assertion:
The_Metatron wrote:This topic wouldn't even fucking exist except for the plain truth that people tend to act on their fantasies.


Here SAM points it out as well:
SafeAsMilk wrote:Yeah, no shit people do act on their fantasies. Also, just as obviously, many people don't. Your attempts to judge (and assertion you'd murder) people based on your assumption is very hypocritical. Cuz murder is an action, y'know. One you say you're more than willing to go out and do, not just fantasize about.

Here you again assert through comparison with the sex drive of non-paedophiles, that paedophiles are virtually guaranteed to act on their sex drive:
The_Metatron wrote:Now, are you going to tell us that a pedophile's sexual attraction to children is any less imperative than yours? Or mine?

I doubt that it is, actually. In the same light that I have no doubt that homosexuals are as attracted to their own sex as I am to the opposite. With the same force.

Bearing that in mind, I see no reasonable expectation that pedophiles will not act on that drive. Just like you and I act on ours.

I already pointed out to you that as far as I am concerned and most people I know, that's bullshit.

And here Fallible makes the same point:
Fallible wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:Bearing that in mind, I see no reasonable expectation that pedophiles will not act on that drive. Just like you and I act on ours.


This is such bollocks. For a start, there are any number of people who can't get a girlfriend or lack confidence, or who have certain convictions/beliefs, are celibate, or are in a relationship where the other party doesn't want sex, or are perhaps just incredibly picky, meaning that they live their lives without sex, despite having a definite sexual orientation. There are also those who are gay, but who for whatever reason don't feel comfortable with that, and who therefore have sex with members of the opposite sex instead. The vast majority of them don't go and rape somebody.

So you see, it's not just something I've invented out of thin air or a misrepresentation on my part. It's genuinly you either failing to clearly state your actual position or now trying to deny what you actually posted.

But let's continue: here you assert that people rarely do not act on their attraction:
The_Metatron wrote:Are you serious? Are you telling me that they won't? The existence of the species is pretty fucking solid evidence that yes, heterosexuals tend to act on their sexual attractions, don't they? Here we are.

Here you assert maany paedophiles won't be able to control their sexual behaviour, because most humans can't:
The_Metatron wrote:There is little doubt that pedophiles exist who are able to control their urges. What I think you and Thomas don't want to face is the idea that many of them, or perhaps even most of them, will eventually fail in that endeavor. I base that estimate on the power that the drive for sex has on human behavior.

Here you again insinuate people cannot control their sex drive, by appealing to the failure of abstinence education.
The_Metatron wrote:Yeah. It's controllable, sex drive. Sure.

I have two words for that controllability on which you depend: abstinence education.

Now go ahead, ignore it, blindly dismiss it out of hand or play incredibly transparent and disengenuous semantic games.
It will only serve to demonstrate you're not interested in an honest discussion.

What you were seeking and could not produce, was anything I wrote that said that people "operate on instinct and try to have sex with everyone who they're attracted to".

I will take this one last opportunity to help you understand. I am going to replace the drive for sex with something else in the quotes of mine above:

This topic wouldn't even fucking exist except for the plain truth that people tend to act on their hunger.

Bearing that in mind, I see no reasonable expectation that pedophiles will not act on hunger. Just like you and I act on ours.

Are you serious? Are you telling me that they won't? The existence of the species is pretty fucking solid evidence that yes, heterosexuals tend to act on their hunger, don't they? Here we are.

Do you get the point, yet? None of that in any way says or implies that anyone, anywhere is going to eat everything they see.

I'm not going to repeat this: you either produce the quotes of me writing those things, or drop it. I don't have to tolerate such misrepresentation. Those words are your inferences. Accept that, and this ends.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 22400
Age: 60
Male

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

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

#244  Postby jamest » Dec 16, 2016 12:00 am

It's very frustrating to view this debate. On the one hand you have the view that people with abhorrent mindsets should be murdered. On the other, the view seems to be that abhorrent mindsets are okay unless acted upon.

How about a third view: that abhorrent mindsets are not really okay, and that most human mindsets are abhorrent (including and especially the view espoused by The Metatron, here), but that through a process of experience & education - as opposed to killing everyone who gets on our tits - we will eventually, in a few millennia, get it right?

