Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

[The_Metatron]

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.

Well then, that really narrows things down, eh?

Do you imagine that it matters the mechanism by which the girl loses the skin from her back for the sexual gratification of some imaginary sadistic pedophile?

[The_Metatron]

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.

You seem to know much more than I about sadism. Here I was thinking it was about someone taking pleasure from someone else's pain. Are you, and Rachel apparently, telling us that the method of inflicting that pain matters?

[tuco]

Empathy and self-control is strong in this thread ;)

Do not mind me, had it on my mind for past two days, and carry on.

[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.

You seem to know much more than I about sadism.

Do I? And where did you pull this latest piece of irrelevant nonsense from exactly?

Here I was thinking it was about someone taking pleasure from someone else's pain.

You were talking about someone taking pleasure from someone else's pain caused by torture. But you added that part later, which is what I just said.

Are you, and Rachel apparently, telling us that the method of inflicting that pain matters?

Obviously you are, or why would you have added torture to your story?

No, I'm telling YOU, singular, that you just shifted the goal posts from your original comment, which in turn you made off the back of the discussion about the Vietnam photo. Torture did not feature in the discussion which led to your comment, and it didn't feature as a part of your desire to murder someone until you introduced it a few pages ago. I really wish you'd stop posting emotionally about this topic, because you're just blindly lashing out quite aggressively at people, and jumping to some quite strange conclusions. No, I don't expect you to respond positively to that wish. I still wish it though.

[The_Metatron]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

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...

Well, isn't that considerate of you, worrying as you do about the tender sensibilities of the world's pedophiles who might be tempted? I must have missed your commentary elsewhere on scantily clad women tempting all of those heterosexual men out there.

Unless of course, you have different expectations from pedophiles than you do other sexual orientations. There is evidence that you do, with your declared concern for not tempting pedophiles by exposing them to the objects of their attraction, coupled with your silence on the same scenario when it involves oh, any other sexual orientation.

Now, I'm not really being fair to you here, because the consequence of your typical grownup who is not a pedophile acting on the sexual attractions is not criminal, while the consequence of a pedophile doing so is. In our society, that is. This hasn't been a universal taboo, I'm confident you know perfectly well. However, to suggest one group warrants your protection from temptation while you demonstrate little concern for other groups being tempted similarly is at best, inconsistent. On its face, it's hypocritical.

Unless, of course, the possibility exists that pedophiles, as a group, are as likely to act on their orientation as any other differently oriented group.

We keep coming around to this, you and Thomas keep trying to convince that this isn't the case. Yet, you produce no reason why this should be so, excepting Thomas' ridiculous dependence on the forebearance of empathy. I've given both of you a good example of how far empathy goes in limiting behavior. But that spawns another question:

In our modern world, acting on pedophilia involves taking that which the pedophile doesn't have (and cannot obtain) permission to take. Very much like rape of adults, taking what one has no permission to take.

You two have harped on and on how the empathy felt by pedophiles limits their behavior. What about the empathy felt by groups of other sexual orientation? Does their empathy for others not suffice to limit their behavior? We know for a cold, hard, fact it does not. So, here's a question for you empathy experts: Why not?

You'd like us to believe that pedophiles have ironclad empathy driven behavior limiters. Why should they have any more of this magic stuff than any group of another sexual orientation?

[The_Metatron]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

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.

You seem to know much more than I about sadism.

Do I? And where did you pull this latest piece of irrelevant nonsense from exactly?

Here I was thinking it was about someone taking pleasure from someone else's pain.

You were talking about someone taking pleasure from someone else's pain caused by torture. But you added that part later, which is what I just said.

Are you, and Rachel apparently, telling us that the method of inflicting that pain matters?

Obviously you are, or why would you have added torture to your story?

No, I'm telling YOU, singular, that you just shifted the goal posts from your original comment, which in turn you made off the back of the discussion about the Vietnam photo. Torture did not feature in the discussion which led to your comment, and it didn't feature as a part of your desire to murder someone until you introduced it a few pages ago. I really wish you'd stop posting emotionally about this topic, because you're just blindly lashing out quite aggressively at people, and jumping to some quite strange conclusions. No, I don't expect you to respond positively to that wish. I still wish it though.

Well, the likelihood of a sadistic pedophile existing that has the resources and ability to prosecute an entire war just to drop napalm on nine year old girls seems a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

On the other hand, we do know of instances of sadistic pedophiles who actually did torture girls.

