Delete the paedophilia threads

lucifers' angle -has- chimed in, in atleast 2 threads on this subject. This is what she had to say in post 43 of the Sexual abuse allegations- how best to protect when the truth is unknown thread in the Ethics forum:

i know of a case that i was actually a witness in court for, a family member said that a certain family member abused her sexually, and because the girl caused so much trouble to me and my family i was asked to stand up in court and give a statement now the person who apprently abused her was actually with me the day he was supposed to ahve abused her, and he was cleared of all charges on my statemen, he lost his wife, house job everything because of that lieing bitch.​

That would support ancientregime's belief that his friend may well have had serious problems even if he -didn't- have sex with the minor in question because of her threat to blackmail. ancientregime's friend did -not- have an alliby for his whereabouts; in fact, it was quite the reverse since he had been put in charge of babysitting the girl.

She has also expressed what I believe is a strong dislike of lolicon in post 20 in the lolicon: wrong or right? thread, also in the ethics forum, which is the subject in another thread. I addressed her concerns in this post.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why are you putting it as if -I- was the person who had sex with a 9 year old? I believe your emotions are getting the better of you leopold. It would certainly be wrong if anyone were to harm the vagina of a minor or an adult.

Ouch. I don't agree that I'm sick. Just because different people or different cultures have different ideas then the accepted american society version doesn't mean that they are sick either. Your best bet would be to talk to the few cases of women who -did- have sexual experiences very early on and liked it, as well as the cases of the women who did and didn't like it. Then, figure out why some did and some didn't. My guess is that it'll basically be that the people who did like it had consensual relationships and had the power to stop things at any time. I'm guessing that the relationship was probably unknown to the general public until they were much older as society has a way of traumatizing individuals who break the norms regarding this as well.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I believe there's a misunderstanding here. From what I remember, ancientregime said that his friend wanted to, but it was under the understanding that he was thinking of a society that wouldn't punish him for it.

I don't believe that's what ancientregime was saying at all.

Oral sex is frequently viewed differently by law then sexual intercourse. The fact that ancientregime brought it up suggests to me that legally there -was- a difference. A man in Canada got probation for engaging in oral sex with a 12 year old. The U.S. is not Canada and the girl in question was 11, but she had blackmailed him; at the very least, he might have gotten a lighter sentence.

If memory serves, ancientregime's friend felt that if he was going to go to jail, he might as well get something out of it. If a man feels he's condemned regardless of what he does, he may choose to do something that he'd never do if he felt that had no such condemnation upon him.

Someone like ancientregime's friend, but as I mentioned I don't think even he would have done so if he hadn't felt he was already a condemned man.

Perhaps at one point he actually felt that doing so would avert disaster instead of bring it on. At the very least, as I've stated, he may have felt that it wouldn't make a difference. As I've stated many times, I wouldn't have fallen for this type of a trap, but ancientregime's friend did and he's paying for it now.

 

In a way you've just admitted that they can by adding in the 'informed' bit. The issue of informed consent is far more nettlesome then simple consent. I am perfectly aware that by law the consent of people below the age of consent has no official value and it is assumed that their consent if given can't be informed. I think that we must re-examine the issue of whether someone below the age of consent can, in fact, give informed consent. To do this, we must get a better understanding of how we define informed consent to begin with.

You can call it excuses or justifications if you wish. I'm simply trying to explain what I believe was the reasoning of ancientregime's friend. I think that even ancientregime's friend probably thinks that his reasoning was flawed at this point.

If by paedophile, you mean someone who can be attracted to minors, I believe I agree.

I believe that I, ancientregime and his friend would disagree with you there.

What are you implying?

I'm aware that we differ in our views regarding some things Bells.

 

I just found this with 'stumble upon':

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm not saying anyone should do anything illegal, but I definitely question a lot of what many people take for granted and I see nothing wrong with that.

 

What's a sock puppet? Is it like an alternate account? Because honestly I am an individual who only has one account here. James or another moderator can confirm this, I'm sure. If you don't have the balls to ask them, I assume it was just a way to divert attention away from my point.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh, Phlogistician, why don't you answer the question instead of making more unverified claims.

 

Here's where James' little acaemc exeris has blown up in his face. James justifies participating in the debate with Ancient, not to change Ancient's mind, but to educate fence sitters, and lure them towards sane behaviour.

But as Scott demonsrates, Ancient's arguments appeal to him. So by allowing the debate, James is encouraging Scott to have warped thoughts.

Well done Jmaes. You have turned SF into a recruiting ground for paedophiles.

Might as well let them start swapping images via the album feature. If they aren't already.

 

More or less....

Many sock puppets only have one account on a given site; the idea is that they had -previously- been on the site using a different name and probably a different email address to open the account, which frequently makes it difficult for moderators to know if a person is a sock puppet or truly a new user.

 

Well I haven't. A simple IP check will confirm this. I'd appreciate it if people didn't accuse me of things and answered my damn question. It is amazing how ridiculous some of the people on here are. Very welcoming.

 

You're assuming that my views were all that different before ancient made an apperance. They weren't.

You haven't demonstrated that my thoughts are warped.

phlogistician, do you -honestly- think that most people who are attracted to minors would even show their face here? While there's certainly a larger audience here then the types of places that your average person who's attracted to minors would probably go, it's something like putting a 'kick me' sign on your back; most people would rather go to places where their views are more accepted.

You really don't have a clue phlog. Allowing people to disagree with each other over certain laws is one thing; allowing them to break them is another thing entirely.

 

People can switch IPs as well. However, I have seen no evidence that you are, indeed, a sock puppet. phlog has been around more but he hasn't shown any either.

I actually mentioned that your point had merit in the past.

I think it's your choice of starting off topics (this subject is -very- controversial) that got you the unwelcoming comments from phlog, heh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

I know you did, and thank you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Yet Phlog still avoids it, and it was specifically directed at him, as he is the one making dangerous claims that there is serious illegal activity on the part of some people.

 

phlog and I don't exactly get along

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

He ignores a lot of important points, on numerous subjects, from 9/11 to parapsychology; he's decided to opt out of those debates, perhaps he'll opt out of this one too in the not too distant future

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

i seriously doubt if sciforums will be a hunting grounds for pedophiles although it's something the admins need to think about.

on the other hand the last thing we need to do is drive this under ground.

there is a reason why there laws against pedophilia, and sever punishment.
there is a reason why almost every culture views pedophilia with revulsion.

children are the most innocent and trusting people there is and anybody that preys on that innocence and trust is nothing short of scum.
a society is measured by how far it will go to protect the innocent.

 

Agreed, I once knew a 13 year old girl who was my height (5'7) and very mentally/behaviourally mature too, everyone thought she was 18 or 19. While she was young and I would recoil at the thought of her being with someone much older, she doesn't exactly qualify as a child.

Agreed, they are teenagers, not actual children.

 

How dare people have objectionable thoughts and opinions!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I ask once again: What laws has ancient broken?

 

Two points

Two points:

(1) While I agree that pedophilia advocates, at best, suffer severe psychological problems, I reject the proposition that they should be censored in the argumentative form.

(2) I would reiterate something that people generally don't grasp the significance of. Not that I fault them for this in general, it's a broad effect that spills into many channels:

This principle, that to the willing no injury is done, has no limit, except in the case of frauds, or of persons not possessed of reasonable discretion for judging in the particular case. If a person possessed of reasonable discretion, and not deceived by fraud, consents to practise the grossest vice, and thereby brings upon himself the greatest moral, physical, or pecuniary sufferings or losses, he cannot allege that he has been legally wronged. To illustrate this principle, take the case of rape. To have carnal knowledge of a woman, against her will, is the highest crime, next to murder, that can be committed against her. But to have carnal knowledge of her, with her consent, is no crime; but at most, a vice. And it is usually holden that a female child, of no more than ten years of age, has such reasonable discretion, that her consent, even though procured by rewards, or promises of reward, is sufficient to convert the act, which would otherwise be a high crime, into a simple act of vice.

—Lysander Spooner, 1875​

​

There are, I think, objective reasons that our standards are not so flexible today. That is, standards may change, but the more we learn about our bodies and minds, the less advisable it is to set a low age of consent. And I sincerely doubt that the wannabe pedophiles, the "I'm not saying this myself, but only repeating what I've heard other people say" crowd, are capable of overcoming the growing body of objective data that speaks against having sexual contact with children. Regardless of their intellectual capacities, the data just isn't there to support them.​

Sure, it's a headache dealing with such arguments, but in the long run, it would do more to hold these people to account for their theories and principles than to simply quash them outright.
_____________________

Notes:

Spooner, Lysander. Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication of Moral Liberty. 1875. LysanderSpooner.org. Accessed February 28, 2009. http://lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm

 

I agree with your idea that censorship wouldn't help, but I'm not sure about your views concerning pedophilia, perhaps because you haven't actually defined what the term means to you.

Personally I think we're focusing on the wrong issue; controversy frequently rages over what's the best age of consent, but we forget that age is only a rough guide to knowledge. What we should be doing, in my view, is ensuring that people who engage in sexual activities are knowledgeable enough to give informed consent.

 

how would we as a society do that scott?
we set an arbitrary age at which most people would be deemed knowledgeable, that age in the US is 18.
you can confuse and cloud the issue all you want with hypothetical what ifs.

frankly i want a WOMAN that knows how to please a man, not some hairless pussy.

pedophiles do not want a meaningful relationship, all they are after is sexual gratification at the expense of preying on, and ruining, another persons innocence.

BTW jails do not harm a person and neither does psychological torture.