Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

Anthropology, Economics, History, Sociology etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Eric Pepke

#41  Postby PensivePenny » Dec 13, 2016 10:46 pm

Keep It Real wrote:
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.


A minor's consent isn't acceptable, by law.
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

#42  Postby The_Metatron » Dec 13, 2016 10:50 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>?

Why did you truncate what I wrote? Does it make it easier to suggest something? Here, let's put it back together:

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, 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.

How about that? When I restore what I wrote, suddenly the reader can understand that it isn't the majority who will take that opportunity if denied. Some will.

So, what's really your point here?
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

#43  Postby CdesignProponentsist » Dec 13, 2016 10:51 pm

Keep It Real wrote:
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.


They who? You are generalizing and almost certainly speculating. Do you have any data to back this up?
"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

#44  Postby Keep It Real » Dec 13, 2016 10:54 pm

You're all just excusing paedophilic thought! What the fuck is wrong with you?! You're enablers! metatron excluded.
Dinosaurs = atheism
User avatar
Keep It Real
Banned User
 
Posts: 9341
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#45  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 13, 2016 10:56 pm

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

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?

No, I do not acknowledge your slippery slope straw-man.
What you're doing is the equivalent of arguing that all homophobes should be locked up because some of them attack and/or kill gay people.
The mere fact that there are paedophiles who are aware that children cannot consent, nor would they want to, and therefore dont seek to have sex with children, demonstrates my point.


If I assume you are a typical heterosexual, are you going to tell me you aren't going to act on that attraction?

Heterosexuality isn't even mutually exclusive with paedophelia in the first place.
Secondly, no, I am not going to pursue people of the opposite sex, or same for that matter since I am bi, that cannot give consent.


In fact, what could possibly stop you from trying?

The same thing that stop you from simply taking stuff you want that isn't yours: empathy.

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.

Amd since very few people force themselves on non-consenting partners, your analogy is severely flawed.

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.

Again, unless you've just openly declared yourself to be a rapist that forces himself on any and all women he finds attractive, you're talking horseshit.


As with others, some will take an opportunity to do so.

Yes, they're called rapist and are persecuted for raping someone, not for being attracted to or aroused by someone.

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

Look, I get that this is an emotional topic, but just like KIR, I'd appreciate it if you address what I actually wrote and not just throw all manner of straw-men positions at me.
"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

#46  Postby PensivePenny » Dec 13, 2016 10:58 pm

The_Metatron wrote:
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>?

Why did you truncate what I wrote? Does it make it easier to suggest something? Here, let's put it back together:

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, 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.

How about that? When I restore what I wrote, suddenly the reader can understand that it isn't the majority who will take that opportunity if denied. Some will.

So, what's really your point here?


Sorry for the concatenation... I'll try to do better in the future.

Sorry to have offended you.
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

#47  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 13, 2016 10:59 pm

Keep It Real wrote:
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.

You're wrong. They get sexually attracted to kids. That does not mean they think its ok to have that attraction or to act on it.
"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

#48  Postby Fallible » Dec 13, 2016 10:59 pm

The_Metatron wrote:
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 don't insist upon anything. As for you betting I know this and that, I think you think too much of my mental acuity. We can use exactly your words if you prefer - for me, expressing a willingness to merc someone because they get sexual gratification from seeing a photo of a naked girl with half her skin burnt off is pretty fucking far from just wrong too.

The take away point here for me is that you said you didn't have thoughts that came close to this yourself, then you openly expressed a desire to kill someone for being sexually gratified by a photo of a suffering child. I don't know if you think that the existence of the sexual component makes the thought that much more unpalatable, but being willing to actually kill someone - physically removing their life from them by force - because they are getting their kicks from a certain vile source, steps far beyond the realms of acceptable.
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

#49  Postby Fallible » Dec 13, 2016 11:01 pm

Keep It Real wrote:You're all just excusing paedophilic thought! What the fuck is wrong with you?! You're enablers! metatron excluded.


Oh, get a fucking grip. No one has even suggested that thinking about sex with children is good or OK or right. You seem to think these people are mentally ill. Given your experience, you'd think you would have a bit more compassion. Apparently not.
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

#50  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 13, 2016 11:08 pm

I'll point out that sexual gratification =/= sexual action or orgasm. Its experiencing any sexual pleasure from something. Who can include arousal and therefore be purely instinctual.
"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

#51  Postby The_Metatron » Dec 13, 2016 11:10 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:...

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.

Again, unless you've just openly declared yourself to be a rapist that forces himself on any and all women he finds attractive, you're talking horseshit.

...

Take a hard look at that part I highlighted. You see, that's the conditional part of the sentence. The part that must also be met for the action to occur.

You're the second person to fail to grasp this.

I tend to choose my words carefully. You would be served to read them as carefully.

Since you earlier failed to grasp the concept of my example, I'll expand it into terms I hope you do understand. You are not asexual, I assume. That is, you're driven to have sex with people.

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 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

#52  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 13, 2016 11:11 pm

Keep It Real wrote:You're all just excusing paedophilic thought! What the fuck is wrong with you?! You're enablers! metatron excluded.

