Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

Anthropology, Economics, History, Sociology etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Eric Pepke

#61  Postby The_Metatron » Dec 13, 2016 11:40 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
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.

You injected that rapist business of your own accord.

You don't want to understand this. We're done.
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

#62  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 13, 2016 11:46 pm

Keep It Real wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Keep It Real wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
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.

Genuine question, what do you think to achieve with puerile responses like these?
"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

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

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


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.

You injected that rapist business of your own accord.

You don't want to understand this. We're done.

I'm getting cramped from typing on my small phone keyboard so I will respond in detail tomorrow.
However I will state this; I am trying my hardest to understand what you are saying and to have an open and honest disucssion with you Metatron. So I do not appreciate it when you blindly accuse me of not wanting to understand you.
Especially after you've snipped multiple parts of multiple posts of mine where I try to clarify my position and better understand yours.

So no, as far as I am concerned we're not done. I will try another attempt tomorrow to clearly state my position and explain what seems wrong about your arguments and position, based on what you've posted so far
All in good faith. So if I misunderstand something do point it out, but dont dismiss things out of hand or assume I am out to get you.
Last edited by Thomas Eshuis on Dec 14, 2016 8:22 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: 32
Male

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

Re: Eric Pepke

#64  Postby EricPepke'sFriend » Dec 14, 2016 2:18 am

Getting back to Eric, when I asked what should someone do if they happened upon child pornography I was referred, from a basic search to contact NCMEC. Interesting point, in one of his letters Eric said NCMEC appears not to care and doesn't do it's job. Sounds to me like he was doing what he should have done. Any ideas on what went wrong?
EricPepke'sFriend
 
Name: Barbara Gotsopoulos
Posts: 31

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#65  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » Dec 14, 2016 2:48 am

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.


Throwawayaccount didn't.
what a terrible image
User avatar
Rachel Bronwyn
 
Name: speaking moistly
Posts: 13588
Age: 33
Female

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#66  Postby PensivePenny » Dec 14, 2016 3:00 am

We should consider that emotions can also run higher with this topic... especially for victims and people intimately acquainted with victims.
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

#67  Postby SafeAsMilk » Dec 14, 2016 3:36 am

Keep It Real wrote:
SafeAsMilk 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.

Don't you think it's kinda ridiculous to decide a person needs to die based exclusively on their sexual fantasies, however disgusting they might be? What kind of thought police bullshit is this?


Anybody who gets off on such images is a disgusting human being. If you do not judge people based on their mind then what do you judge them on? The colour of their skin perhaps?

Their actions. What you're doing is actually the equivalent of judging a person by their skin -- judging a person by that which they have no choice. Thank you for providing everyone with an apt example of what's wrong with your thinking, and how blind you are to it.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14774
Age: 42
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#68  Postby SafeAsMilk » Dec 14, 2016 3:38 am

Keep It Real wrote:Jerking off is an act. All acts derive from the mind. Judge on the source of acts.

How Christian, condemning people for jerking off. I see your time at church paid off :lol:
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14774
Age: 42
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#69  Postby scott1328 » Dec 14, 2016 3:50 am

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Keep It Real wrote:Jerking off is an act. All acts derive from the mind. Judge on the source of acts.

How Christian, condemning people for jerking off. I see your time at church paid rubbed off:lol:

FIFY
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8848
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#70  Postby SafeAsMilk » Dec 14, 2016 4:00 am

The_Metatron wrote:
SafeAsMilk 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.

Don't you think it's kinda ridiculous to decide a person needs to die based exclusively on their sexual fantasies, however disgusting they might be? What kind of thought police bullshit is this?

Clearly, I don't think it's "kinda ridiculous", do I?

Well I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume you're spouting violent, fascistic fantasies at the forum as it appears you're doing, so I'm going to go with unclear.

People tend to do those things that they think are normal behavior, don't they? I've lived long enough and seen enough of human behavior to know that some one who is sexually gratified by naked nine year old girls with half their skin burned off is going to have even fewer problems with much less horrific situations than that one. Situations that are still beyond any standard of acceptable behavior.

That doesn't mean they think it's normal behavior.

You feel free to explain how that fantasy, as I've described it above, is in any way a harbinger of model citizenry.