I don't want to be controversial, but for me personally (and I have a 10 year-old daughter) the paranoia surrounding paedophilia is utterly extreme. I mean, think about it, Eric Pepke has been given an 8 year prison sentence (I think) for looking at pictures. Not for trying to have sex with a child, nor even having sex with a child. I mean, if you put this example into any other criminal context, it simply doesn't make sense. 8 years, for looking at photos? C'mon, seriously. This is the 21st century equivalent of The Inquisition, in my opinion, or of the communist McCarthy witch-hunts. It's that fucking ridiculous.

The Metatron implies that we're better-off leaving our kids with people who will kill anyone whose views are abhorrent. If I'm sure of anything here, that view is the sickest thing I've ever heard. Ever. But, because of this please don't get the incorrect impression that I'm okay with Eric wanting to look at pictures of children for the sake of his own sexual fantasies.

The hardest thing in the world these days is to make a considered stand against paedophilia witch-hunting. The hardest thing in the world for paedophilia witch-hunters to understand, is that they've lost the plot.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
 
Posts: 18932
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

#245  Postby The_Metatron » Dec 16, 2016 12:17 am

jamest wrote:It's very frustrating to view this debate. On the one hand you have the view that people with abhorrent mindsets should be murdered. On the other, the view seems to be that abhorrent mindsets are okay unless acted upon.

How about a third view: that abhorrent mindsets are not really okay, and that most human mindsets are abhorrent (including and especially the view espoused by The Metatron, here), but that through a process of experience & education - as opposed to killing everyone who gets on our tits - we will eventually, in a few millennia, get it right?

I don't want to be controversial, but for me personally (and I have a 10 year-old daughter) the paranoia surrounding paedophilia is utterly extreme. I mean, think about it, Eric Pepke has been given an 8 year prison sentence (I think) for looking at pictures. Not for trying to have sex with a child, nor even having sex with a child. I mean, if you put this example into any other criminal context, it simply doesn't make sense. 8 years, for looking at photos? C'mon, seriously. This is the 21st century equivalent of The Inquisition, in my opinion, or of the communist McCarthy witch-hunts. It's that fucking ridiculous.

The Metatron implies that we're better-off leaving our kids with people who will kill anyone whose views are abhorrent. If I'm sure of anything here, that view is the sickest thing I've ever heard. Ever. But, because of this please don't get the incorrect impression that I'm okay with Eric wanting to look at pictures of children for the sake of his own sexual fantasies.

The hardest thing in the world these days is to make a considered stand against paedophilia witch-hunting. The hardest thing in the world for paedophilia witch-hunters to understand, is that they've lost the plot.

I'm going to tell you the same fucking thing I told Thomas: You show where I said those things, or drop them.

Scott identified a level of hyperbole in what I wrote, but that considered, I was pretty goddamned specific in it. Stick to criticizing what I wrote if you feel the need, not what you would like to think I wrote.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 22400
Age: 60
Male

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

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

#246  Postby jamest » Dec 16, 2016 12:20 am

The_Metatron wrote:
jamest wrote:It's very frustrating to view this debate. On the one hand you have the view that people with abhorrent mindsets should be murdered. On the other, the view seems to be that abhorrent mindsets are okay unless acted upon.

How about a third view: that abhorrent mindsets are not really okay, and that most human mindsets are abhorrent (including and especially the view espoused by The Metatron, here), but that through a process of experience & education - as opposed to killing everyone who gets on our tits - we will eventually, in a few millennia, get it right?

I don't want to be controversial, but for me personally (and I have a 10 year-old daughter) the paranoia surrounding paedophilia is utterly extreme. I mean, think about it, Eric Pepke has been given an 8 year prison sentence (I think) for looking at pictures. Not for trying to have sex with a child, nor even having sex with a child. I mean, if you put this example into any other criminal context, it simply doesn't make sense. 8 years, for looking at photos? C'mon, seriously. This is the 21st century equivalent of The Inquisition, in my opinion, or of the communist McCarthy witch-hunts. It's that fucking ridiculous.

The Metatron implies that we're better-off leaving our kids with people who will kill anyone whose views are abhorrent. If I'm sure of anything here, that view is the sickest thing I've ever heard. Ever. But, because of this please don't get the incorrect impression that I'm okay with Eric wanting to look at pictures of children for the sake of his own sexual fantasies.

The hardest thing in the world these days is to make a considered stand against paedophilia witch-hunting. The hardest thing in the world for paedophilia witch-hunters to understand, is that they've lost the plot.

