Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

[The_Metatron]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

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.

Yeah. It's controllable, sex drive. Sure.

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

[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

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

More vapid handwaving.
It points out that it is indeed a lack of empathy that allows people to commit all manner of harmful actions on others. It also points out that, conversly, it is empathy which prevents people from harming others.
Had you actually bothered to read it, rather than dismissing it out of hand in a knee jerk reaction, you'd know this.

[The_Metatron]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

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.

I'm fabricating nothing. You just described your limit to the efficacy of empathy or propriety.

You trust it just fine until it's your kid at risk. Then suddenly, it isn't so preventive, is it?

[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.

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

Nope, it does demonstrate that you haven't a clue what the point is, which is what I suspected all along.

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?

Not at all. All I've ever said is that it's entirely possible for a pedophile to have self-control, you were the one making the assumption that a person into something as extreme as that doesn't have self control, so you'd shoot them in the face. Again, you act based on assumptions, whereas I'd wait for action to actually condemn someone. Not giving them my children isn't condemning them, any more than not giving my friend who's quit smoking my cigarettes is condemning them. I'm not dumb enough to temp them with my kids, any more than I'd tempt any vulnerable person. That would just be a shitty thing to do. Have you even thought about this at all? Other than your need to shoot people you don't like in the face, that is.

[Thomas Eshuis]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

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


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.

Yeah. It's controllable, sex drive. Sure.[/quote}
FFS. Do persist in conflating sexual attraction with action if you must. But you do not get to repeatedly imply that I do.
I have repeatedly corrected you on this.
It is empathy that prevents them from acting on their sexual attraction, not having that sexual attraction or drive in the first place.
Now stop repeating this fucking dishonest straw-man.

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

How many of the teengage pregnancies in Texas are due to girls forcing themselves on men that did not want to have sex with them Metatron?
It's fucking pathetic that you keep attacking this straw-men when I've repeatedly corrected it for you.

[Thomas Eshuis]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

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.

I'm fabricating nothing.

You are.
You keep conflating letting someone predilicted to children watch children, thereby bringing them in a compromising situation, with persecuting them merely for having those instinctual but not necessarily harmful attraction.

You just described your limit to the efficacy of empathy or propriety.

Horseshit, no matter how many times you disengenuously and counterfactually assert it.

You trust it just fine until it's your kid at risk. Then suddenly, it isn't so preventive, is it?

It's a pathetic, dishonest straw-man, is what it is.

[SafeAsMilk]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

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.

I'm fabricating nothing. You just described your limit to the efficacy of empathy or propriety.

You trust it just fine until it's your kid at risk. Then suddenly, it isn't so preventive, is it?

Again, clueless. I hope you never leave your kids with anyone, because any of them could be a pedophile. Not preventative enough, shoot them in the face!

[The_Metatron]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

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?

Nope, it does demonstrate that you haven't a clue what the point is, which is what I suspected all along.

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?

Not at all. All I've ever said is that it's entirely possible for a pedophile to have self-control, you were the one making the assumption that a person into something as extreme as that doesn't have self control, so you'd shoot them in the face. Again, you act based on assumptions, whereas I'd wait for action to actually condemn someone. Not giving them my children isn't condemning them, any more than not giving my friend who's quit smoking my cigarettes is condemning them. I'm not dumb enough to temp them with my kids, any more than I'd tempt any vulnerable person. That would just be a shitty thing to do. Have you even thought about this at all? Other than your need to shoot people you don't like in the face, that is.

Yep, and that's your limit of tolerance to risk.

A couple more things: the shooting in the face business is your or someone else in this topic's invention. I never used those words. Again, the common term for it "straw man". You have to invent something I didn't say, then you get to have fun tearing it down.

Further, I didn't extend my offer of violence to simply "pedophiles", did I? More of that straw man business? No, I was a fair bit more specific, wasn't I? I'll reiterate for you: torture of girls.

I know perfectly well it is Thomas who has hung his hat on empathy as what "prevents" some pedophiles to act. I am not confident that either of you understand that that prevents nothing, though.

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

[Thomas Eshuis]

Lets make it even more unambiguous.
Would you let a diagnosed kleptomaniac watch your house for you?

[The_Metatron]

Actually, I think we're done, aren't we? Both you and SafeAsMilk are enjoying talking all the shit you like, until a scenario is brought home to your own kids.

Then, we find that these preventions like empathy and propriety to be insufficient. This is no surprise, nor is it rational. Something to which I long ago admitted.

[SafeAsMilk]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

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?

