Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

[Skinny Puppy]

I hate quotes within quotes... so I do this my way. Link at the bottom as usual.

Skinny Puppy wrote:
That’s not what I said or implied.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
That is the focus of the current discussion however, that paedophiles should be persecuted if not outright shot, merely for being paedophiles.

The course of this thread isn’t written in stone so I’ve added to it.

Skinny Puppy wrote:
My point is that up until now they are 100% innocent, but they do present a very real (or potential) threat to your kids regardless of innocence.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
There's a crucial distiction between real threat and potential threat.

In most cases yes, when it comes to kiddies the line is drawn in the sand. There is absolutely no leeway given and no quarter shown.
Is this the Alamo?

Skinny Puppy wrote:
Is that fair? Fair doesn’t count when talking about keeping one’s kiddies safe.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
And for the umpteenth time, we don't still don't persecute people for thought crime

Pedophilia isn’t a thought crime, it’s a way of life which defines how that person acts and what they will or will not do. It is almost universally repugnant to people because it is so foreign to any sensible mind. The very thought of what they do makes my skin crawl. I will not apologize for holding such a thought. It is an aberration of nature and it’s up to all of us to protect kiddies.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/viewtopic.php?p=2503244#p2503244

P.S. I’m going out right away, I’ll answer any posts that I’ve missed later.

[The_Metatron]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

The point is that you don't trust them. Fair, I wouldn't trust them either. I also don't trust the homeless guy down the street to watch my kids for another set of reasons. If you have a point you haven't made it yet, I think it would be helpful to state it plainly instead of being coy.

Life is full of risks. Our job as parents is to educate children to handle risks, within their capacity. Further the best guide to future behavior is past behavior.

So assuming you knew, rather than was just assured that this individual was a 'virgin' paedophile - then the question is how mature are your children. Can they be told about paedophilia? What to do if anyone - or this individual in particular does anything inappropriate etc?
It may well be something that I could envisage doing very carefully. It would include a discussion with the paedophile and my children in the same room at the same time agreeing the boundaries of acceptable behavior.

Who are these open pedophiles asking to watch people's kids? I'm pretty sure anyone who can figure out how to let everyone know they're a pedophile and they'd never touch your children without getting run out of the neighborhood would know enough to not ask you to watch them. I understand it's just an example, but it's a really absurd one.

They are part of the nearly one in fifty men you see every day. Worth noting is that they are a subset, these openly confessed pedophiles.

Thomas was unable to quantify that proportion, as am I.

[SafeAsMilk]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

The point is that you don't trust them. Fair, I wouldn't trust them either. I also don't trust the homeless guy down the street to watch my kids for another set of reasons. If you have a point you haven't made it yet, I think it would be helpful to state it plainly instead of being coy.

Life is full of risks. Our job as parents is to educate children to handle risks, within their capacity. Further the best guide to future behavior is past behavior.

So assuming you knew, rather than was just assured that this individual was a 'virgin' paedophile - then the question is how mature are your children. Can they be told about paedophilia? What to do if anyone - or this individual in particular does anything inappropriate etc?
It may well be something that I could envisage doing very carefully. It would include a discussion with the paedophile and my children in the same room at the same time agreeing the boundaries of acceptable behavior.

Who are these open pedophiles asking to watch people's kids? I'm pretty sure anyone who can figure out how to let everyone know they're a pedophile and they'd never touch your children without getting run out of the neighborhood would know enough to not ask you to watch them. I understand it's just an example, but it's a really absurd one.

They are part of the nearly one in fifty men you see every day. Worth noting is that they are a subset, these openly confessed pedophiles.

Thomas was unable to quantify that proportion, as am I.

He was unable to quantify the confessed ones, and you're definitely unable to quantify the confessed ones that are asking to watch your children because they probably don't exist.

[The_Metatron]

Sure. Would you ask one to do the job?

[Thomas Eshuis]

I hate quotes within quotes... so I do this my way. Link at the bottom as usual.

Skinny Puppy wrote:
That’s not what I said or implied.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
That is the focus of the current discussion however, that paedophiles should be persecuted if not outright shot, merely for being paedophiles.

The course of this thread isn’t written in stone so I’ve added to it.

Without making clear what your point is however, it only makes sense that you're responding to the ongoing discussion.

Skinny Puppy wrote:
My point is that up until now they are 100% innocent, but they do present a very real (or potential) threat to your kids regardless of innocence.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
There's a crucial distiction between real threat and potential threat.

In most cases yes, when it comes to kiddies the line is drawn in the sand.

No, in all cases.

There is absolutely no leeway given and no quarter shown.

Speak for yourself.
There's always a potential that a child molester kidnaps your kids on the way to school, but I am not going to treat it like a real threat and keep my children at home until they're adults.