I'm going to tell you the same fucking thing I told Thomas: You show where I said those things, or drop them.

Scott identified a level of hyperbole in what I wrote, but that considered, I was pretty goddamned specific in it. Stick to criticizing what I wrote if you feel the need, not what you would like to think I wrote.

I feel it is quite evident from what you've written that you'd have "no problem" killing someone for getting his rocks off looking at the 'right' photos. Do you really want me to waste my time fishing the appropriate quotes? Because you have been very forthright, to be honest.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
 
Posts: 18932
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

#247  Postby The_Metatron » Dec 16, 2016 12:26 am

jamest wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:
jamest wrote:It's very frustrating to view this debate. On the one hand you have the view that people with abhorrent mindsets should be murdered. On the other, the view seems to be that abhorrent mindsets are okay unless acted upon.

How about a third view: that abhorrent mindsets are not really okay, and that most human mindsets are abhorrent (including and especially the view espoused by The Metatron, here), but that through a process of experience & education - as opposed to killing everyone who gets on our tits - we will eventually, in a few millennia, get it right?

I don't want to be controversial, but for me personally (and I have a 10 year-old daughter) the paranoia surrounding paedophilia is utterly extreme. I mean, think about it, Eric Pepke has been given an 8 year prison sentence (I think) for looking at pictures. Not for trying to have sex with a child, nor even having sex with a child. I mean, if you put this example into any other criminal context, it simply doesn't make sense. 8 years, for looking at photos? C'mon, seriously. This is the 21st century equivalent of The Inquisition, in my opinion, or of the communist McCarthy witch-hunts. It's that fucking ridiculous.

The Metatron implies that we're better-off leaving our kids with people who will kill anyone whose views are abhorrent. If I'm sure of anything here, that view is the sickest thing I've ever heard. Ever. But, because of this please don't get the incorrect impression that I'm okay with Eric wanting to look at pictures of children for the sake of his own sexual fantasies.

The hardest thing in the world these days is to make a considered stand against paedophilia witch-hunting. The hardest thing in the world for paedophilia witch-hunters to understand, is that they've lost the plot.

I'm going to tell you the same fucking thing I told Thomas: You show where I said those things, or drop them.

Scott identified a level of hyperbole in what I wrote, but that considered, I was pretty goddamned specific in it. Stick to criticizing what I wrote if you feel the need, not what you would like to think I wrote.

I feel it is quite evident from what you've written that you'd have "no problem" killing someone for getting his rocks off looking at the 'right' photos. Do you really want me to waste my time fishing the appropriate quotes? Because you have been very forthright, to be honest.

You're goddamned right I do. I have been forthright, and rather specific, too.

People start making up what they like and attribute it to me, then expect me to answer to that.

This is exactly why we have a rule prohibiting misrepresentation.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 22400
Age: 60
Male

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

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

#248  Postby jamest » Dec 16, 2016 12:29 am

The_Metatron wrote:
You're goddamned right I do. I have been forthright, and rather specific, too.

People start making up what they like and attribute it to me, then expect me to answer to that.

This is exactly why we have a rule prohibiting misrepresentation.

Okay, you deserve that. Bear in mind that it's after midnight here, so gimme some time.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
 
Posts: 18932
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

#249  Postby EricPepke'sFriend » Dec 16, 2016 2:11 am

jamest wrote:It's very frustrating to view this debate. On the one hand you have the view that people with abhorrent mindsets should be murdered. On the other, the view seems to be that abhorrent mindsets are okay unless acted upon.

How about a third view: that abhorrent mindsets are not really okay, and that most human mindsets are abhorrent (including and especially the view espoused by The Metatron, here), but that through a process of experience & education - as opposed to killing everyone who gets on our tits - we will eventually, in a few millennia, get it right?

I don't want to be controversial, but for me personally (and I have a 10 year-old daughter) the paranoia surrounding paedophilia is utterly extreme. I mean, think about it, Eric Pepke has been given an 8 year prison sentence (I think) for looking at pictures. Not for trying to have sex with a child, nor even having sex with a child. I mean, if you put this example into any other criminal context, it simply doesn't make sense. 8 years, for looking at photos? C'mon, seriously. This is the 21st century equivalent of The Inquisition, in my opinion, or of the communist McCarthy witch-hunts. It's that fucking ridiculous.