Bring it home. Go have a look at some of the shit Marc Dutroux did. To your little girl. Then tell us how you wouldn't pinch his neck shut if you had the chance.

[PensivePenny]

The_metatron, I've seen you say "ironclad" "locked down" etc as if you expect absolute security. Is that realistic in your opinion or just a desire?

[Fallible]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

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.

You seem to know much more than I about sadism.

Do I? And where did you pull this latest piece of irrelevant nonsense from exactly?

Here I was thinking it was about someone taking pleasure from someone else's pain.

You were talking about someone taking pleasure from someone else's pain caused by torture. But you added that part later, which is what I just said.

Are you, and Rachel apparently, telling us that the method of inflicting that pain matters?

Obviously you are, or why would you have added torture to your story?

No, I'm telling YOU, singular, that you just shifted the goal posts from your original comment, which in turn you made off the back of the discussion about the Vietnam photo. Torture did not feature in the discussion which led to your comment, and it didn't feature as a part of your desire to murder someone until you introduced it a few pages ago. I really wish you'd stop posting emotionally about this topic, because you're just blindly lashing out quite aggressively at people, and jumping to some quite strange conclusions. No, I don't expect you to respond positively to that wish. I still wish it though.

Well, the likelihood of a sadistic pedophile existing that has the resources and ability to prosecute an entire war just to drop napalm on nine year old girls seems a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

On the other hand, we do know of instances of sadistic pedophiles who actually did torture girls.

Bring it home. Go have a look at some of the shit Marc Dutroux did. To your little girl.

What the hell are you even talking about? I'm not saying there aren't any paedophiles who torture girls. I know who Marc Dutroux is, I don't need to look him up. I'm saying that you've changed your story. What's more, you made somewhat of a deal about clarifying that you weren't just wishing to kill any old run of the mill paedophile, no. You clarified:

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 a fair bit more specific, this is either a lie or a mistake. YOU introduced torture of girls, later. You can't now try to make torture the big difference. It wasn't even spoken about until you added it.

Then tell us how you wouldn't pinch his neck shut if you had the chance.

Hello?? I haven't said I wouldn't. I haven't said I wouldn't think exactly the same as you. That was never my argument. I'm the one who said that WE ALL have unacceptable thoughts, remember? You then decided to tell me that no, you didn't have anything that came close to your burnt girl thing. Surprise, you did. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're so emotionally involved in this topic that you're just seeing a red mist and aren't bothering to make the distinction anymore between who said what. It's all just a big lump of paedophile loving a-holes to you at this point, isn't it. I manage to have a child, and to have had a number of other experiences, without having dissolved into a pool of incandescent rage at the notion of people who get off on children in pain. I hope you wouldn't argue that that's because I'm a monster of some kind, because that's demonstrably rubbish.

[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.

Well then, that really narrows things down, eh?

Do you imagine that it matters the mechanism by which the girl loses the skin from her back for the sexual gratification of some imaginary sadistic pedophile?

Maybe. I don't know.

She didn't lose the skin on her back for anyone's sexual gratification. She lost the skin on her back because she was a victim of a napalm attack by the south Vietnam air force. That's who's responsible. That would have happened even if paedophiles didn't exist, even if we rounded them all up and killed them. Some creep with no responsibility in the attack getting off on the fact kids are suffering as a result of it doesn't make matters any worse for the children suffering as a result of a napalm attack.

People can't control what turns them on. Taking pleasure in someone else's suffering doesn't make you responsible for that suffering (unless you in fact the cause of it.) I'm not going to condemn anyone to death for what gets them off unless they're forcing it on others.

[Thomas Eshuis]

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.

Well then, that really narrows things down, eh?

Do you imagine that it matters the mechanism by which the girl loses the skin from her back for the sexual gratification of some imaginary sadistic pedophile?

You're begging the question that anyone experiencing sexual pleasure from that image does so because they associate it with inflicting pain.

[Thomas Eshuis]

I really wish you'd stop posting emotionally about this topic, because you're just blindly lashing out quite aggressively at people, and jumping to some quite strange conclusions. No, I don't expect you to respond positively to that wish. I still wish it though.

I second

[The_Metatron]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

You seem to know much more than I about sadism.

Do I? And where did you pull this latest piece of irrelevant nonsense from exactly?

Here I was thinking it was about someone taking pleasure from someone else's pain.

You were talking about someone taking pleasure from someone else's pain caused by torture. But you added that part later, which is what I just said.

Are you, and Rachel apparently, telling us that the method of inflicting that pain matters?

Obviously you are, or why would you have added torture to your story?

[Reveal] Spoiler:

No, I'm telling YOU, singular, that you just shifted the goal posts from your original comment, which in turn you made off the back of the discussion about the Vietnam photo. Torture did not feature in the discussion which led to your comment, and it didn't feature as a part of your desire to murder someone until you introduced it a few pages ago. I really wish you'd stop posting emotionally about this topic, because you're just blindly lashing out quite aggressively at people, and jumping to some quite strange conclusions. No, I don't expect you to respond positively to that wish. I still wish it though.

Well, the likelihood of a sadistic pedophile existing that has the resources and ability to prosecute an entire war just to drop napalm on nine year old girls seems a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

On the other hand, we do know of instances of sadistic pedophiles who actually did torture girls.

Bring it home. Go have a look at some of the shit Marc Dutroux did. To your little girl.

What the hell are you even talking about? I'm not saying there aren't any paedophiles who torture girls. I know who Marc Dutroux is, I don't need to look him up. I'm saying that you've changed your story.

I didn't think you to be so easily confused. But, to satisfy your pedantry, you're perfectly right. I originally posted this:

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.

Not being overly selective about the manner in which the girls' skin was burnt off, I substituted the word torture to describe it. In point of fact, I added that description in reply to Thomas' request for clarification here:

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Let's try again
You Metatron, posted this:

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.

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

[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.

Is my reaction over the top? Probably.

Fortunately there are damned few Dutreoux's in the world. My services are wildly unlikely to be needed.

[Reveal] Spoiler:

What's more, you made somewhat of a deal about clarifying that you weren't just wishing to kill any old run of the mill paedophile, no. You clarified:

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 a fair bit more specific, this is either a lie or a mistake. YOU introduced torture of girls, later. You can't now try to make torture the big difference. It wasn't even spoken about until you added it.

Yes, I did add that word, to explain to one who failed to understand what I originally wrote. And I'm not making it a "big difference", as you claim. As I think about it, the idea of getting sexual gratification from half burnt naked girls, regardless of how they came to be in that situation, is pretty much the same, isn't it? Come to think of it, it was you who pointed it out as if it mattered, wasn't it?

Having now reviewed who wrote what, when, and why, do you still conclude that the intent of my original and subsequently clarified post in any way describes your typicl run of the mill pedophile? Are you now clear?

Then tell us how you wouldn't pinch his neck shut if you had the chance.

Hello?? I haven't said I wouldn't. I haven't said I wouldn't think exactly the same as you. That was never my argument. I'm the one who said that WE ALL have unacceptable thoughts, remember? You then decided to tell me that no, you didn't have anything that came close to your burnt girl thing. Surprise, you did.

What you said was this, including my reply to it:

I hope there isn't anyone here who actually believes that they've never had what can be described as a deviant, taboo, disturbing or unacceptable thought that others would find such. Because that would be delusion.

Naked, half burnt nine year old girls isn't among them. Not even close.

Are you now implying that an image as I described gratifies me? Really? Did you really just accuse me of "unacceptable thoughts" when I see a photo of Phuc? That's more than a little uncool.

[Reveal] Spoiler:

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're so emotionally involved in this topic that you're just seeing a red mist and aren't bothering to make the distinction anymore between who said what. It's all just a big lump of paedophile loving a-holes to you at this point, isn't it. I manage to have a child, and to have had a number of other experiences, without having dissolved into a pool of incandescent rage at the notion of people who get off on children in pain. I hope you wouldn't argue that that's because I'm a monster of some kind, because that's demonstrably rubbish.

[The_Metatron]

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.

Well then, that really narrows things down, eh?

Do you imagine that it matters the mechanism by which the girl loses the skin from her back for the sexual gratification of some imaginary sadistic pedophile?

You're begging the question that anyone experiencing sexual pleasure from that image does so because they associate it with inflicting pain.

No shit. How long did you work on that?

[Thomas Eshuis]

Unless, of course, the possibility exists that pedophiles, as a group, are as likely to act on their orientation as any other differently oriented group.

Which keeps disengenuously conflating having an attraction and acting on it.
Again, humans aren't rabbits. We don't try to fuck anyone and everyone we find attractive.

We keep coming around to this, you and Thomas keep trying to convince that this isn't the case. Yet, you produce no reason why this should be so, excepting Thomas' ridiculous dependence on the forebearance of empathy.

You mean unlike your repeated blind assertions?
Not to mention that you've yet to adress the article I posted earlier that points out that empathy is indeed a strong inhibitor for harmful behaviour?
The hypocricy and close-mindedness you display in this discussion is both disappointing and silly.