Skinny Puppy wrote:
Is that fair? Fair doesn’t count when talking about keeping one’s kiddies safe.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
And for the umpteenth time, we don't still don't persecute people for thought crime

Pedophilia isn’t a thought crime,

Persecuting or killing them for it, as some people in this thread have argued, is however.

it’s a way of life

False. It's a sexual paraphilia.
It's no more a way of life than SM is a way of life.

which defines how that person acts and what they will or will not do.

Aboslute horseshit.

It is almost universally repugnant to people because it is so foreign to any sensible mind.

That it's an abnormal sexual attraction doesn't make it a way of life.

The very thought of what they do makes my skin crawl.

Again, paedophelia is an attraction not an act nor way of life.

I will not apologize for holding such a thought.

Being unapologetic about an ignorance based position is never a credit to you.

It is an aberration of nature and it’s up to all of us to protect kiddies.

Aberation means not normal.
Homosexuality is not normal.
Bisexuality is not normal.
Being left-handed is not normal.
Do we need to protect our kiddies against these as well.
And again, paedophelia is an attraction, not an act, set of actions or a way of life.

[Thomas Eshuis]

Sure. Would you ask one to do the job?

Would you ask a thief to watch your house?

[SafeAsMilk]

Here's another situation: Your neighbor asks to watch your kids! You don't know if they're a pedophile or not, because if they are, they know that people will want to shoot them in the face for just existing. Because of this, not only do you not know if they're attracted to children, you also don't know if they're the sort to act on it. Of course, if a person were to tell you they're attracted to children and ask to watch them, both parties involved probably has enough brain power to realize that isn't going to fly. But, regardless...

Now that you know any one of your neighbors could be (and most likely is considering the stats The_Metatron presented) a pedophile, do you let any of then watch your children? Or do you curl up under a rock and cry?

[The_Metatron]

Sure. Would you ask one to do the job?

Would you ask a thief to watch your house?

Now at last, we get to it, don't we?

Apparently the power of empathy has limits. Looks like you found it.

[Thomas Eshuis]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

The point is that you don't trust them. Fair, I wouldn't trust them either. I also don't trust the homeless guy down the street to watch my kids for another set of reasons. If you have a point you haven't made it yet, I think it would be helpful to state it plainly instead of being coy.

Life is full of risks. Our job as parents is to educate children to handle risks, within their capacity. Further the best guide to future behavior is past behavior.

So assuming you knew, rather than was just assured that this individual was a 'virgin' paedophile - then the question is how mature are your children. Can they be told about paedophilia? What to do if anyone - or this individual in particular does anything inappropriate etc?
It may well be something that I could envisage doing very carefully. It would include a discussion with the paedophile and my children in the same room at the same time agreeing the boundaries of acceptable behavior.

Who are these open pedophiles asking to watch people's kids? I'm pretty sure anyone who can figure out how to let everyone know they're a pedophile and they'd never touch your children without getting run out of the neighborhood would know enough to not ask you to watch them. I understand it's just an example, but it's a really absurd one.

They are part of the nearly one in fifty men you see every day. Worth noting is that they are a subset, these openly confessed pedophiles.

I hardly, if ever, see 50 men a day.

Thomas was unable to quantify that proportion, as am I.

Unlike you however, I am not making sweeping, generalising statements about a group of people and condemning them for internal experiences that do not necessarily harm anyone else.

[Thomas Eshuis]

Sure. Would you ask one to do the job?

Would you ask a thief to watch your house?

Now at last, we get to it, don't we?

\
Nope, just you continuing with non-sequitur analogies.

Apparently the power of empathy has limits. Looks like you found it.

You haven't answered the question: would you allow a thief to watch your house?

[The_Metatron]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Life is full of risks. Our job as parents is to educate children to handle risks, within their capacity. Further the best guide to future behavior is past behavior.

So assuming you knew, rather than was just assured that this individual was a 'virgin' paedophile - then the question is how mature are your children. Can they be told about paedophilia? What to do if anyone - or this individual in particular does anything inappropriate etc?
It may well be something that I could envisage doing very carefully. It would include a discussion with the paedophile and my children in the same room at the same time agreeing the boundaries of acceptable behavior.

Who are these open pedophiles asking to watch people's kids? I'm pretty sure anyone who can figure out how to let everyone know they're a pedophile and they'd never touch your children without getting run out of the neighborhood would know enough to not ask you to watch them. I understand it's just an example, but it's a really absurd one.

They are part of the nearly one in fifty men you see every day. Worth noting is that they are a subset, these openly confessed pedophiles.

I hardly, if ever, see 50 men a day.

Thomas was unable to quantify that proportion, as am I.

Unlike you however, I am not making sweeping, generalising statements about a group of people and condemning them for internal experiences that do not necessarily harm anyone else.

Yeah, unless you spend your days in your own house, I don't buy that, either. You take a bus ride, you've seen several hundred men.

Not to worry, though. Most of them are empathic.

[SafeAsMilk]

Sure. Would you ask one to do the job?