The Metatron implies that we're better-off leaving our kids with people who will kill anyone whose views are abhorrent. If I'm sure of anything here, that view is the sickest thing I've ever heard. Ever. But, because of this please don't get the incorrect impression that I'm okay with Eric wanting to look at pictures of children for the sake of his own sexual fantasies.

The hardest thing in the world these days is to make a considered stand against paedophilia witch-hunting. The hardest thing in the world for paedophilia witch-hunters to understand, is that they've lost the plot.


Here is a quick comparison of justice. Eric Pepke is currently serving a 97 month sentence for receiving a photograph. Rich and well-connected Jeffrey Epstein served 13 months for soliciting a 13 year old and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Read about Jeffrey Epstein on Wikipedia and tell me if there was a miscarriage of justice somewhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein
EricPepke'sFriend
 
Name: Barbara Gotsopoulos
Posts: 31

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

#250  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 16, 2016 8:43 am

The_Metatron wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:...

Yours.
You repeatedly claim humans almost always act on their sexual attraction, as it they only operate on instinct and try to have sex with everyone who they're attracted to.

...

Prove this.

You fucking show where I said any of that highlighted bit and I'll resign from the forum.

Fail to prove it, and you do the same. I fuckin' dare you.

Put your fucking money where your mouth is.

First of all I've no interest in your schoolyard challenge. Especially since it's yet another example of you trying to avoid adressing my actualy points and arguments.

Yeah, that's what I fuckin' thought.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Secondly I've already repeatedly demonstrated that your line of reasoning not only implies this, but that at several points you've outright stated it.
Each time I did, you either snipped that part of my post, or blindly declared, without clarification, that it was not what you were saying.
And I'm not the only one, multiple people have pointed out that your argument hinges on the claim that people act on their sexual attraction most times, ie that they try to have sex with most people they're attracted to, regardless of consent.

Once again:
The first time you hint at this is with this more broad assertion:
The_Metatron wrote:This topic wouldn't even fucking exist except for the plain truth that people tend to act on their fantasies.


Here SAM points it out as well:
SafeAsMilk wrote:Yeah, no shit people do act on their fantasies. Also, just as obviously, many people don't. Your attempts to judge (and assertion you'd murder) people based on your assumption is very hypocritical. Cuz murder is an action, y'know. One you say you're more than willing to go out and do, not just fantasize about.

Here you again assert through comparison with the sex drive of non-paedophiles, that paedophiles are virtually guaranteed to act on their sex drive:
The_Metatron wrote:Now, are you going to tell us that a pedophile's sexual attraction to children is any less imperative than yours? Or mine?

I doubt that it is, actually. In the same light that I have no doubt that homosexuals are as attracted to their own sex as I am to the opposite. With the same force.

Bearing that in mind, I see no reasonable expectation that pedophiles will not act on that drive. Just like you and I act on ours.

I already pointed out to you that as far as I am concerned and most people I know, that's bullshit.

And here Fallible makes the same point:
Fallible wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:Bearing that in mind, I see no reasonable expectation that pedophiles will not act on that drive. Just like you and I act on ours.


This is such bollocks. For a start, there are any number of people who can't get a girlfriend or lack confidence, or who have certain convictions/beliefs, are celibate, or are in a relationship where the other party doesn't want sex, or are perhaps just incredibly picky, meaning that they live their lives without sex, despite having a definite sexual orientation. There are also those who are gay, but who for whatever reason don't feel comfortable with that, and who therefore have sex with members of the opposite sex instead. The vast majority of them don't go and rape somebody.

So you see, it's not just something I've invented out of thin air or a misrepresentation on my part. It's genuinly you either failing to clearly state your actual position or now trying to deny what you actually posted.

But let's continue: here you assert that people rarely do not act on their attraction:
The_Metatron wrote:Are you serious? Are you telling me that they won't? The existence of the species is pretty fucking solid evidence that yes, heterosexuals tend to act on their sexual attractions, don't they? Here we are.

Here you assert maany paedophiles won't be able to control their sexual behaviour, because most humans can't:
The_Metatron wrote:There is little doubt that pedophiles exist who are able to control their urges. What I think you and Thomas don't want to face is the idea that many of them, or perhaps even most of them, will eventually fail in that endeavor. I base that estimate on the power that the drive for sex has on human behavior.

Here you again insinuate people cannot control their sex drive, by appealing to the failure of abstinence education.
The_Metatron wrote:Yeah. It's controllable, sex drive. Sure.