Are you under the impression that threatening to murder someone for just thinking about something is a harbinger for model citizenry? I certainly hope not, because it would make your statements look awfully hypocritical.

Are you laboring under the impression that such thought policing, as you put it, doesn't already exist? Let's talk about that, in context of what's going on with Eric.

Did Eric commission the images for which he was convicted? Probably pretty safe to assume not. Surely someone did, though. Someone compelled those minors to be photographed, didn't they? Once done, once that image is captured, is that minor injured in any way by further distribution of that image? The injury was when they were compelled to be photographed, wasn't it?

The argument will then be that mere possession of child pornography fuels the situation. It motivates those who do it to do more of it. That's certainly true. What that boils down to is punishing others for motivating some child pornographer to do something they have not yet done.

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?

We both know better, don't we?

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

Your point doesn't make any sense. Making and obtaining child pornography is an action, not a thought. Prosecuting it is action policing, not thought policing. Please tell me you've got a real point, because this is even more idiotic than the brain-dead garbage KIR has shat all over this thread.

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.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14774
Age: 42
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#71  Postby Fallible » Dec 14, 2016 7:01 am

The_Metatron wrote:
Fallible wrote:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
The_Metatron wrote:
Fallible wrote:

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 know you're biased on this topic, but I think it's making you lose the thread of the discussion. My aim was not to highlight how not nice you are. If you recall, my view is that everyone has unacceptable, disgusting thoughts. You then said you had nothing close to the one being talked about. I disagreed with you, and to show why, used an example of such a thought that you had disclosed in the thread, which in my view is on a par with it. If anything, my point is that you're no different from the rest of us, and my wider point is that it's not so easy to condemn others for their disgusting thoughts out of hand if you're honest with yourself.
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

#72  Postby Fallible » Dec 14, 2016 7:33 am

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.

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.


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.

As Cdesign has already alluded to, it's as though some here think that because you happen to have a disgusting paraphilia, over which you have no choice, by the way, that automatically makes you a terrible person who can't distinguish right from wrong. News flash - it doesn't. It makes you someone who has an extra (big) problem to deal with. Paedophiles can be good people, and those who are don't have sex with children because they realise it would be extremely damaging and morally wrong. A sexual attraction to children has not come about through considered thought, it has arisen unbidden. They have to live with that. And now they have to deal with people lining up to condemn them for something they can't control, without them having even done anything. If someone goes a massive step further and acts on the attraction, that is an entirely different matter, but it's not the foregone conclusion that some seem to think it is.
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

#73  Postby Fallible » Dec 14, 2016 7:36 am

Keep It Real wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Keep It Real wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
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.


I hope you then went and slept it off.
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

#74  Postby Fallible » Dec 14, 2016 7:38 am

EricPepke'sFriend wrote:Getting back to Eric, when I asked what should someone do if they happened upon child pornography I was referred, from a basic search to contact NCMEC. Interesting point, in one of his letters Eric said NCMEC appears not to care and doesn't do it's job. Sounds to me like he was doing what he should have done. Any ideas on what went wrong?


How can anyone here possibly say? None of us knows this guy on a personal level apart from you, as far as I'm aware. People lie, even people we think we know really well. You might have reason to believe what he says. We don't.
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

#75  Postby BlackBart » Dec 14, 2016 8:28 am

Fallible wrote:
EricPepke'sFriend wrote:Getting back to Eric, when I asked what should someone do if they happened upon child pornography I was referred, from a basic search to contact NCMEC. Interesting point, in one of his letters Eric said NCMEC appears not to care and doesn't do it's job. Sounds to me like he was doing what he should have done. Any ideas on what went wrong?


How can anyone here possibly say? None of us knows this guy on a personal level apart from you, as far as I'm aware. People lie, even people we think we know really well. You might have reason to believe what he says. We don't.


Quite. People can also be plain wrong. Just because Pepke possibly believes the NCMEC isn't doing it's job, doesn't mean it's not.
One would need to ask what he bases his assertions on before assuming anything has gone wrong.
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12592
Age: 59
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Eric Pepke

#76  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 14, 2016 8:35 am

Again, for emphasis, the following is a genuine response to your post, as it reads to me.


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?

