Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

[SafeAsMilk]

Why are you defending paedophilic fantasisers when many would act?

For the same reason you don't prosecute a person for any other crime until they begin to act in a criminal way

[Thomas Eshuis]

Thomas, strictly speaking, even thinking is an action. But that's not sufficient here. About what I've written is physical action.

Here's the idea: You are thirsty. You desire to slake that thirst.

Once you move a fucking muscle to do so, you are taking action to satisfy a desire.

And yet I if I desire to have sex with someone and notice that they're not interested, cannot consent etc, I will move no muscle whatsoever.

How did you determine that disinterest? Did you "ask"? How did you even observe your target, as you put it a few times? Were you "seeking" someone with whom to satisfy that desire? Pro-tip: "seeking" is an action, as is "asking".

Pro-tip, it's incredibly easy for paedophiles to determine their targets are invalid: they cannot consent and it would harm them.
A point you keep ignoring.

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Period.

Substitute thirsty for horny.

Get it now?

Yes, however, unless you wish the punish involuntary muscle movements, I still don't see why you think it's okay to persecute people simply for being paedophiles or for experiencing sexual pleasure when they're confronted with an image.

All you've done is describe an aborted attempt to satisfy a desire.

All you've done is focus on red herrings and continue to ignore the point that the very fact that children cannot consent and would be harmed by sex, means the comparison between pedophilic sexual attraction and heterosexual attraction is flawed.
Again, all that's needed for a paedophile to prevent himself from acting on his sexual attraction is empathy and the awareness that it would harm the child.
Care to deal with that point? Rather than all your flawed analogies and arguments that come nowhere near my point?

[The_Metatron]

Not just pedophilia, mind you. Pedophilia mixed with torture.

I think you'll note that, at no point in the post you quoted, did I mention paedophelia.

Yeah, another tough one. It's the girl part I highlighted for you that should tip you off.

That still does not change the question.
Why do you think that it is ok to kill someone for having an involuntary, internal response?

Actually, I'm more than sure it isn't "ok". I'm also particularly glad the scenario I described is as rare as it actually is.

[Reveal] Spoiler:

The simple answer is that such a man would be an unacceptable risk to society, a horribly unacceptable risk to the most vulnerable members of society.

That's an incredibly simple answer, if only for the fact that it is a non-sequitur.
How does the internal experience of that person pose a threat to society?

My simple answer was insufficient for you?

Oh, well.

I note that you haven't answered the question and have to therefore assume that either you cannot explain how thoughts themselves are threat to society or are unwilling to critically examine your views in an honest discussion.

I've described here my dark place. That thing that I will not tolerate. Scary, eh?

Nope, it isn't particularly rational. Not civilized in the least. I hope it's never put to the test, actually.

[SafeAsMilk]

The simple answer is that such a man would be an unacceptable risk to society, a horribly unacceptable risk to the most vulnerable members of society.

That's an incredibly simple answer, if only for the fact that it is a non-sequitur.
How does the internal experience of that person pose a threat to society?

My simple answer was insufficient for you?

Oh, well.

It's insufficient for any thoughtful person. You don't prosecute people for crimes they haven't committed. Sitting there and fantasizing with no intent to act is a huge risk to society, but you do find your willingness to actually go out and murder someone because they think about something that bothers you is an acceptable risk to society, though? Get a grip. You and KIR both need to take a good, hard look at the view you're putting forward. If prosecuting thought crime gets you hard, then start with your own thoughts.

[Thomas Eshuis]

I think you'll note that, at no point in the post you quoted, did I mention paedophelia.

Yeah, another tough one. It's the girl part I highlighted for you that should tip you off.

That still does not change the question.
Why do you think that it is ok to kill someone for having an involuntary, internal response?

Actually, I'm more than sure it isn't "ok". I'm also particularly glad the scenario I described is as rare as it actually is.

Yet you continue to fail to provide any actual justifications for it, let alone a rational one.

[Reveal] Spoiler:

That's an incredibly simple answer, if only for the fact that it is a non-sequitur.
How does the internal experience of that person pose a threat to society?

My simple answer was insufficient for you?

Oh, well.

I note that you haven't answered the question and have to therefore assume that either you cannot explain how thoughts themselves are threat to society or are unwilling to critically examine your views in an honest discussion.

I've described here my dark place. That thing that I will not tolerate. Scary, eh?

Nope, it isn't particularly rational. Not civilized in the least. I hope it's never put to the test, actually.

I hope that sometimes soon you will apply the rational skeptical attitude I've seen you apply so many times elsewhere to your own irrational position on this issue. And follow it to its logical and consistent conclusion.
Especially since, according to your arguments, your desire to kill people is just as threatening to society as the mere thoughts paedophiles have.

[The_Metatron]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Thomas, strictly speaking, even thinking is an action. But that's not sufficient here. About what I've written is physical action.

Here's the idea: You are thirsty. You desire to slake that thirst.

Once you move a fucking muscle to do so, you are taking action to satisfy a desire.

And yet I if I desire to have sex with someone and notice that they're not interested, cannot consent etc, I will move no muscle whatsoever.

How did you determine that disinterest? Did you "ask"? How did you even observe your target, as you put it a few times? Were you "seeking" someone with whom to satisfy that desire? Pro-tip: "seeking" is an action, as is "asking".

Pro-tip, it's incredibly easy for paedophiles to determine their targets are invalid: they cannot consent and it would harm them.
A point you keep ignoring.

Period.

Substitute thirsty for horny.

Get it now?

Yes, however, unless you wish the punish involuntary muscle movements, I still don't see why you think it's okay to persecute people simply for being paedophiles or for experiencing sexual pleasure when they're confronted with an image.

All you've done is describe an aborted attempt to satisfy a desire.

All you've done is focus on red herrings and continue to ignore the point that the very fact that children cannot consent and would be harmed by sex, means the comparison between pedophilic sexual attraction and heterosexual attraction is flawed.
Again, all that's needed for a paedophile to prevent himself from acting on his sexual attraction is empathy and the awareness that it would harm the child.

Care to deal with that point? Rather than all your flawed analogies and arguments that come nowhere near my point?

Not really. Your concept of "prevent" is flawed.

Revert back to the theft analogy. The law gives you pause. Social norms give you pause. The lock prevents theft. A preventative works even after a decision is made to act.

Prevent is a stronger word than you think.

[Thomas Eshuis]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

And yet I if I desire to have sex with someone and notice that they're not interested, cannot consent etc, I will move no muscle whatsoever.

How did you determine that disinterest? Did you "ask"? How did you even observe your target, as you put it a few times? Were you "seeking" someone with whom to satisfy that desire? Pro-tip: "seeking" is an action, as is "asking".

Pro-tip, it's incredibly easy for paedophiles to determine their targets are invalid: they cannot consent and it would harm them.
A point you keep ignoring.

Yes, however, unless you wish the punish involuntary muscle movements, I still don't see why you think it's okay to persecute people simply for being paedophiles or for experiencing sexual pleasure when they're confronted with an image.

All you've done is describe an aborted attempt to satisfy a desire.

All you've done is focus on red herrings and continue to ignore the point that the very fact that children cannot consent and would be harmed by sex, means the comparison between pedophilic sexual attraction and heterosexual attraction is flawed.
Again, all that's needed for a paedophile to prevent himself from acting on his sexual attraction is empathy and the awareness that it would harm the child.

Care to deal with that point? Rather than all your flawed analogies and arguments that come nowhere near my point?

Not really. Your concept of "prevent" is flawed.

Yet another completely unsubstantiated accusation.
Care to explain how it is flawed? And actually demonstrate that it is?

Revert back to the theft analogy. The law gives you pause. Social norms give you pause. The lock prevents theft. A preventative works even after a decision is made to act.

So it is your contention that the main reason most people don't steal is social consensus and locks.
And not because they know it would hurt the victim?
Even if you'd actually manage to demonstrate this, which I doubt, that still would not change the fact that most people don't steal and there's therefore no reason, following your analogy, that most paedophiles would abuse children.

Prevent is a stronger word than you think.

Blind assertions are not a substitute for facts and arguments.

[The_Metatron]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Yeah, another tough one. It's the girl part I highlighted for you that should tip you off.

That still does not change the question.
Why do you think that it is ok to kill someone for having an involuntary, internal response?

Actually, I'm more than sure it isn't "ok". I'm also particularly glad the scenario I described is as rare as it actually is.

Yet you continue to fail to provide any actual justifications for it, let alone a rational one.

My simple answer was insufficient for you?

Oh, well.

I note that you haven't answered the question and have to therefore assume that either you cannot explain how thoughts themselves are threat to society or are unwilling to critically examine your views in an honest discussion.

I've described here my dark place. That thing that I will not tolerate. Scary, eh?

Nope, it isn't particularly rational. Not civilized in the least. I hope it's never put to the test, actually.

I hope that sometimes soon you will apply the rational skeptical attitude I've seen you apply so many times elsewhere to your own irrational position on this issue. And follow it to its logical and consistent conclusion.
Especially since, according to your arguments, your desire to kill people is just as threatening to society as the mere thoughts paedophiles have.

Don't you ever say another fucking word to me about generalizations after that crap. Not another fucking word.

What I've laid bare here is quite specific indeed, and you fucking know it.

[Thomas Eshuis]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

That still does not change the question.
Why do you think that it is ok to kill someone for having an involuntary, internal response?

Actually, I'm more than sure it isn't "ok". I'm also particularly glad the scenario I described is as rare as it actually is.

Yet you continue to fail to provide any actual justifications for it, let alone a rational one.

I note that you haven't answered the question and have to therefore assume that either you cannot explain how thoughts themselves are threat to society or are unwilling to critically examine your views in an honest discussion.

I've described here my dark place. That thing that I will not tolerate. Scary, eh?

Nope, it isn't particularly rational. Not civilized in the least. I hope it's never put to the test, actually.

I hope that sometimes soon you will apply the rational skeptical attitude I've seen you apply so many times elsewhere to your own irrational position on this issue. And follow it to its logical and consistent conclusion.
Especially since, according to your arguments, your desire to kill people is just as threatening to society as the mere thoughts paedophiles have.

Don't you ever say another fucking word to me about generalizations after that crap. Not another fucking word.

What I've laid bare here is quite specific indeed, and you fucking know it.

And I thought you'd know I was talking about your specific killing desire.
But allow me to clarify: your desire to kill people who experience sexual gratification when seeing a picture Phuc is just as threatening to society as the mere thoughts paedophiles have.

But by all means do continue act hostile towards me despite my attempts to have a productive discussion.

[The_Metatron]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

How did you determine that disinterest? Did you "ask"? How did you even observe your target, as you put it a few times? Were you "seeking" someone with whom to satisfy that desire? Pro-tip: "seeking" is an action, as is "asking".

Pro-tip, it's incredibly easy for paedophiles to determine their targets are invalid: they cannot consent and it would harm them.
A point you keep ignoring.

All you've done is describe an aborted attempt to satisfy a desire.

All you've done is focus on red herrings and continue to ignore the point that the very fact that children cannot consent and would be harmed by sex, means the comparison between pedophilic sexual attraction and heterosexual attraction is flawed.
Again, all that's needed for a paedophile to prevent himself from acting on his sexual attraction is empathy and the awareness that it would harm the child.

Care to deal with that point? Rather than all your flawed analogies and arguments that come nowhere near my point?

Not really. Your concept of "prevent" is flawed.

Yet another completely unsubstantiated accusation.
Care to explain how it is flawed? And actually demonstrate that it is?

Revert back to the theft analogy. The law gives you pause. Social norms give you pause. The lock prevents theft. A preventative works even after a decision is made to act.

So it is your contention that the main reason most people don't steal is social consensus and locks.
And not because they know it would hurt the victim?
Even if you'd actually manage to demonstrate this, which I doubt, that still would not change the fact that most people don't steal and there's therefore no reason, following your analogy, that most paedophiles would abuse children.

Prevent is a stronger word than you think.

Blind assertions are not a substitute for facts and arguments.

Of the two things in this photograph, only one of them actually prevents you from continuing:



Take all the time you need.

[SafeAsMilk]

Especially since, according to your arguments, your desire to kill people is just as threatening to society as the mere thoughts paedophiles have.

Don't you ever say another fucking word to me about generalizations after that crap. Not another fucking word.

What I've laid bare here is quite specific indeed, and you fucking know it.

And it's exactly as he described it. You said you want to kill someone because they think about something that bothers you too much. By your own measure you're a threat to society -- you're actually more of a threat than they are, because it's entirely possible they think actuating their fantasy would be wrong and would never do it, while you've admitted you'd gladly perform an act that you surely know is criminal. That you don't get the hypocrisy of this is incredibly telling. You haven't got a leg to stand on.

[Thomas Eshuis]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Pro-tip, it's incredibly easy for paedophiles to determine their targets are invalid: they cannot consent and it would harm them.
A point you keep ignoring.


All you've done is focus on red herrings and continue to ignore the point that the very fact that children cannot consent and would be harmed by sex, means the comparison between pedophilic sexual attraction and heterosexual attraction is flawed.
Again, all that's needed for a paedophile to prevent himself from acting on his sexual attraction is empathy and the awareness that it would harm the child.

Care to deal with that point? Rather than all your flawed analogies and arguments that come nowhere near my point?

Not really. Your concept of "prevent" is flawed.

Yet another completely unsubstantiated accusation.
Care to explain how it is flawed? And actually demonstrate that it is?

Revert back to the theft analogy. The law gives you pause. Social norms give you pause. The lock prevents theft. A preventative works even after a decision is made to act.

So it is your contention that the main reason most people don't steal is social consensus and locks.
And not because they know it would hurt the victim?
Even if you'd actually manage to demonstrate this, which I doubt, that still would not change the fact that most people don't steal and there's therefore no reason, following your analogy, that most paedophiles would abuse children.

Prevent is a stronger word than you think.

Blind assertions are not a substitute for facts and arguments.

Of the two things in this photograph, only one of them actually prevents you from continuing:



Take all the time you need.

Correction. Only one of the things in this picture physically prevents you from continuing. And it doesn't even do that.
Meanwhile, for most people the sign would be enough.
Most importantly, the picture you posted bears no equivalence whatsoever to raping someone.
How many more ludicrous straw-man anologies are you going to throw out, before you're ready to deal with the fact that most people won't do many things because their empathy won't allow them to?

[The_Metatron]

Especially since, according to your arguments, your desire to kill people is just as threatening to society as the mere thoughts paedophiles have.

Don't you ever say another fucking word to me about generalizations after that crap. Not another fucking word.

What I've laid bare here is quite specific indeed, and you fucking know it.

And it's exactly as he described it. You said you want to kill someone because they think about something that bothers you too much. By your own measure you're a threat to society -- you're actually more of a threat than they are, because it's entirely possible they think actuating their fantasy would be wrong and would never do it, while you've admitted you'd gladly perform an act that you surely know is criminal. That you don't get the hypocrisy of this is incredibly telling. You haven't got a leg to stand on.

Nope. Sure don't.

Don't be the guy who jerks off to tortured naked young girls in my presence. It isn't like I didn't warn you.

I'm making no attempt to justify this to you, or anyone else.

But you, like Thomas, are assuming that "they think actuating their fantasy would be wrong and would never do it", aren't you?

[The_Metatron]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Not really. Your concept of "prevent" is flawed.

Yet another completely unsubstantiated accusation.
Care to explain how it is flawed? And actually demonstrate that it is?

Revert back to the theft analogy. The law gives you pause. Social norms give you pause. The lock prevents theft. A preventative works even after a decision is made to act.

So it is your contention that the main reason most people don't steal is social consensus and locks.
And not because they know it would hurt the victim?
Even if you'd actually manage to demonstrate this, which I doubt, that still would not change the fact that most people don't steal and there's therefore no reason, following your analogy, that most paedophiles would abuse children.

Prevent is a stronger word than you think.

Blind assertions are not a substitute for facts and arguments.

Of the two things in this photograph, only one of them actually prevents you from continuing:



Take all the time you need.

Correction. Only one of the things in this picture physically prevents you from continuing. And it doesn't even do that.
Meanwhile, for most people the sign would be enough.
Most importantly, the picture you posted bears no equivalence whatsoever to raping someone.

How many more ludicrous straw-man anologies are you going to throw out, before you're ready to deal with the fact that most people won't do many things because their empathy won't allow them to?

I'll stop when I tire of showing your inability to understand what the word "prevent" actually means. Or, until you finally figure it out.

The image I showed you has nothing to do with raping someone. A casual observer can recognize that.

That was a lesson on what the word "prevent" actually means.

A social more may make some people decide to do or not to do a particular thing. But, as long as the doing of that thing is dependent on a decision by the actor, it is not in any way prevented.

[Thomas Eshuis]

Especially since, according to your arguments, your desire to kill people is just as threatening to society as the mere thoughts paedophiles have.

Don't you ever say another fucking word to me about generalizations after that crap. Not another fucking word.

What I've laid bare here is quite specific indeed, and you fucking know it.

And it's exactly as he described it. You said you want to kill someone because they think about something that bothers you too much. By your own measure you're a threat to society -- you're actually more of a threat than they are, because it's entirely possible they think actuating their fantasy would be wrong and would never do it, while you've admitted you'd gladly perform an act that you surely know is criminal. That you don't get the hypocrisy of this is incredibly telling. You haven't got a leg to stand on.

Nope. Sure don't.

Don't be the guy who jerks off to tortured naked young girls in my presence. It isn't like I didn't warn you.

See, once again you use apparently use an idiosyncratic definition of a word.
Sexual gratification =/= masturbation.
It's deriving any sexual pleasure from something.
Including arousal or other forms of sexual stimulation.

I'm making no attempt to justify this to you, or anyone else.

No, just being incredibly vague in your use of terms and refusing to clarify them when it becomes clear you're not conveying what you're actually meaning to say.

But you, like Thomas, are assuming that "they think actuating their fantasy would be wrong and would never do it", aren't you?

Except that it isn't an assumption. But do continue to dismiss things out of hand, it will only reinforce the fact that your position is based entirely on emotion rather than reason.

[The_Metatron]

Here's another go, Thomas.

Of these two objects, which can you simply ignore if you wish, and which will stop you regardless of your decision?





Are you beginning to get it yet?

If the stop sign prevented people from ignoring them, we would have no need of the barricade, would we?

[Thomas Eshuis]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Yet another completely unsubstantiated accusation.
Care to explain how it is flawed? And actually demonstrate that it is?


So it is your contention that the main reason most people don't steal is social consensus and locks.
And not because they know it would hurt the victim?
Even if you'd actually manage to demonstrate this, which I doubt, that still would not change the fact that most people don't steal and there's therefore no reason, following your analogy, that most paedophiles would abuse children.


Blind assertions are not a substitute for facts and arguments.

Of the two things in this photograph, only one of them actually prevents you from continuing:



Take all the time you need.

Correction. Only one of the things in this picture physically prevents you from continuing. And it doesn't even do that.
Meanwhile, for most people the sign would be enough.
Most importantly, the picture you posted bears no equivalence whatsoever to raping someone.

How many more ludicrous straw-man anologies are you going to throw out, before you're ready to deal with the fact that most people won't do many things because their empathy won't allow them to?

I'll stop when I tire of showing your inability to understand what the word "prevent" actually means. Or, until you finally figure it out.

That can be easily achieved by actually demonstrating, rather than blindly asserting, that I don't know what it actually means.
Hint: words don't have singular immutable meanings. In virtually all cases, they have mutliple usages.

The image I showed you has nothing to do with raping someone. A casual observer can recognize that.

Ergo it being in no way analogous to the topic at hand.

That was a lesson on what the word "prevent" actually means.

Nope. Since the picture you posted doesn't demonstrate anything of the sort.
First of all a car can still continue after driving over the obstacle, if less efficient.
Secondly, it is only an example of physically preventing something.
People can also have mental blocks that prevent them from doing something.
Like being incapable of suicide because they value life to much.
Being incapable of raping children because they cannot bear to hurt other people.

A social more may make some people decide to do or not to do a particular thing. But, as long as the doing of that thing is dependent on a decision by the actor, it is not in any way prevented.

It's this asbolute disengenuous crap that makes your repeated blind accusations of straw-manning incredibly hypocritical.
I've repeatedly pointed out to you that it is empathy not social consensus, that can prevent paedophiles from abusing children.
Just like it prevents most people from raping adults or otherwise hurting them.

[SafeAsMilk]

Especially since, according to your arguments, your desire to kill people is just as threatening to society as the mere thoughts paedophiles have.

Don't you ever say another fucking word to me about generalizations after that crap. Not another fucking word.

What I've laid bare here is quite specific indeed, and you fucking know it.

And it's exactly as he described it. You said you want to kill someone because they think about something that bothers you too much. By your own measure you're a threat to society -- you're actually more of a threat than they are, because it's entirely possible they think actuating their fantasy would be wrong and would never do it, while you've admitted you'd gladly perform an act that you surely know is criminal. That you don't get the hypocrisy of this is incredibly telling. You haven't got a leg to stand on.

Nope. Sure don't.

Don't be the guy who jerks off to tortured naked young girls in my presence. It isn't like I didn't warn you.

I'm making no attempt to justify this to you, or anyone else.

Great, then get to work prosecuting your own thought crimes, change starts with you.

But you, like Thomas, are assuming that "they think actuating their fantasy would be wrong and would never do it", aren't you?

I'm not making an assumption either way. I don't need to, I find prosecuting people for crimes they've actually committed makes the most sense. Aversion to fascism, I guess.

[Thomas Eshuis]

Here's another go, Thomas.

Of these two objects, which can you simply ignore if you wish, and which will stop you regardless of your decision?





Are you beginning to get it yet?

If the stop sign prevented people from ignoring them, we would have no need of the barricade, would we?

Your continued refusal to adress my actual points rather than these asinine analogies only serves to demonstrate you're not interesterd in a rational discussion.

People aren't prevented from doing things only by physical obstacles. People can also have a personal empathy that prevents them from hurting other people.

[SafeAsMilk]

Here's another go, Thomas.

Of these two objects, which can you simply ignore if you wish, and which will stop you regardless of your decision?





Are you beginning to get it yet?

If the stop sign prevented people from ignoring them, we would have no need of the barricade, would we?

If a person wants to get through, the barricade won't stop them either. And yet, somehow despite your assertions, stop signs DO stop people the vast majority of the time! But I guess we should throw people who enjoy thinking about running the stop sign in prison, right?

Are you beginning to get how fucking stupid your analogies are yet?