I have two words for that controllability on which you depend: abstinence education.

Now go ahead, ignore it, blindly dismiss it out of hand or play incredibly transparent and disengenuous semantic games.
It will only serve to demonstrate you're not interested in an honest discussion.

What you were seeking and could not produce, was anything I wrote that said that people "operate on instinct and try to have sex with everyone who they're attracted to".

I will take this one last opportunity to help you understand. I am going to replace the drive for sex with something else in the quotes of mine above:

This topic wouldn't even fucking exist except for the plain truth that people tend to act on their hunger.

Bearing that in mind, I see no reasonable expectation that pedophiles will not act on hunger. Just like you and I act on ours.

Are you serious? Are you telling me that they won't? The existence of the species is pretty fucking solid evidence that yes, heterosexuals tend to act on their hunger, don't they? Here we are.

Do you get the point, yet? None of that in any way says or implies that anyone, anywhere is going to eat everything they see.

I'm not going to repeat this: you either produce the quotes of me writing those things, or drop it. I don't have to tolerate such misrepresentation. Those words are your inferences. Accept that, and this ends.

QED. More desperate blind dismissal and disengenuous semantic arguments.

No, I won't accept responsibility for your combined persistence of failing to provide a clear position, which is evidenced through the fact that multiple people and not just me, interpet your statements the same way, and refusing to clarify your actual position when it becomes clear that people do not read what you mean to say.
"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: 34
Male

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

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

#251  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 16, 2016 8:47 am

Let's cut to the chase:

Metatron is it your claim that:

1. Humans in general hardly even fail to act on their sexual attraction? Acting being defined here as attempting to have sex with.
If not, then what is your claim?
If it is, please back this claim up with evidence.


2. Humans are incapable of intrinsincally moderating their own behaviour?

3. That humans in general tend to rape people?
If not, then what does it matter that paedophiles are no more or less likely to rape people and why do you think it's ok to
persecute paedophiles merely for being paedophiles?
Last edited by Thomas Eshuis on Dec 16, 2016 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
"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: 34
Male

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

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

#252  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 16, 2016 8:50 am

The_Metatron wrote:
jamest wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:
jamest wrote:It's very frustrating to view this debate. On the one hand you have the view that people with abhorrent mindsets should be murdered. On the other, the view seems to be that abhorrent mindsets are okay unless acted upon.

How about a third view: that abhorrent mindsets are not really okay, and that most human mindsets are abhorrent (including and especially the view espoused by The Metatron, here), but that through a process of experience & education - as opposed to killing everyone who gets on our tits - we will eventually, in a few millennia, get it right?

I don't want to be controversial, but for me personally (and I have a 10 year-old daughter) the paranoia surrounding paedophilia is utterly extreme. I mean, think about it, Eric Pepke has been given an 8 year prison sentence (I think) for looking at pictures. Not for trying to have sex with a child, nor even having sex with a child. I mean, if you put this example into any other criminal context, it simply doesn't make sense. 8 years, for looking at photos? C'mon, seriously. This is the 21st century equivalent of The Inquisition, in my opinion, or of the communist McCarthy witch-hunts. It's that fucking ridiculous.

The Metatron implies that we're better-off leaving our kids with people who will kill anyone whose views are abhorrent. If I'm sure of anything here, that view is the sickest thing I've ever heard. Ever. But, because of this please don't get the incorrect impression that I'm okay with Eric wanting to look at pictures of children for the sake of his own sexual fantasies.

The hardest thing in the world these days is to make a considered stand against paedophilia witch-hunting. The hardest thing in the world for paedophilia witch-hunters to understand, is that they've lost the plot.

I'm going to tell you the same fucking thing I told Thomas: You show where I said those things, or drop them.

Scott identified a level of hyperbole in what I wrote, but that considered, I was pretty goddamned specific in it. Stick to criticizing what I wrote if you feel the need, not what you would like to think I wrote.

I feel it is quite evident from what you've written that you'd have "no problem" killing someone for getting his rocks off looking at the 'right' photos. Do you really want me to waste my time fishing the appropriate quotes? Because you have been very forthright, to be honest.

You're goddamned right I do. I have been forthright, and rather specific, too.

People start making up what they like and attribute it to me, then expect me to answer to that.

This is exactly why we have a rule prohibiting misrepresentation.