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

Here it seems to me you're implying heterosexuals will always act on their attraction.
When in fact the fast majority of time they don't as the woman isn't interested, already married, or for some other reason not available.
So, taking that into account why do you seem to think paedophiles, who are aware that sex with children is harmful and illegal, will try to have sex with children?


The_Metatron wrote: In fact, what could possibly stop you from trying?

See, this only reinforces the impression that you think all heterosexual people will try to have sex with any and all people they find attractive. Otherwise why are you wondering what's to stop people from trying?
What's to stop people from trying: lack of consent, the person being already married. The person not being of legal age, etc, etc.
You know, mostly similar things that will prevent paedophiles from actually having sex with children.


The_Metatron wrote: 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.

And unless I am mistaken, neither you, nor I, nor most other people, try to have sex with each and every other person we're attracted to.

Now we come to the crux of the matter and what seemed to me to be an involunatery admission of rape. (Which I don't actually believe you would do, but that is what this reads like)
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.

What you're saying here is that the only thing that's stopping heterosexual people and paedophiles from having sex with people is oppurtunity.
Not lack of consent and empathy.
In essence you're saying, as it seems to me, that the only reason you're not having sex with women beside your wife, with women who wouldn't necesarrily want to have sex with you, is the lack of oppurtunity.
The second statement is either a direct contradiction to the first, or makes no sense.
Especially since your response to me pointing this out to you, was to re-emphasize the oppurtunity part:
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.


Now, if I am somehow misunderstanding you, please do explain what you actually mean, but don't just wave it away with 'you're wrong!'.
"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

#77  Postby The_Metatron » Dec 14, 2016 5:08 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Again, for emphasis, the following is a genuine response to your post, as it reads to me.

The_Metatron wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:...

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?

Here it seems to me you're implying heterosexuals will always act on their attraction.

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.

What does "act on" mean to you people, anyway? I don't suppose you think making the attempt is "acting on" an attraction? Is that it?
Thomas Eshuis wrote:When in fact the fast majority of time they don't [act] as the woman isn't interested, already married, or for some other reason not available.

Again, making the attempt isn't acting, in your mind? You may find it useful to review what the verb "act" actually means.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:So, taking that into account why do you seem to think paedophiles, who are aware that sex with children is harmful and illegal, will try to have sex with children?

Ahh, yes. The "sex drive lite" argument.

Shall we assume that pedophilia lies on the spectrum of human sexuality? As does full heterosexuality, full homosexuality, asexuality, and anything in between those things?

If it is, and it probably is, why should it be any less of an imperative to the pedophile to act on it than it is for anyone else on the spectrum of sexuality to act on their desires?

Oh, that's right. You said it's because they know it's harmful and illegal. Whew. That's a relief.

Do you remember a time when homosexuality was illegal? It still is, in many parts of the world. They'll kill you for it in places. That didn't seem to stop it though, did it? In Ireland, until recently, heterosexual activity outside of marriage was illegal. Look up Magdalene Laundries sometime. That legal barrier on which you would like to rely wasn't all that meaningful, was it? But you're going to assure us that for pedophiles, it is.

Fine. That's your assertion. Back it up now.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:In fact, what could possibly stop you from trying?
See, this only reinforces the impression that you think all heterosexual people will try to have sex with any and all people they find attractive. Otherwise why are you wondering what's to stop people from trying?

Are you laboring under the idea that humans behave like bonobo monkeys? This is another inference of your own making.

I'm not sure it these inferences of yours constitute what we'd call a strawman, or a red herring. I suspect it's the strawman thing. You know, attribute something to your opponent that doesn't exist, so you can then ridicule it. Yeah, that's it. Strawman.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:What's to stop people from trying: lack of consent, the person being already married.

Those things often stop people from succeeding. Once again, you don't seem to think that making the attempt is "acting on" an attraction, do you?

Thomas Eshuis wrote: The person not being of legal age, etc, etc.

You know, mostly similar things that will prevent paedophiles from actually having sex with children.

You would do well to realize that those things prevent nothing. They prescribe penalty for doing it, yes. Prevent? Not so much. Refer to the unlawful homosexuality discussion above.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
The_Metatron wrote: 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.