No more than I'd ask a person who's quit smoking to hold on to my cigarettes for the day. I don't think this makes the point that you think it does, though.

[Thomas Eshuis]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Who are these open pedophiles asking to watch people's kids? I'm pretty sure anyone who can figure out how to let everyone know they're a pedophile and they'd never touch your children without getting run out of the neighborhood would know enough to not ask you to watch them. I understand it's just an example, but it's a really absurd one.

They are part of the nearly one in fifty men you see every day. Worth noting is that they are a subset, these openly confessed pedophiles.

I hardly, if ever, see 50 men a day.

Thomas was unable to quantify that proportion, as am I.

Unlike you however, I am not making sweeping, generalising statements about a group of people and condemning them for internal experiences that do not necessarily harm anyone else.

Yeah, unless you spend your days in your own house, I don't buy that, either. You take a bus ride, you've seen several hundred men.

If only the world operates on the personal incredulity of Metatron, everything would be perfectly black and white.
What you actually mean is the more than 50 men that are in my vicinity each day, the vast, vast majority of which I would not trust with my children anyway, regardless of whether they were paedophiles or not.

Not to worry, though. Most of them are empathic.

Go ahead keep dismissing things out of hand and relying on your emotions. Don't at all bother to put some actual thought or research into the subject.

[SafeAsMilk]

Would you give your friend who's trying to not masturbate your pile of porno videos to watch? Wouldn't you feel at least a little responsible if they ended up jerking off?

[The_Metatron]

Sure. Would you ask one to do the job?

Would you ask a thief to watch your house?

Now at last, we get to it, don't we?

\
Nope, just you continuing with non-sequitur analogies.

Apparently the power of empathy has limits. Looks like you found it.

You haven't answered the question: would you allow a thief to watch your house?

An active thief (note the root of that adjective)? One who actually steals things? Or one who professes he wants to steal things, but doesn't, because he knows it's wrong?

Did you just equate theft with sexual attraction?

You were talking about non-sequiturs? Sorry, man. That wasn't fair. That wasn't a non-sequitur. It was a false analogy.

[Thomas Eshuis]

You've yet to adress this Metatron:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-empathic-brain/201307/inside-the-mind-psychopath-empathic-not-always

[Thomas Eshuis]

Would you ask a thief to watch your house?

Now at last, we get to it, don't we?

\
Nope, just you continuing with non-sequitur analogies.

Apparently the power of empathy has limits. Looks like you found it.

You haven't answered the question: would you allow a thief to watch your house?

An active thief (note the root of that adjective)? One who actually steals things? Or one who professes he wants to steal things, but doesn't, because he knows it's wrong?

No someone who has stolen in the past, eventhough they are not engaged in any criminal activity whatsoever.

Did you just equate theft with sexual attraction?

No, I just tried to point out to you the stupendous notion of comparing letting a paedophile watch your children with actively persecuting if not outright killing them, for being a paedophile.
IE, comparing letting a former thief watch your house, with imprisoning them indefinetely or killing them because they might possible steal again.

You were talking about non-sequiturs? Sorry, man. That wasn't fair. That wasn't a non-sequitur. It was a false analogy.

Just like the dozen or so you've posted so far in a desperate attempt to get from attraction to an uncontrollable urge to act on said attraction.

[The_Metatron]

Sure. Would you ask one to do the job?

No more than I'd ask a person who's quit smoking to hold on to my cigarettes for the day. I don't think this makes the point that you think it does, though.

It demonstrates a fair level of hypocrisy, don't you think?

You guys are having fun jumping on what I say, until you have to answer how you'd behave if it affected your own kids. Well then, all bets are off, aren't they?

Like with Thomas, it appears we found your limit to pedophiles' self control, haven't we?

[The_Metatron]

You've yet to adress this Metatron:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-empathic-brain/201307/inside-the-mind-psychopath-empathic-not-always

What's to address? Does this support some point you were failing to make?

[Thomas Eshuis]

Sure. Would you ask one to do the job?

No more than I'd ask a person who's quit smoking to hold on to my cigarettes for the day. I don't think this makes the point that you think it does, though.

It demonstrates a fair level of hypocrisy, don't you think?

No. It doesn't.
Not giving a person access to their addiction is not at all the same as persecuting someone for having an addiction in the first place.

You guys are having fun jumping on what I say, until you have to answer how you'd behave if it affected your own kids. Well then, all bets are off, aren't they?

No, you are increasingly posting in a dishonest manner misreprsenting not only our posts but the context of this thread in which they take place.

Like with Thomas, it appears we found your limit to pedophiles' self control, haven't we?

Nonsense.
Stop making shit up. I've now twice pointed out that I would not let anyone who I do not know well enough watch my children anyway. Not just because they might molest them.
And again, allowing paedophiles acces to children, or thiefs to someone else's valuables or pyromaniacs to flammable materials, is not at all analogous to persecuting people simply for having these attractions.