Given that you've repeatedly and incessantly misrepresented my position, even after I've repeatedly corrected you on it, you're in position to cry foul.
Especially when what you accuse of misrepresenting is your failure to clearly state what you mean and then refusing to clarify your idiosyncratic and vague word usage. Even after people have requested you to do so.
Whining about misrepresentation is pointless if you don't actually clarify your position and thereby demonstrate exactly how you are being misrepresented.
Nor is it helpful to whine about inferences, because that's how language fucking works. Words don't have intrinsice singular meaning, they have many usages dependent, among other things, on context.
Last edited by Thomas Eshuis on Dec 16, 2016 8:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
"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: 34
Male

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

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

#253  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 16, 2016 8:56 am

jamest wrote:It's very frustrating to view this debate. On the one hand you have the view that people with abhorrent mindsets should be murdered. On the other, the view seems to be that abhorrent mindsets are okay unless acted upon.

No James, that's not at all the debate.
On the other hand the view is that an abhorent mindset as uncontrollable but not automatically harmful to anyone outside those who experience them. Ergo they should not be persecuted for it.
That's not saying the thoughts are ok.

jamest wrote:
I don't want to be controversial, but for me personally (and I have a 10 year-old daughter) the paranoia surrounding paedophilia is utterly extreme. I mean, think about it, Eric Pepke has been given an 8 year prison sentence (I think) for looking at pictures. Not for trying to have sex with a child, nor even having sex with a child. I mean, if you put this example into any other criminal context, it simply doesn't make sense. 8 years, for looking at photos? C'mon, seriously. This is the 21st century equivalent of The Inquisition, in my opinion, or of the communist McCarthy witch-hunts. It's that fucking ridiculous.

As several people have pointed out, it's not the looking at the pictures, why we deem it criminal, it's the production which requires actual child exploit- and molestation. If there are no people looking for this type of pornography, there's no point in producing it either. By actively looking for such images you are feeding an industry that abuses children.

jamest wrote:
The Metatron implies that we're better-off leaving our kids with people who will kill anyone whose views are abhorrent. If I'm sure of anything here, that view is the sickest thing I've ever heard. Ever. But, because of this please don't get the incorrect impression that I'm okay with Eric wanting to look at pictures of children for the sake of his own sexual fantasies.

Of course not.

jamest wrote:
The hardest thing in the world these days is to make a considered stand against paedophilia witch-hunting. The hardest thing in the world for paedophilia witch-hunters to understand, is that they've lost the plot.

:nod:
"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: 34
Male

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

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

#254  Postby Scar » Dec 16, 2016 9:36 am

Did not expect it to occur in such a topic but here I find myself agreeing with Jamest.
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3967
Age: 37
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#255  Postby Nicko » Dec 16, 2016 9:47 am

Skinny Puppy wrote:Just wondering... :scratch:

You’re a mom and dad with 2 kids. Your next-door neighbour is a known pedophile; however, he has (up to this point) never, ever acted on his urges and states that he never will.

Come Friday you and the Mrs want to go to a movie... can’t find a babysitter. But hey, the next-door neighbour offers to look after your kids for you. And, since he really is a nice guy he also says he’d like to take them to the park on Saturday to give the two of you a break and after the park he’s wants to take them swimming at the local lake.

Now I’d like to know (names please) how many here will take him up on his offer.

Yes I would
1
2
3
4

No I wouldn’t
1 Skinny Puppy
2
3
4


Speaking as an actual father of an actual child, of course I wouldn't.

But here's the thing. If my neighbour were a paedophile, how would they become a "known paedophile" other than by fucking a kid and getting caught? At which point they are no longer a non-offending paedophile. See how that works?

Surely being a non-offending paedophile would be a private matter between the paedophile and the mental health professionals they would hopefully be being treated by.

Another problem I have with your scenario is that I do not accept that there is such a thing as a non-offending paedophile who genuinely does not want to fuck a kid, yet goes out of their way to create situations where they could fuck a kid if they wanted. I just don't buy it.

No problem with the idea that there are non-offending paedophiles who are determined to never actually fuck a kid.

I just think that non-offending paedophiles who are determined to never actually fuck a kid would avoid situations where they had control over a child without supervision. A paedophile who goes out of their way to create situations where they have control over kids without supervision strikes me as a paedophile looking to fuck a kid.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8643
Age: 47
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

#256  Postby Nicko » Dec 16, 2016 10:01 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:As several people have pointed out, it's not the looking at the pictures, why we deem it criminal, it's the production which requires actual child exploit- and molestation. If there are no people looking for this type of pornography, there's no point in producing it either. By actively looking for such images you are feeding an industry that abuses children.