I've given both of you a good example of how far empathy goes in limiting behavior.

Where, which post exactly? Because I can't find it.

But that spawns another question:

In our modern world, acting on pedophilia involves taking that which the pedophile doesn't have (and cannot obtain) permission to take. Very much like rape of adults, taking what one has no permission to take.

You two have harped on and on how the empathy felt by pedophiles limits their behavior. What about the empathy felt by groups of other sexual orientation? Does their empathy for others not suffice to limit their behavior?

Yes.

We know for a cold, hard, fact it does not.

No, we don't. You keep blindly asserting that.

So, here's a question for you empathy experts: Why not?

I don't have to, nor can answer counterfactual hypotheticals.

You'd like us to believe that pedophiles have ironclad empathy driven behavior limiters.

Stop with the fucking straw-manning.
We're pointing out to you that being a paedophiles doesn't automatically make you a psychopath.

Why should they have any more of this magic stuff than any group of another sexual orientation?

Why do you keep throwing out dishonest straw-men?
Why do you keep conflating sexual attraction/drive with sexual action?

[Thomas Eshuis]

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.

Well then, that really narrows things down, eh?

Do you imagine that it matters the mechanism by which the girl loses the skin from her back for the sexual gratification of some imaginary sadistic pedophile?

You're begging the question that anyone experiencing sexual pleasure from that image does so because they associate it with inflicting pain.

No shit. How long did you work on that?

More hostile handwaving that fails to adress the point being made.
If you cannot know for certain that they derive pleasure from the image because of associations with inflicting pain, you've got no grounds to talks about torture. Especially since the disfigurement in this case isn't even caused by torture.

[The_Metatron]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

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.

Well then, that really narrows things down, eh?

Do you imagine that it matters the mechanism by which the girl loses the skin from her back for the sexual gratification of some imaginary sadistic pedophile?

Maybe. I don't know.

She didn't lose the skin on her back for anyone's sexual gratification. She lost the skin on her back because she was a victim of a napalm attack by the south Vietnam air force. That's who's responsible. That would have happened even if paedophiles didn't exist, even if we rounded them all up and killed them. Some creep with no responsibility in the attack getting off on the fact kids are suffering as a result of it doesn't make matters any worse for the children suffering as a result of a napalm attack.

People can't control what turns them on. Taking pleasure in someone else's suffering doesn't make you responsible for that suffering (unless you in fact the cause of it.)

I'm not going to condemn anyone to death for what gets them off unless they're forcing it on others.

Yeah, that sort of gets to the point I'm making.

We have people here trying to convince us that those who do get gratification from such an extreme image are in perfect control of themselves. No threat at all. Empathy prevents it.

I don't buy that. I see no reason to think that empathy is any more of a behavior limiter for pedophiles than it is for any other group. We haven't been shown anything to demonstrate that it is.

[scott1328]

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 is you, Metatron, phantasizing about a vigilante execution for thought crime.

No more, no less.

Admit that it is rhetorical hyperbole, and we can all walk away from this nonsense.

[The_Metatron]

Thomas, you ascribe to empathy much more than it deserves.

So you assert but fail to demonstrate.

Really? How does this do?

...

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.

Note: I am not saying that all humans experience empathy and to the same degree.

Now you say this. After how many pages? Well, that's nice.

You ever slaughter an animal? With your bare hands?

No.

You think that animal enjoys it?

No.

Or, do you think it does what it can to protect its own life?

Do you further think that stops the butcher from slaughtering the animal?

Do you think this non-sequitur analogy is going to convince me anymore than the several you've already posted?

I've killed plenty of animals to eat them. Hundreds. I knew perfectly well their fear. I sure wouldn't have wanted what I was about to do to them to be done to me.

But, I did it anyway. Lots of times. I did it as quickly and cleanly as I could, but I did it anyway.

That empathy prevented nothing. Even in its presence, I made a decision to act.

And how many women have you had sex with against their will?

As an aside, if you eat meat, you do also. Every time.

Except that I derive no pleasure from their death.

Well, that's nice, too. But, you don't lose a lot of sleep over it, either. Once more, we are discovering your limits to the power of empathy to limit behavior.

And I am trying to limit if not stop my meat and other animal product consumption.
So, how many women have you had sex with against their will?

If I had to kill animals to sustain my family now, I would do it.

Sure, because survival is completely analogous to rape.