Nope, it does demonstrate that you haven't a clue what the point is, which is what I suspected all along.

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?

Not at all. All I've ever said is that it's entirely possible for a pedophile to have self-control, you were the one making the assumption that a person into something as extreme as that doesn't have self control, so you'd shoot them in the face. Again, you act based on assumptions, whereas I'd wait for action to actually condemn someone. Not giving them my children isn't condemning them, any more than not giving my friend who's quit smoking my cigarettes is condemning them. I'm not dumb enough to temp them with my kids, any more than I'd tempt any vulnerable person. That would just be a shitty thing to do. Have you even thought about this at all? Other than your need to shoot people you don't like in the face, that is.

Yep, and that's your limit of tolerance to risk.

A couple more things: the shooting in the face business is your or someone else in this topic's invention. I never used those words. Again, the common term for it "straw man". You have to invent something I didn't say, then you get to have fun tearing it down.

A colorful shorthand, about which a more specific reiterating would change nothing. You'll just have to deal with having your own statements thrown back in your face, even though you refuse to deal with how hypocritical it makes your position, as I pointed out a long time ago to unsurprising radio silence.

Further, I didn't extend my offer of violence to simply "pedophiles", did I? More of that straw man business? No, I was a fair bit more specific, wasn't I? I'll reiterate for you: torture of girls.

Oh, I'm so sorry, you're perfectly happy to let people who think about raping children a pass off the murder train, but torture of girls is where you draw the line! I wonder if tortured boys receive your same thoughtful sympathy.

I know perfectly well it is Thomas who has hung his hat on empathy as what "prevents" some pedophiles to act. I am not confident that either of you understand that that prevents nothing, though.

There is little doubt that pedophiles exist who are able to control their urges

Thanks for contradicting yourself. It prevents nothing, yet they are able to control their urges...which prevents, unless it doesn't, then it isn't control, of course.

What I think you and Thomas don't want to face is the idea that many of them, or perhaps even most of them, will eventually fail in that endeavor. I base that estimate on the power that the drive for sex has on human behavior.

As Thomas pointed out, unless you go around raping women, you're full of shit on that count. Pedophiles are capable of understanding that rape is wrong, and not acting on it. That doesn't mean you push them or create situations for them to act. That would not only be stupid, but a shitty thing to do both for them and your children.

[SafeAsMilk]

Actually, I think we're done, aren't we? Both you and SafeAsMilk are enjoying talking all the shit you like, until a scenario is brought home to your own kids.

An absurd, contrived situation that you can't even pretend has ever happened, ever. But hey, who's talking shit?

Then, we find that these preventions like empathy and propriety to be insufficient. This is no surprise, nor is it rational. Something to which I long ago admitted.

Insufficient for what? You keep babbling on about this, forgetting that you never made a point with it.

[Thomas Eshuis]

I know perfectly well it is Thomas who has hung his hat on empathy as what "prevents" some pedophiles to act.

Emphasis on some. And I have not hung my hat on anything.
I am merely pointing out facts that disprove your narrative that paedophiles are incapable of not acting on their attractions.

I am not confident that either of you understand that that prevents nothing, though.

At this point I could not care less about your personal credulity on the matter. Especially since, so far your objections boils down to blind accusations and the insinuation that the only TrueTM form of prevention must be physical in nature.

There is little doubt that pedophiles exist who are able to control their urges.

Then why do you feel its ok to treat them all as if they're child molestors?

What I think you and Thomas don't want to face is the idea that many of them, or perhaps even most of them, will eventually fail in that endeavor.

I cannot face things not given in evidence, regardless of the subject.
I am perfectly willing to entertain the possibility, but until you provide evidence for that claim I will not agree to the persecution of paedophiles for their paedophelia alone.

I base that estimate on the power that the drive for sex has on human behavior.

So you base it in your continued simplistic and bullshit notion that people are rabbits.
And once again you imply that humans in general are likely to be rapists.

[Thomas Eshuis]

Actually, I think we're done, aren't we?

No we're not.
Not until you either start adressing the actual points I am making, or admit you cannot.

Both you and SafeAsMilk are enjoying talking all the shit you like, until a scenario is brought home to your own kids.

Said pot to porcelain.

Then, we find that these preventions like empathy and propriety to be insufficient.

Rather its asinine non-analogies that fail to adress the actual points being made.

This is no surprise, nor is it rational. Something to which I long ago admitted.

Then why are you so desperate to defend it with arguments?

[The_Metatron]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

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

Nope, it does demonstrate that you haven't a clue what the point is, which is what I suspected all along.

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?

Not at all. All I've ever said is that it's entirely possible for a pedophile to have self-control, you were the one making the assumption that a person into something as extreme as that doesn't have self control, so you'd shoot them in the face. Again, you act based on assumptions, whereas I'd wait for action to actually condemn someone. Not giving them my children isn't condemning them, any more than not giving my friend who's quit smoking my cigarettes is condemning them. I'm not dumb enough to temp them with my kids, any more than I'd tempt any vulnerable person. That would just be a shitty thing to do. Have you even thought about this at all? Other than your need to shoot people you don't like in the face, that is.

Yep, and that's your limit of tolerance to risk.

A couple more things: the shooting in the face business is your or someone else in this topic's invention. I never used those words. Again, the common term for it "straw man". You have to invent something I didn't say, then you get to have fun tearing it down.

A colorful shorthand, about which a more specific reiterating would change nothing. You'll just have to deal with having your own statements thrown back in your face, even though you refuse to deal with how hypocritical it makes your position, as I pointed out a long time ago to unsurprising radio silence.

Further, I didn't extend my offer of violence to simply "pedophiles", did I? More of that straw man business? No, I was a fair bit more specific, wasn't I? I'll reiterate for you: torture of girls.

Oh, I'm so sorry, you're perfectly happy to let people who think about raping children a pass off the murder train, but torture of girls is where you draw the line! I wonder if tortured boys receive your same thoughtful sympathy.

I know perfectly well it is Thomas who has hung his hat on empathy as what "prevents" some pedophiles to act. I am not confident that either of you understand that that prevents nothing, though.

There is little doubt that pedophiles exist who are able to control their urges

Thanks for contradicting yourself. It prevents nothing, yet they are able to control their urges...which prevents, unless it doesn't, then it isn't control, of course.

What I think you and Thomas don't want to face is the idea that many of them, or perhaps even most of them, will eventually fail in that endeavor. I base that estimate on the power that the drive for sex has on human behavior.

As Thomas pointed out, unless you go around raping women, you're full of shit on that count. Pedophiles are capable of understanding that rape is wrong, and not acting on it. That doesn't mean you push them or create situations for them to act. That would not only be stupid, but a shitty thing to do both for them and your children.

Oh, I see what you mean. You're saying we shouldn't tempt the pedophiles, is that it?

How does that work?

You and I are expected to control ourselves, in all situations. Restricting what women wear is a hot topic along those lines. A common approach to that is that women should be able to wear whatever the hell they want and have the expectation that they won't be sexually assaulted because of it. Seems like a good approach to me. Much of the Muslim world disagrees.

Are you telling me now that these pedophiles may not be able to exercise that same level of control as what is expected from everyone else? They need to be protected from temptation? More so than everyone else?

Additionally, others, such as children, need to worry about pedophiles being tempted?

I thought you guys were telling us all about this remarkable self control resulting from empathy and propriety.

So, which is it?

[SafeAsMilk]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Nope, it does demonstrate that you haven't a clue what the point is, which is what I suspected all along.

Not at all. All I've ever said is that it's entirely possible for a pedophile to have self-control, you were the one making the assumption that a person into something as extreme as that doesn't have self control, so you'd shoot them in the face. Again, you act based on assumptions, whereas I'd wait for action to actually condemn someone. Not giving them my children isn't condemning them, any more than not giving my friend who's quit smoking my cigarettes is condemning them. I'm not dumb enough to temp them with my kids, any more than I'd tempt any vulnerable person. That would just be a shitty thing to do. Have you even thought about this at all? Other than your need to shoot people you don't like in the face, that is.

Yep, and that's your limit of tolerance to risk.

A couple more things: the shooting in the face business is your or someone else in this topic's invention. I never used those words. Again, the common term for it "straw man". You have to invent something I didn't say, then you get to have fun tearing it down.

A colorful shorthand, about which a more specific reiterating would change nothing. You'll just have to deal with having your own statements thrown back in your face, even though you refuse to deal with how hypocritical it makes your position, as I pointed out a long time ago to unsurprising radio silence.

Further, I didn't extend my offer of violence to simply "pedophiles", did I? More of that straw man business? No, I was a fair bit more specific, wasn't I? I'll reiterate for you: torture of girls.

Oh, I'm so sorry, you're perfectly happy to let people who think about raping children a pass off the murder train, but torture of girls is where you draw the line! I wonder if tortured boys receive your same thoughtful sympathy.

I know perfectly well it is Thomas who has hung his hat on empathy as what "prevents" some pedophiles to act. I am not confident that either of you understand that that prevents nothing, though.

There is little doubt that pedophiles exist who are able to control their urges

Thanks for contradicting yourself. It prevents nothing, yet they are able to control their urges...which prevents, unless it doesn't, then it isn't control, of course.

What I think you and Thomas don't want to face is the idea that many of them, or perhaps even most of them, will eventually fail in that endeavor. I base that estimate on the power that the drive for sex has on human behavior.

As Thomas pointed out, unless you go around raping women, you're full of shit on that count. Pedophiles are capable of understanding that rape is wrong, and not acting on it. That doesn't mean you push them or create situations for them to act. That would not only be stupid, but a shitty thing to do both for them and your children.

Oh, I see what you mean. You're saying we shouldn't tempt the pedophiles, is that it?

How does that work?

Er, you shouldn't tempt anyone. I mean, why the fuck would you have your friend who's quit smoking watch your cigarettes? They'd most likely be able to deal, but still, why the fuck would you do that? That's pretty sadistic.

You and I are expected to control ourselves, in all situations.

Yeah you're right, we understand right from wrong and get pressure from our society to act right...wait wait, NOW you think empathy and social pressure is sufficiently preventative? Seriously, make up your fucking mind, you can't have it both ways.

Restricting what women wear is a hot topic along those lines. A common approach to that is that women should be able to wear whatever the hell they want and have the expectation that they won't be sexually assaulted because of it. Seems like a good approach to me. Much of the Muslim world disagrees.

Uh yeah, pedophiles are expected to not molest children. Have I suggested putting bin liners over children to not tempt the pedophiles? I don't think I did. Maybe I should have, then this wouldn't be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Are you telling me now that these pedophiles may not be able to exercise that same level of control as what is expected from everyone else? They need to be protected from temptation? More so than everyone else?

Nope, about the same as everyone else. I'm just not a sadist that would specifically put them in situations designed for them to fail, just as you wouldn't do for anyone else. But hey, you're the one that can't decide whether empathy and social pressure are sufficient enough for people in general, lord knows pedophiles don't get much of that, and I mean it's not like there's laws and police to consider or anything...

[Fallible]

Empathy guides, it prevents nothing, Thomas.

Speaking of empathy, tortured naked girls. They don't rate any?

I'm miles behind here, but in case anybody still cares, you've introduced the idea the girl has been tortured. You said nothing of how she came to be burned originally. You're embellishing.

[Fallible]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

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?

Nope, it does demonstrate that you haven't a clue what the point is, which is what I suspected all along.

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?

Not at all. All I've ever said is that it's entirely possible for a pedophile to have self-control, you were the one making the assumption that a person into something as extreme as that doesn't have self control, so you'd shoot them in the face. Again, you act based on assumptions, whereas I'd wait for action to actually condemn someone. Not giving them my children isn't condemning them, any more than not giving my friend who's quit smoking my cigarettes is condemning them. I'm not dumb enough to temp them with my kids, any more than I'd tempt any vulnerable person. That would just be a shitty thing to do. Have you even thought about this at all? Other than your need to shoot people you don't like in the face, that is.

Yep, and that's your limit of tolerance to risk.

A couple more things: the shooting in the face business is your or someone else in this topic's invention. I never used those words. Again, the common term for it "straw man". You have to invent something I didn't say, then you get to have fun tearing it down.

Further, I didn't extend my offer of violence to simply "pedophiles", did I? More of that straw man business? No, I was a fair bit more specific, wasn't I? I'll reiterate for you: torture of girls.

No. You were not.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

Torture has a pretty distinct definition. I don't think the south Vietnam air force's napalm attacks on occupied territories fit it. Like, at all. They're assaults and acts of war. I'm sure the pain of the burns was torturous. No one was torturing her (by which I mean Napalm Girl) though. There are no tortured girls in this scenario. There is a girl who was collateral damage in a war she had no responsibility in.

Even if seeing a little girl suffering from severe burns gets you hard, I won't kill you for it.

[Thomas Eshuis]

Empathy guides, it prevents nothing, Thomas.

Speaking of empathy, tortured naked girls. They don't rate any?

I'm miles behind here, but in case anybody still cares, you've introduced the idea the girl has been tortured. You said nothing of how she came to be burned originally. You're embellishing.

Not that it matters as we're still talking about presecuting someone for having an involuntary response that is not harmful to anyone but possibly that person himself.
Unless Metatron wants to state he views sexual gratification as exclucively meaning active self-pleasuring.