Agreed, with the caveat that if those images do not require the abuse or exploitation of actual children to produce, no crime should be said to have taken place.

If beating off to anime helps some guy resist the urge to fuck an actual kid, I call that a win.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8643
Age: 47
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

#257  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 16, 2016 10:34 am

Nicko wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:As several people have pointed out, it's not the looking at the pictures, why we deem it criminal, it's the production which requires actual child exploit- and molestation. If there are no people looking for this type of pornography, there's no point in producing it either. By actively looking for such images you are feeding an industry that abuses children.


Agreed, with the caveat that if those images do not require the abuse or exploitation of actual children to produce, no crime should be said to have taken place.

If beating off to anime helps some guy resist the urge to fuck an actual kid, I call that a win.

Agreed.
"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: 34
Male

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

Re: Eric Pepke

#258  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 16, 2016 10:34 am

Nicko wrote:
Skinny Puppy wrote:Just wondering... :scratch:

You’re a mom and dad with 2 kids. Your next-door neighbour is a known pedophile; however, he has (up to this point) never, ever acted on his urges and states that he never will.

Come Friday you and the Mrs want to go to a movie... can’t find a babysitter. But hey, the next-door neighbour offers to look after your kids for you. And, since he really is a nice guy he also says he’d like to take them to the park on Saturday to give the two of you a break and after the park he’s wants to take them swimming at the local lake.

Now I’d like to know (names please) how many here will take him up on his offer.

Yes I would
1
2
3
4

No I wouldn’t
1 Skinny Puppy
2
3
4


Speaking as an actual father of an actual child, of course I wouldn't.

But here's the thing. If my neighbour were a paedophile, how would they become a "known paedophile" other than by fucking a kid and getting caught? At which point they are no longer a non-offending paedophile. See how that works?

Surely being a non-offending paedophile would be a private matter between the paedophile and the mental health professionals they would hopefully be being treated by.

Another problem I have with your scenario is that I do not accept that there is such a thing as a non-offending paedophile who genuinely does not want to fuck a kid, yet goes out of their way to create situations where they could fuck a kid if they wanted. I just don't buy it.

No problem with the idea that there are non-offending paedophiles who are determined to never actually fuck a kid.

I just think that non-offending paedophiles who are determined to never actually fuck a kid would avoid situations where they had control over a child without supervision. A paedophile who goes out of their way to create situations where they have control over kids without supervision strikes me as a paedophile looking to fuck a kid.

:this:
"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: 34
Male

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

Re: Eric Pepke

#259  Postby The_Metatron » Dec 16, 2016 4:23 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Nicko wrote:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
Skinny Puppy wrote:Just wondering... :scratch:

You’re a mom and dad with 2 kids. Your next-door neighbour is a known pedophile; however, he has (up to this point) never, ever acted on his urges and states that he never will.

Come Friday you and the Mrs want to go to a movie... can’t find a babysitter. But hey, the next-door neighbour offers to look after your kids for you. And, since he really is a nice guy he also says he’d like to take them to the park on Saturday to give the two of you a break and after the park he’s wants to take them swimming at the local lake.

Now I’d like to know (names please) how many here will take him up on his offer.

Yes I would
1
2
3
4

No I wouldn’t
1 Skinny Puppy
2
3
4


Speaking as an actual father of an actual child, of course I wouldn't.

But here's the thing. If my neighbour were a paedophile, how would they become a "known paedophile" other than by fucking a kid and getting caught? At which point they are no longer a non-offending paedophile. See how that works?

Surely being a non-offending paedophile would be a private matter between the paedophile and the mental health professionals they would hopefully be being treated by.
[Reveal] Spoiler:
Another problem I have with your scenario is that I do not accept that there is such a thing as a non-offending paedophile who genuinely does not want to fuck a kid, yet goes out of their way to create situations where they could fuck a kid if they wanted. I just don't buy it.

No problem with the idea that there are non-offending paedophiles who are determined to never actually fuck a kid.

I just think that non-offending paedophiles who are determined to never actually fuck a kid would avoid situations where they had control over a child without supervision. A paedophile who goes out of their way to create situations where they have control over kids without supervision strikes me as a paedophile looking to fuck a kid
.