The motivation for the behavior has no bearing on this illustration. It is to show that your precious empathy has its limits. It isn't unbreakable. It is not a preventative.

The animals wouldn't like it, and I would be perfectly aware that they don't, but I'd do it anyway.

So much for the power of your precious empathy.

All you've managed to do is present yet another severly flawed analogy and ignored the fact that the vast majority of people do not rape or commit most other crimes because they are aware it would hurt others.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-empathic-brain/201307/inside-the-mind-psychopath-empathic-not-always

That's right. Most don't. But, some do.

Back to the million dollar question:

Are you suggesting that pedophiles limit their own behavior (driven by empathy, if you like), more effectively and more commonly than non-pedophiles?

[The_Metatron]

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 is you, Metatron, phantasizing about a vigilante execution for thought crime.

No more, no less.

Admit that it is rhetorical hyperbole, and we can all walk away from this nonsense.

I suppose there is an element of that too, Scott.

But, after reading all of this, how safe would you feel around me describing a fantasy you hold such as I've defined? You can't think that would be a good idea.

You know, the thing is, Fallible is dead right that I'm not unique in holding such thoughts. To what I object is the hypocrisy I see from others about it. Skinny Puppy illustrated it well, earlier. Fallible didn't deny it, either. Bring this scenario home, to where it may affect your own kids, and all bets are off.

[The_Metatron]

Unless, of course, the possibility exists that pedophiles, as a group, are as likely to act on their orientation as any other differently oriented group.

Which keeps disengenuously conflating having an attraction and acting on it.
Again, humans aren't rabbits. We don't try to fuck anyone and everyone we find attractive.

Do you see the dodge you just used? My comment wasn't about all humans, was it? It was about a comparison of the effect on behavior of sexual attraction among pedophiles versus non-pedophiles. But, you didn't address that, did you? Regardless, to address your dodge:

Drs Lisle and Goldhamer don't agree with you.

In nature, certain experiences are designed to encourage successful behavior. As such, they are extremely pleasant and reinforcing. The primary sources of pleasure are food and sexual activity. This is because success in these arenas is necessary for survival and reproduction. (Lisle & Goldhamer, 2007, ch. 3)

Other similar references are available. Do you need me to go on?

Lisle, D. J., & Goldhamer, A. (2007). The Pleasure Trap: Mastering the Force that Undermines Health & Happiness. Book Publishing Company.

We keep coming around to this, you and Thomas keep trying to convince that this isn't the case. Yet, you produce no reason why this should be so, excepting Thomas' ridiculous dependence on the forebearance of empathy.

You mean unlike your repeated blind assertions?
Not to mention that you've yet to adress the article I posted earlier that points out that empathy is indeed a strong inhibitor for harmful behaviour?
The hypocricy and close-mindedness you display in this discussion is both disappointing and silly.

I've given both of you a good example of how far empathy goes in limiting behavior.

Where, which post exactly? Because I can't find it.

But that spawns another question:

In our modern world, acting on pedophilia involves taking that which the pedophile doesn't have (and cannot obtain) permission to take. Very much like rape of adults, taking what one has no permission to take.

You two have harped on and on how the empathy felt by pedophiles limits their behavior. What about the empathy felt by groups of other sexual orientation? Does their empathy for others not suffice to limit their behavior?

Yes.

We know for a cold, hard, fact it does not.

No, we don't. You keep blindly asserting that.

We don't? What then fails to limit the behavior of your garden variety rapist? It is casually obvious rapes happen. There's your examples of the failure of your precious empathy to limit behavior.

So, here's a question for you empathy experts: Why not?

I don't have to, nor can answer counterfactual hypotheticals.

"I don't have to"... you whine. You and I both know perfectly well (or, at least I do) why you can't answer the question I posed of why empathy fails to limit behavior in all cases. It is because it fucking doesn't.

You'd like us to believe that pedophiles have ironclad empathy driven behavior limiters.

Stop with the fucking straw-manning.
We're pointing out to you that being a paedophiles doesn't automatically make you a psychopath.

Well, when you find the post in which I said it did, we can discuss that if you like.

Why should they have any more of this magic stuff than any group of another sexual orientation?

Why do you keep throwing out dishonest straw-men?
Why do you keep conflating sexual attraction/drive with sexual action?

I conflate shit, Thomas. The former usually results in the latter. Jesus H. Christ, you fucking know this, first hand. Stop being so obtuse about it. If you're going to claim that most sexually capable people are not at some point in their lives sexually active, fucking back it up or stow it.