You seem to be struggling greatly with basic reading comprehension.
Any further misrepresentation will be reported. I've explained my position and arguments clearly and repeatedly to you.
"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

#53  Postby The_Metatron » Dec 13, 2016 11:16 pm

Fallible wrote:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
The_Metatron wrote:
Fallible wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:
"... 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 don't insist upon anything. As for you betting I know this and that, I think you think too much of my mental acuity. We can use exactly your words if you prefer - for me, expressing a willingness to merc someone because they get sexual gratification from seeing a photo of a naked girl with half her skin burnt off is pretty fucking far from just wrong too.

The take away point here for me is that you said you didn't have thoughts that came close to this yourself, then you openly expressed a desire to kill someone for being sexually gratified by a photo of a suffering child. I don't know if you think that the existence of the sexual component makes the thought that much more unpalatable, but being willing to actually kill someone - physically removing their life from them by force - because they are getting their kicks from a certain vile source, steps far beyond the realms of acceptable.

Well, I guess that makes you nicer than me. Well done.

On the other hand, in this regard, it's not difficult to do that.
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

#54  Postby PensivePenny » Dec 13, 2016 11:22 pm

What I see, is that many people here are experiencing irrepressible emotions that would lead them to act in a socially unacceptable manner towards a person experiencing irrepressible emotions that would lead them to act in a socially unacceptable manner... it's all rather hypocritical.
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

#55  Postby Keep It Real » Dec 13, 2016 11:24 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Keep It Real wrote:You're all just excusing paedophilic thought! What the fuck is wrong with you?! You're enablers! metatron excluded.

You seem to be struggling greatly with basic reading comprehension.
Any further misrepresentation will be reported. I've explained my position and arguments clearly and repeatedly to you.

Report away, paedophile enabler. I trust you'll grow out of it :)
Dinosaurs = atheism
User avatar
Keep It Real
Banned User
 
Posts: 9341
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#56  Postby PensivePenny » Dec 13, 2016 11:25 pm

That was uncalled for and ad hom.
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

#57  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 13, 2016 11:29 pm

The_Metatron wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:...

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.

Again, unless you've just openly declared yourself to be a rapist that forces himself on any and all women he finds attractive, you're talking horseshit.

...

Take a hard look at that part I highlighted. You see, that's the conditional part of the sentence. The part that must also be met for the action to occur.

All this does is make it seem that you're a situational rapist.
No, a paedophile thats aware that children cannot consent and would be hurt, would not rape them even if they could get away with it.

You're the second person to fail to grasp this.

If anything its your repeatedly vague generalizations that are causing confusion.

I tend to choose my words carefully. You would be served to read them as carefully.

I try my best and would appreciate it if you did the same as your previous response also contained misrepresentations and a straw-man in the form of a leading question.


Since you earlier failed to grasp the concept of my example

I did not fail to graps it, it was flawed on multiple levels.


I'll expand it into terms I hope you do understand.

Lets try to avoid condescension, shall we?

You are not asexual, I assume. That is, you're driven to have sex with people.

For the sake of the argument, lets say I am.

Now, are you going to tell us that a pedophile's sexual attraction to children is any less imperative than yours? Or mine?

Are you telling me the only thing stopping you form having sex with every woman you're attracted to, is not getting away with it?


I doubt that it is, actually.

Hence why I never argued that. We're not going to get anywhere if you keep arguing against positions I have not taken.

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.

Actually not everyone has the same sex drive.
More importantly, again, people are not going around like bunnies fucking anyone and everyone they are attracted to.
And that is nt just because they do not have the opportunity.


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.

Because just like us being hetero- or bisexual, being a paedophile does not automatically make you a rapist. Nor does it prevent you from having empathy.
"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

#58  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 13, 2016 11:31 pm

Keep It Real wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Keep It Real wrote:You're all just excusing paedophilic thought! What the fuck is wrong with you?! You're enablers! metatron excluded.

You seem to be struggling greatly with basic reading comprehension.
Any further misrepresentation will be reported. I've explained my position and arguments clearly and repeatedly to you.

Report away, paedophile enabler. I trust you'll grow out of it :)

It is disappointing, but not surprising to see you jump to the emotional response, rather than dealing with the facts in a rational manner.
"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

#59  Postby CdesignProponentsist » Dec 13, 2016 11:33 pm

Keep It Real wrote:You're all just excusing paedophilic thought! What the fuck is wrong with you?! You're enablers! metatron excluded.


Nobody is excusing anything. It exists whether you want it to or not. It is even likely most that experience these thoughts do not act on them as they know it is wrong and have a healthy impulse control. Just as almost half the population has had rape fantasies, the vast majority of them do not act on them.

You may know a pedophile or two, but would never know it since they also happen to be good people who would rather harm themselves than harm a child.

So what do you propose? Do we start hooking people up to lie detectors and locking people up for having thoughts that make you uncomfortable?
"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

#60  Postby Keep It Real » Dec 13, 2016 11:37 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Keep It Real wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Keep It Real wrote:You're all just excusing paedophilic thought! What the fuck is wrong with you?! You're enablers! metatron excluded.

You seem to be struggling greatly with basic reading comprehension.
Any further misrepresentation will be reported. I've explained my position and arguments clearly and repeatedly to you.

Report away, paedophile enabler. I trust you'll grow out of it :)

It is disappointing, but not surprising to see you jump to the emotional response, rather than dealing with the facts in a rational manner.

go complete a jigsaw.
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 2 guests