:this:

You agree with Nicko, yet somehow know so much about the behavior of pedophiles. How do you do that?
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 22400
Age: 60
Male

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

Re: Eric Pepke

#260  Postby Skinny Puppy » Dec 16, 2016 5:12 pm

Nicko wrote:
Skinny Puppy wrote:Just wondering... :scratch:

You’re a mom and dad with 2 kids. Your next-door neighbour is a known pedophile; however, he has (up to this point) never, ever acted on his urges and states that he never will.

Come Friday you and the Mrs want to go to a movie... can’t find a babysitter. But hey, the next-door neighbour offers to look after your kids for you. And, since he really is a nice guy he also says he’d like to take them to the park on Saturday to give the two of you a break and after the park he’s wants to take them swimming at the local lake.

Now I’d like to know (names please) how many here will take him up on his offer.

Yes I would
1
2
3
4

No I wouldn’t
1 Skinny Puppy
2
3
4


Speaking as an actual father of an actual child, of course I wouldn't.

But here's the thing. If my neighbour were a paedophile, how would they become a "known paedophile" other than by fucking a kid and getting caught? At which point they are no longer a non-offending paedophile. See how that works?

Surely being a non-offending paedophile would be a private matter between the paedophile and the mental health professionals they would hopefully be being treated by.

Another problem I have with your scenario is that I do not accept that there is such a thing as a non-offending paedophile who genuinely does not want to fuck a kid, yet goes out of their way to create situations where they could fuck a kid if they wanted. I just don't buy it.

No problem with the idea that there are non-offending paedophiles who are determined to never actually fuck a kid.

I just think that non-offending paedophiles who are determined to never actually fuck a kid would avoid situations where they had control over a child without supervision. A paedophile who goes out of their way to create situations where they have control over kids without supervision strikes me as a paedophile looking to fuck a kid.


I used that example as a hypothetical situation, however, we can add in the fact that the next-door neighbour admitted that he was a non-practicing pedophile if we allow for the fact that a friendship has developed between both neighbours and all cards are on the table.

People are governed by self control. I’ll give an example from my life. I have anywhere from 5-6 guys that swim/dive with me (which naturally follows, we’re all in the showers and changing into our swimsuits together). All of them are straight as best I know. If however, one of them was gay, it wouldn’t matter, one could say that he was exposing himself to temptation, but he wouldn’t really be. He would have a partner (permanent or temporary) and being with us would not cause him to lose his self control and he wouldn’t be going out of his way to put himself into a precarious situation by being with us. We’re all very good buddies and if one of us said: ‘Guys, I have to admit to you that I’m gay.’ Not one of us would give a rat’s ass and none of us would feel threatened by him. His sexual orientation is normal and he has a legal outlet for it. I wouldn’t have even a second’s thought about being alone with him in the shower room.

From my POV (I’m married) if I’m at a beach on my own and see 15 babes in bikinis, I’m not about to toss out my self control.

Since all normal expressions of sexual desire can be fulfilled, people act accordingly and an element of trust is naturally assumed. However, with a pedophile there is no legal outlet and the element of trust simply isn’t there. Regardless of whether it’s justified or not, one errs on the side of caution.

Basically, it would appear that a pedophile is a loose cannon who may or may not be able to control themselves, therefore they are a (very) potential danger. Any other form of sexuality can be in a position of attraction to others, in a specific situation, without acting upon those impulses (I’m speaking generally here, not exceptions). Yet pedophiles must be isolated? They haven’t actually committed a crime, but who wants to take a chance with them?

You did say:

A paedophile who goes out of their way to create situations where they have control over kids without supervision strikes me as a paedophile looking to fuck a kid


And that’s what scares me. They are a danger to society.

In addition:

I just think that non-offending paedophiles who are determined to never actually fuck a kid would avoid situations where they had control over a child without supervision.


What happens if a situation is thrust upon them through no fault of their own? I trust we can all imagine a scenario where this might happen. The self-control of a paedophile is highly dubious... at best. When dealing with kiddies there simply is, and must be, zero tolerance. Whether that’s fair or not... I just don’t care. Kiddies’ safety comes first!
User avatar
Skinny Puppy
 
Name: Sherlock Jeffrey Puppy
Posts: 9399
Age: 40
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Social Sciences & Humanities

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest