Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

[Thomas Eshuis]

I see you're still persisting in fabricating asinine and disengenuous straw-men, rather than dealing with the points and facts I've raised.

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.

Yes, I clarified my position, because you kept misunderstanding it.
You know, like most people do, rather than dogged handwaving.
Not that this does anything to prove 'that I ascribe more to empathy than it deserves.'
That would require you to actually, clearly define what my position on empathy is and how it's more than it deserves.

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.

Once more you insist on misrepresenting my position in a desperate attempt to adress what I actually argue.
Once more you insist on asinine analogies (killing animals, not humans, for food, which is not at all analogous to raping children to satisfy lust.

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.

Bullshit it does.
We are talking about empathy being a inhibitor for specific behaviour.
When you're comparing a behaviour that's done out of necessity to survive with something that's not, you're analogy is flawed.

It is to show that your precious empathy has its limits. It isn't unbreakable.

I have never claimed it was That's your incessant, mendacious straw-man.
I've repeatedly corrected you on this.

It is not a preventative.

Still insisting on your own ludicrous idiosyncratic definitions I see.

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.

I'm sure you think you've somehow made a point that refutes one of mine. You haven't as I've never claimed all pedophiles are prevented from rape in any sense.
And we don't lock people up, let alone kill them for having rape fantasies either. Despite that some might act on it.
It's the action we punish, not the fetish.

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?

I have already, repeatedly explained my position to you Metatron, you've either just demonstrated you don't read the responses to your posts or are deliberately misrepresenting them in an attempt to avoid dealing with the actual points being raised.

You on the other hand persist in asserting the vast majority of people are rabbits and keep conflating sexual drive with sexual action.

[Thomas Eshuis]

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.

No, you keep objecting to an imagined hypocricy, based on conflating distinctively different scenarios with each other.

Skinny Puppy illustrated it well, earlier.

Except that he didn't. Not in the slightest.

Meanwhile, you still haven't answered my question: would you let a diagnosed kleptomaniac house-sit for you?

[The_Metatron]

...

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?

I have already, repeatedly explained my position to you Metatron, you've either just demonstrated you don't read the responses to your posts or are deliberately misrepresenting them in an attempt to avoid dealing with the actual points being raised.

You on the other hand persist in asserting the vast majority of people are rabbits and keep conflating sexual drive with sexual action.

Yet, the question remains unanswered.

[Thomas Eshuis]

...

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?

I have already, repeatedly explained my position to you Metatron, you've either just demonstrated you don't read the responses to your posts or are deliberately misrepresenting them in an attempt to avoid dealing with the actual points being raised.

You on the other hand persist in asserting the vast majority of people are rabbits and keep conflating sexual drive with sexual action.

Yet, the question remains unanswered.

A fucking lie.
I've already answered it. You haven't answered mine yet.

[The_Metatron]

Then, it won't be difficult for you to direct me to your reply to that question, will it?

[Thomas Eshuis]

So you can ignore or pretend you haven't read it, again?
But here you go,:

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.

I'm sure you think you've somehow made a point that refutes one of mine. You haven't as I've never claimed all pedophiles are prevented from rape in any sense.

And I did here as well:

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.

Now it doesn't actually answer your question as such, but points out I do not accept your implicit assertion that umans are rabbits that try to have sex with anyone and everyone they're attracted to, whether they're paedophiles or not.

At to this the fact that I have never claimed that all pedophiles, nor pedophiles more than other people, are capable of controlling their sexual behaviour and the fact that I've always used the verb can in relation to prevention and not claimed it always does and that I've repeatedly clarified that empathy is a strong example of something that would prevent a (as in generic) paedophile from acting on their sexual behaviour, there's no rational basis whatsoever for you to ask whether I think they are more capable of controlling their sexual behaviour than others.


Now, how's about you:
Adress the article I linked to, that points out how empathy inhibits our ability to do harm, especially to other human beings?
Answer my question about the kleptomaniac?
Provide evidence for your repeated humans are rabbits, assertion?
Adress my actual points rather than snipping or ignoring vast parts of my post in favor of disengenuous straw-men and handwaving?
Stop repeating this straw-man after I've repeatedly made it clear I don't believe nor claim it? Most recently here:

It is to show that your precious empathy has its limits. It isn't unbreakable.

I have never claimed it was That's your incessant, mendacious straw-man.
I've repeatedly corrected you on this.

[The_Metatron]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

I see you're still persisting in fabricating asinine and disengenuous straw-men, rather than dealing with the points and facts I've raised.

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.

Yes, I clarified my position, because you kept misunderstanding it.
You know, like most people do, rather than dogged handwaving.
Not that this does anything to prove 'that I ascribe more to empathy than it deserves.'
That would require you to actually, clearly define what my position on empathy is and how it's more than it deserves.

Well, that's not a tall order. Since your emphasis on the word "empathy" above was insufficient to demonstrate your ascription to its utility in limiting behavior, I wonder if this little quote of yours will do?

...

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...

That's what you said. That's "all that's needed".

[Reveal] Spoiler:

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.

Once more you insist on misrepresenting my position in a desperate attempt to adress what I actually argue.

Oh, so it does bother you that these animals die for you? And, you eat them anyway?

How about that empathy?

Once more you insist on asinine analogies (killing animals, not humans, for food, which is not at all analogous to raping children to satisfy lust.

Here's another uncomfortable fact for you:

First, shall we assume rape to be non-consensual sex? Then, we get to the legal point that children are by definition unable to consent, don't we? Therefore, any sex with children is rape, right?

Except for the teeny little problem that that legal definition of age of consent is a fairly new thing, isn't it? There were times and places in Roman and Greek culture in which a charge of pedophilia would have no meaning.

So, for the purpose of comparing this analogy between food and sex, yes. They are analogs. I'm confident by now you found the citation I provided in which the authors concur.

But wait, it get's even better for you!

Not only do you support the killing of these animals for your own sustenance, you do it completely unnecessarily! You don't need to eat animals to thrive.

But, you do it anyway.

How's that empathy working out for you now?

[Reveal] Spoiler:

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.

Bullshit it does.
We are talking about empathy being a inhibitor for specific behaviour.
When you're comparing a behaviour that's done out of necessity to survive with something that's not, you're analogy is flawed.

It is to show that your precious empathy has its limits. It isn't unbreakable.

I have never claimed it was That's your incessant, mendacious straw-man.
I've repeatedly corrected you on this.

It [empathy] is not a preventative.

Still insisting on your own ludicrous idiosyncratic definitions I see.

Really? You seem to think it's preventative:

...

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...

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.

I'm sure you think you've somehow made a point that refutes one of mine. You haven't as I've never claimed all pedophiles are prevented from rape in any sense.

No, but once more, you did claim this:

...

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...

So, what's the problem? If that's all it takes, why do active pedophiles exist?

[Reveal] Spoiler:

And we don't lock people up, let alone kill them for having rape fantasies either. Despite that some might act on it.
It's the action we punish, not the fetish.

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?

I have already, repeatedly explained my position to you Metatron, you've either just demonstrated you don't read the responses to your posts or are deliberately misrepresenting them in an attempt to avoid dealing with the actual points being raised.

You on the other hand persist in asserting the vast majority of people are rabbits and keep conflating sexual drive with sexual action.

[The_Metatron]

So you can ignore or pretend you haven't read it, again?
But here you go,:

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.

True. Perhaps you can produce the post in which I claimed otherwise.

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.

I'm sure you think you've somehow made a point that refutes one of mine. You haven't as I've never claimed all pedophiles are prevented from rape in any sense.

And I did here as well:

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.

Now it doesn't actually answer your question as such, but points out I do not accept your implicit assertion that umans(sic) are rabbits that try to have sex with anyone and everyone they're attracted to, whether they're paedophiles or not.

All you need do is produce the post in which I made this claim. Actually, it was you that first brought that concept up, when you accused me of being a rapist.

At to this the fact that I have never claimed that all pedophiles, nor pedophiles more than other people, are capable of controlling their sexual behaviour and the fact that I've always used the verb can in relation to prevention and not claimed it always does and that I've repeatedly clarified that empathy is a strong example of something that would prevent a (as in generic) paedophile from acting on their sexual behaviour

No, and this is getting tiring, but you were considerably more certain than that:

...

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...

, there's no rational basis whatsoever for you to ask whether I think they are more capable of controlling their sexual behaviour than others.

Pardon fuckin' me, asking you a difficult question, the answer to which may shed some light on what you've been claiming here.

Now, how's about you:
Adress the article I linked to, that points out how empathy inhibits our ability to do harm, especially to other human beings?
Answer my question about the kleptomaniac?
Provide evidence for your repeated humans are rabbits, assertion?
Adress my actual points rather than snipping or ignoring vast parts of my post in favor of disengenuous straw-men and handwaving?
Stop repeating this straw-man after I've repeatedly made it clear I don't believe nor claim it? Most recently here:

It is to show that your precious empathy has its limits. It isn't unbreakable.

I have never claimed it was That's your incessant, mendacious straw-man.
I've repeatedly corrected you on this.

Except, you did claim it. Strongly. Do I have to quote you again?

By the way, in case you're thinking my quoting you is somehow incomplete because I failed to highlight the part in which you wrote "... and the awareness that it would harm the child..." is because that's what empathy is, the ability to understand the feelings of someone else.

[The_Metatron]

Forgot to address a few things:

...
Now, how's about you:

Adress the article I linked to, that points out how empathy inhibits our ability to do harm, especially to other human beings?

Are we discussing psychopaths now? That is the subject of that article.

Answer my question about the kleptomaniac?

Nope.

Provide evidence for your repeated humans are rabbits, assertion?

Whose motherfucking assertion? To save you the trouble, here's a link to an advanced search on the word rabbits within any post I made in the forum Social Sciences and Humanities. Do you note how every one of them in this topic was a quote of you?

If you need assistance on what you can do with that assertion of yours, I can oblige.

Adress my actual points rather than snipping or ignoring vast parts of my post in favor of disengenuous straw-men and handwaving?
Stop repeating this straw-man after I've repeatedly made it clear I don't believe nor claim it? Most recently here:

It is to show that your precious empathy has its limits. It isn't unbreakable.

I have never claimed it was That's your incessant, mendacious straw-man.
I've repeatedly corrected you on this.

No actually, you've merely repeated yourself. I can again produce your quote that refutes you if you like.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

[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.

WTF? No one has said that. Some paedophiles are rapists. We get it. We're just not in favour of killing the ones who aren't for their thoughts alone.

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.

And most people aren't rapists. There's no reason to think paedophiles are any more likely to commit rape than people belonging to any other group are.

[The_Metatron]

...

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?

I have already, repeatedly explained my position to you Metatron, you've either just demonstrated you don't read the responses to your posts or are deliberately misrepresenting them in an attempt to avoid dealing with the actual points being raised.

You on the other hand persist in asserting the vast majority of people are rabbits and keep conflating sexual drive with sexual action.

Yet, the question remains unanswered.

A fucking lie.
I've already answered it. You haven't answered mine yet.

Then, it won't be difficult for you to direct me to your reply to that question, will it?

Oooh, this is going to be exciting. I can hardly wait.

So you can ignore or pretend you haven't read it, again?
But here you go,:

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.

I'm sure you think you've somehow made a point that refutes one of mine. You haven't as I've never claimed all pedophiles are prevented from rape in any sense.

What did I miss there? I don't see a word discussing pedophiles' ability to limit their own behavior. Maybe in your next attempt:

And I did here as well:

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.

Now it doesn't actually answer your question as such, but points out I do not accept your implicit assertion that umans are rabbits that try to have sex with anyone and everyone they're attracted to, whether they're paedophiles or not.

At to this the fact that I have never claimed that all pedophiles, nor pedophiles more than other people, are capable of controlling their sexual behaviour and the fact that I've always used the verb can in relation to prevention and not claimed it always does and that I've repeatedly clarified that empathy is a strong example of something that would prevent a (as in generic) paedophile from acting on their sexual behaviour, there's no rational basis whatsoever for you to ask whether I think they are more capable of controlling their sexual behaviour than others.

Aside from your whining about the question at the end there and your rabbit problem, no answer here, either.

[Reveal] Spoiler: rubbish addressed elsewhere

Now, how's about you:
Adress the article I linked to, that points out how empathy inhibits our ability to do harm, especially to other human beings?
Answer my question about the kleptomaniac?
Provide evidence for your repeated humans are rabbits, assertion?
Adress my actual points rather than snipping or ignoring vast parts of my post in favor of disengenuous straw-men and handwaving?
Stop repeating this straw-man after I've repeatedly made it clear I don't believe nor claim it? Most recently here:

It is to show that your precious empathy has its limits. It isn't unbreakable.

I have never claimed it was That's your incessant, mendacious straw-man.
I've repeatedly corrected you on this.

I guess I'll have to live with the disappointment.

[The_Metatron]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

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.

WTF? No one has said that. Some paedophiles are rapists. We get it. We're just not in favour of killing the ones who aren't for their thoughts alone.

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.

And most people aren't rapists. There's no reason to think paedophiles are any more likely to commit rape than people belonging to any other group are.

Exactly right. Nor are they any less likely, I'll posit.

Although, I've addressed elsewhere the fact that the legal definition of sex with a child to be rape (owing to the argument that children are unable to consent) to be a pretty modern thing. Why point this up? Because I found no evidence to indicate that sexual attraction to children is an equally modern thing.

Not sure how relevant that is, though. But, I'm pondering on what a pedophile today would base his judgment of right and wrong. I could also be making an error with the misalignment of onset of puberty and the age of legal consent, too. In short, I don't know what mental gyrations a pedophile goes through to justify their actions. Could be that some don't even feel the need to try.

I have a suspicion though, that some portion of active pedophiles don't agree that children are necessarily incapable of consent.

[Thomas Eshuis]

Forgot to address a few things:

...
Now, how's about you:

Adress the article I linked to, that points out how empathy inhibits our ability to do harm, especially to other human beings?

Are we discussing psychopaths now? That is the subject of that article.

Wrong. The subject is how empathy with inhibits harmful behaviour among human beings, is absent in psychopaths.

Answer my question about the kleptomaniac?

Nope.

So should we persecute everyone who's a kleptomaniac? Even those who control their desire to steal things and don't actually steal?

Provide evidence for your repeated humans are rabbits, assertion?

Whose motherfucking assertion?

Yours.
You repeatedly claim humans almost always act on their sexual attraction, as it they only operate on instinct and try to have sex with everyone who they're attracted to.

To save you the trouble, here's a link to an advanced search on the word rabbits within any post I made in the forum Social Sciences and Humanities. Do you note how every one of them in this topic was a quote of you?

Are you once again arguing against the use of shorthand colloqialisms, rather than the point being made?

If you need assistance on what you can do with that assertion of yours, I can oblige.

Anytime you want to have an honest and rational discussion, I'm here.

Adress my actual points rather than snipping or ignoring vast parts of my post in favor of disengenuous straw-men and handwaving?
Stop repeating this straw-man after I've repeatedly made it clear I don't believe nor claim it? Most recently here:

It is to show that your precious empathy has its limits. It isn't unbreakable.

I have never claimed it was That's your incessant, mendacious straw-man.
I've repeatedly corrected you on this.

No actually, you've merely repeated yourself. I can again produce your quote that refutes you if you like.

What the fuck does it matter if I repeat myself? The above post makes it clear that I do not agree with your straw-man question.
And stop making blind accusations. Quote me claiming that paedophiles are more capable of not acting on their sexual attraction.
Otherwise I will report each subsequent post where you repeat this straw-man that I've repeatedly corrected you on.
It's fucking pathetic and only serves to demonstrate that you're not engaging with what I actually wrote but with emotion based preconseptions you are projecting onto me.

[Thomas Eshuis]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

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.

WTF? No one has said that. Some paedophiles are rapists. We get it. We're just not in favour of killing the ones who aren't for their thoughts alone.

It's unfortunately easier to attack straw-men that deal with the facts and actual points being raised.

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.

Except the article I linked to earlier which you keep dismissing out of hand.
Not to mention that repeating your appeal to personal incredulity does not make it any less of a fallacy.

And most people aren't rapists. There's no reason to think paedophiles are any more likely to commit rape than people belonging to any other group are.

[zoon]

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.

I think the reason for making viewing of child pornography illegal is that actual children are being harmed in the making of the films, and one of the few ways of offering some protection to those children is to cut off the revenue which the filmmakers get. It's not about the evil thoughts of the viewers, if it was, then any number of books would be illegal, including Lolita and quantities of crime novels.

[Thomas Eshuis]

...


I have already, repeatedly explained my position to you Metatron, you've either just demonstrated you don't read the responses to your posts or are deliberately misrepresenting them in an attempt to avoid dealing with the actual points being raised.

You on the other hand persist in asserting the vast majority of people are rabbits and keep conflating sexual drive with sexual action.

Yet, the question remains unanswered.

A fucking lie.
I've already answered it. You haven't answered mine yet.

Then, it won't be difficult for you to direct me to your reply to that question, will it?

Oooh, this is going to be exciting. I can hardly wait.

More peurile condescension.

So you can ignore or pretend you haven't read it, again?
But here you go,:

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

I'm sure you think you've somehow made a point that refutes one of mine. You haven't as I've never claimed all pedophiles are prevented from rape in any sense.

What did I miss there? I don't see a word discussing pedophiles' ability to limit their own behavior.

What part of "I never claimed all pedophiles are prevented from rape in any sense" is not computing for you Metatron?
FFS, how deep are you going to dig?

Maybe in your next attempt:

And I did here as well:

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.

Now it doesn't actually answer your question as such, but points out I do not accept your implicit assertion that umans are rabbits that try to have sex with anyone and everyone they're attracted to, whether they're paedophiles or not.

At to this the fact that I have never claimed that all pedophiles, nor pedophiles more than other people, are capable of controlling their sexual behaviour and the fact that I've always used the verb can in relation to prevention and not claimed it always does and that I've repeatedly clarified that empathy is a strong example of something that would prevent a (as in generic) paedophile from acting on their sexual behaviour, there's no rational basis whatsoever for you to ask whether I think they are more capable of controlling their sexual behaviour than others.

Aside from your whining about the question at the end there and your rabbit problem, no answer here, either.

It's sad to see you act so dishonestly Metatron, I get that this is an emotional topic for you, but that does not excuse this kind asinine semantic acrobatics to prove your point.
And no, it's not whining to point out that your question is loaded and implying a position I never claimed.

[Reveal] Spoiler: rubbish addressed elsewhere

Now, how's about you:
Adress the article I linked to, that points out how empathy inhibits our ability to do harm, especially to other human beings?
Answer my question about the kleptomaniac?
Provide evidence for your repeated humans are rabbits, assertion?
Adress my actual points rather than snipping or ignoring vast parts of my post in favor of disengenuous straw-men and handwaving?
Stop repeating this straw-man after I've repeatedly made it clear I don't believe nor claim it? Most recently here:

It is to show that your precious empathy has its limits. It isn't unbreakable.

I have never claimed it was That's your incessant, mendacious straw-man.
I've repeatedly corrected you on this.

I guess I'll have to live with the disappointment.

Wtf are you on about? I'll point out that you continue to refuse to adress my actual position or arguments I've made. That instead you try to deflect to incessant straw-manning, loaded questions and incredibly childish semantic games.

[Thomas Eshuis]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

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.

WTF? No one has said that. Some paedophiles are rapists. We get it. We're just not in favour of killing the ones who aren't for their thoughts alone.

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.

And most people aren't rapists. There's no reason to think paedophiles are any more likely to commit rape than people belonging to any other group are.

Exactly right. Nor are they any less likely, I'll posit.

Unless you can provide evidence that both groups rape regurlarly, you've still got no basis for persecuting people merely for being paedophiles.

Although, I've addressed elsewhere the fact that the legal definition of sex with a child to be rape (owing to the argument that children are unable to consent) to be a pretty modern thing.

And this would be incredibly relevant if:
1. We were not living in the present.
2. Anyone had claimed that consent is the only thing preventing paedophiles from raping children.
However since neither is the case, this is yet another red herring.

Why point this up? Because I found no evidence to indicate that sexual attraction to children is an equally modern thing.

So, you point out one irrelevant thing, because of another irrelevant thing.

Not sure how relevant that is, though.

None whatsoever to the points made by anyone you're in discussion with.

But, I'm pondering on what a pedophile today would base his judgment of right and wrong.

Once again you're line or questioning implies that either that paedophiles have completely different brains from the rest of humanity or all humans have trouble distinguishing right from wrong.
Are you claiming your own understanding of right and wrong is exclusively based on legal and social strictures?

[The_Metatron]

...

Yours.
You repeatedly claim humans almost always act on their sexual attraction, as it they only operate on instinct and try to have sex with everyone who they're attracted to.

...

Prove this.

You fucking show where I said any of that highlighted bit and I'll resign from the forum.

Fail to prove it, and you do the same. I fuckin' dare you.

Put your fucking money where your mouth is.

[Thomas Eshuis]

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.

I think the reason for making viewing of child pornography illegal is that actual children are being harmed in the making of the films, and one of the few ways of offering some protection to those children is to cut off the revenue which the filmmakers get.

The same reason the consumption of animal porn is illegal.

It's not about the evil thoughts of the viewers, if it was, then any number of books would be illegal, including Lolita and quantities of crime novels.

Not to mention the writings of various racists, xenophobes and similar persons throughout history.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

Cutting off revenue is important but so is protecting the kids from having footage of them being sexually assaulted distributed far and wide.