And unless I am mistaken, neither you, nor I, nor most other people, try to have sex with each and every other person we're attracted to.

Again, remember it was you who inferred that idea in this conversation.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Now we come to the crux of the matter and what seemed to me to be an involunatery admission of rape. (Which I don't actually believe you would do, but that is what this reads like)
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.

What you're saying here is that the only thing that's stopping heterosexual people and paedophiles from having sex with people is oppurtunity.

Not lack of consent and empathy.

In essence you're saying, as it seems to me, that the only reason you're not having sex with women beside your wife, with women who wouldn't necesarrily want to have sex with you, is the lack of oppurtunity.

Sure. That must be it.

Remember, it is you who made this inference. It is you who for some reason doesn't seem to realize that a rejection removes the opportunity.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:The second statement is either a direct contradiction to the first, or makes no sense.
Especially since your response to me pointing this out to you, was to re-emphasize the oppurtunity part:
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.

...

No, once again (for about the fourth or fifth time), you are the one who doesn't understand what I wrote when I used the word "opportunity". It is you who inferred that I meant that permission wasn't a component of opportunity. That was your leap.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
The_Metatron wrote: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.

Now, if I am somehow misunderstanding you, please do explain what you actually mean, but don't just wave it away with 'you're wrong!'.


One more thing. Earlier, you mentioned some shit about me being condescending to you. Tough shit, isn't it? Drop this rapist horseshit that you invented, and we might do this a little less condescendingly. Otherwise, I will have little choice but to continue to assume you fail to grasp the most simple things and write accordingly.
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

#78  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 14, 2016 6:05 pm

The_Metatron wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Again, for emphasis, the following is a genuine response to your post, as it reads to me.

The_Metatron wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:...

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?

Here it seems to me you're implying heterosexuals will always act on their attraction.

Are you serious? Are you telling me that they won't?

Yes, I am completely serious.
If I see that someone I am attracted to is with someone else, I won't act on my attraction.
If I see the person I am attracted is clearly not attracted to me personally, I won't act on my attraction.
If I know the person I am attracted to is of a sexual orientation that would preclude them from being attracted to me, I won't act on my attraction.
The same is true for most, if not all the people I know.

The_Metatron wrote: 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.

AFAIK we're not the product of rampant promiscuity Metatron.
Just like hetero- and bisexual people are capable of not forcing their sexual lust onto others, so can paedophiles.


The_Metatron wrote:What does "act on" mean to you people, anyway?

With all due respect, it's your vague, undefined concept. You introduced it into the dicussion.
To me, acting on sexual attraction means trying to have sex with the object of your attraction.

The_Metatron wrote: I don't suppose you think making the attempt is "acting on" an attraction? Is that it?

Like I said, to me it means trying to have sex with the object of your attraction, which can range from forced attempt like rape, or consensual, starting with flirting.
If it means something different to you, please clarify.
And again, just like non-paedophiles can choose not to do these things to people that cannot or will not consent, so can paedophiles.

The_Metatron wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:When in fact the fast majority of time they don't [act] as the woman isn't interested, already married, or for some other reason not available.

Again, making the attempt isn't acting, in your mind?

But I am not talking about making an attempt in the bit you quoted, nor anwyhere else.
I am talking about the human capacity to not attempt something that clearly isn't wanted by the other party.

The_Metatron wrote: You may find it useful to review what the verb "act" actually means.

Again, with all due respect, stop with the condescension and making assumptions about understanding.
It's not conducive to a productive discussion.

The_Metatron wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:So, taking that into account why do you seem to think paedophiles, who are aware that sex with children is harmful and illegal, will try to have sex with children?

Ahh, yes. The "sex drive lite" argument.

No Metatron, that's a complete fabrication on your part. Please adress what I post and not what simplistic straw-men you'd like me to post.
IN the bit you're quoting I am not talking about a lack of sex drive, I am talking about the awareness that to act on their sexual attraction would be harmful and unwanted.
Just like you don't rape random women you're attracted to.

The_Metatron wrote:Shall we assume that pedophilia lies on the spectrum of human sexuality? As does full heterosexuality, full homosexuality, asexuality, and anything in between those things?

Actually, as I pointed out ealier in the thread it doesn't. It's not mutually exclusive with hetero- etc sexualities.
One can be heterosexual with regards to adult human beings and be a paedophile.
Some paedophiles experience no attraction to adults.

The_Metatron wrote:If it is, and it probably is, why should it be any less of an imperative to the pedophile to act on it than it is for anyone else on the spectrum of sexuality to act on their desires?

Please stop repeating points I've already adressed.
At no point have I denied that paedophiles experience the desire to have sex with children.
I have pointed out to you a point which you keep ignoring, that, just like you're capable of stopping yourself from raping all women you're attracted to, regardless of whether they want to have sex with you, so can paedophiles choose not to act on their sexual attraction.


The_Metatron wrote:
Oh, that's right. You said it's because they know it's harmful and illegal. Whew. That's a relief.

I'm sorry but sarcastic dismissal is not a subtitute for rational arguments.
Yes, paedophiles are capable of choosing not to act on their sexual attraction to children.
Being a paedophile doesn't make you a rapist, child abuser etc. Killing or otherwise persecuting people simply for being paedophiles is thought crime, not action.


The_Metatron wrote:
Do you remember a time when homosexuality was illegal? It still is, in many parts of the world. They'll kill you for it in places. That didn't seem to stop it though, did it? In Ireland, until recently, heterosexual activity outside of marriage was illegal. Look up Magdalene Laundries sometime. That legal barrier on which you would like to rely wasn't all that meaningful, was it? But you're going to assure us that for pedophiles, it is.

This is the type of reasoning I would expect from Mick or LionIRC, not from you Metatron.
Homosexuality still happened because adults consented to have same sex intercourse.
That is nowhere near analogous to paedophiles raping children against their will.


The_Metatron wrote:Fine. That's your assertion. Back it up now.

No, that's not my assertion.
The fact I keep pointing out to you is that paedophiles can choose not to act on their attraction because it is harmful and without consent and therefore illegal.

“One cannot choose to not be a pedophile, but one can choose to not be a child molester,” Dr. James Cantor, a professor at the University of Toronto medical school and a leading expert on pedophilia, wrote in a CNN op-ed in 2012.

https://psmag.com/facing-disturbing-truths-about-pedophilia-could-help-us-keep-kids-safer-edc3379c43ae#.9bhbivovg
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/talking-about-trauma/201603/non-offending-pedophiles-suffer-isolation
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299657027_Non-Offending_Pedophiles

Not to mention that not all child molesters are paedophiles.
Also,you are dodging your own burden of proof; why don't you demonstrate that paedophiles are incapable of not acting on their sexual attraction?

The_Metatron wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:In fact, what could possibly stop you from trying?
See, this only reinforces the impression that you think all heterosexual people will try to have sex with any and all people they find attractive. Otherwise why are you wondering what's to stop people from trying?

Are you laboring under the idea that humans behave like bonobo monkeys? This is another inference of your own making.

No, it is not. It's a logical extrapolation of your comparing heterosexuality with paedophelia, whilst claiming the only thing stopping people from acting on theirs sexual attraction is oppurtunity.
That and not giving a clear definition of what you mean by 'acting on'.

The_Metatron wrote:
I'm not sure it these inferences of yours constitute what we'd call a strawman, or a red herring. I suspect it's the strawman thing.

It isn't. A straw-man is a deliberate misrepresentation.
I am trying to interpet the comparison you're making as best I can.

The_Metatron wrote: You know, attribute something to your opponent that doesn't exist, so you can then ridicule it. Yeah, that's it. Strawman.

Wrong, that's genuinly what your comparison reads as to me.
Again, if you mean something else clarify your position.
Don't just handwave it away by blindly accusing your interlocutor of straw-manning.
Seriously if you simply clarify your argument when it's clear your interlocutor doesn't understand it properly, not only do you help moving the discussion forward, you'll also have direct evidence when someone is actually straw-manning you.
Because then you can point to your explanation of what your argument actually is.


The_Metatron wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:What's to stop people from trying: lack of consent, the person being already married.

Those things often stop people from succeeding. Once again, you don't seem to think that making the attempt is "acting on" an attraction, do you?

No. As I pointed out above, neither I, nor most people I know would act in any way, including making an attempt, if they know the target is not interested and/or available.

The_Metatron wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote: The person not being of legal age, etc, etc.

You know, mostly similar things that will prevent paedophiles from actually having sex with children.

You would do well to realize that those things prevent nothing.

Except that they do, as is evidenced by the fact of non-offending paedophiles.

The_Metatron wrote: They prescribe penalty for doing it, yes. Prevent? Not so much. Refer to the unlawful homosexuality discussion above.

I already refuted your fatally flawed analogy.

The_Metatron wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
The_Metatron wrote: 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.

And unless I am mistaken, neither you, nor I, nor most other people, try to have sex with each and every other person we're attracted to.

Again, remember it was you who inferred that idea in this conversation.

Again, if you don't clarify what your position actually is, I see no reason to accept your assertion that my inferrence is incorrect.


The_Metatron wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Now we come to the crux of the matter and what seemed to me to be an involunatery admission of rape. (Which I don't actually believe you would do, but that is what this reads like)
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.

What you're saying here is that the only thing that's stopping heterosexual people and paedophiles from having sex with people is oppurtunity.

Not lack of consent and empathy.

In essence you're saying, as it seems to me, that the only reason you're not having sex with women beside your wife, with women who wouldn't necesarrily want to have sex with you, is the lack of oppurtunity.

Sure. That must be it.

Remember, it is you who made this inference. It is you who for some reason doesn't seem to realize that a rejection removes the opportunity.

Which is because you employ unspecified concepts like 'oppurtunity' and rather than clearing things up by explainging what you mean when I make clear that it means something else to me, you just keep complaining about me making an inference.
Yes, I made that inference, because that's what it reads as to me. And if you don't explain what you actually mean, I see no reason why I should think that inference is incorrect.
Empathy has nothing to do with oppurtunity. I can have the oppurtunity to kill you, but still won't do it, because my empathy would not let me.


The_Metatron wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:The second statement is either a direct contradiction to the first, or makes no sense.
Especially since your response to me pointing this out to you, was to re-emphasize the oppurtunity part:
The_Metatron wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:...


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.

...

No, once again (for about the fourth or fifth time), you are the one who doesn't understand what I wrote when I used the word "opportunity". It is you who inferred that I meant that permission wasn't a component of opportunity. That was your leap.

Language does not work without making inferences. It's all a matter of interpetation. Especially with broad terms that have multiple possible definitions, like oppurtunity.
If you just explain what you actually mean rather than complaining about me interpeting what you actually posted, we could move on.
So, what do you mean when you say oppurtunity?

The_Metatron wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
The_Metatron wrote: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.

Now, if I am somehow misunderstanding you, please do explain what you actually mean, but don't just wave it away with 'you're wrong!'.

One more thing. Earlier, you mentioned some shit about me being condescending to you. Tough shit, isn't it? Drop this rapist horseshit that you invented, and we might do this a little less condescendingly. Otherwise, I will have little choice but to continue to assume you fail to grasp the most simple things and write accordingly.

Firstly, my lack of mind reading powers doesn't excuse your condescending attitude.
Secondly, I've made it abundantly clear that I do not consider you to be a rapist but that the comparisons/arguments you post, read as if all people are rapists, that are only prevented from raping because of the lack of oppurtunity.
Rather than acting condescending because I cannot read your mind and know what you mean when you use inherently broad and vague terms, just clarify what you mean.
Last edited by Thomas Eshuis on Dec 14, 2016 6:22 pm, edited 2 times 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: 32
Male

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

Re: Eric Pepke

#79  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 14, 2016 6:14 pm

Let's try again
You Metatron, posted 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.

This reads to me as that you think that when someone experiences involuntary sexual pleasure from witnessing imagery similar to the Phuc picture, you would like to kill them.

My question is, why?

Now if I've misunderstood what you're trying to say, do clarify.
"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

#80  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 14, 2016 6:16 pm

And here's the other point I struggle with:
The_Metatron wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:
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?


This post reads to me as if you're claiming paedophiles are inherently incapable of not acting on their sexual attraction to children.
If so, can you substantiate that with evidence?
If that's not what you're claiming, can you please clarify what you were trying to argue?
"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

PreviousNext

Return to Social Sciences & Humanities

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest