I think we should hear him out purely so we can refute every vile drop of fucking feces that spews out of his mouth.
Delete the paedophilia threads
- Thread starter phlogistician
- Start date
- Status
this "marriage" has nothing whatsoever to do with pedophilia.
in the states a person under the age of 14 (for girls) can get married with parental consent.
pedophilia in my opinion would involve a person under the age of 18 and a person at least 5 or more years older.
in the states a person under the age of 14 (for girls) can get married with parental consent.
pedophilia in my opinion would involve a person under the age of 18 and a person at least 5 or more years older.
What a load of arse. The LAWS on the subject are established because we understand the reasons for their existence. This isn't my opinion, but a matter of law, and we are entertaining a sick pervert who thinks it's ok to fuck children.
If you think that too, go quit civilised society.
He's a pervert. He probably gets off on the discourse. You like the idea of him wanking off while thinking about how he has intellectualised his perversion?
I'm not making a general case, but a specific one on this one issue. Stuff straw men much? Or are you a kiddy fiddler too?
Nice selective quoting James. How about this one;
Phlogistician said:
To engage in a debate, you must consider your protagonists position tenable. Sorry James, it's a no win situation for you. You can either be swayed, or you can't. If you can, you are as bad as Ancient Regime. If you can't, it's not a debate, it's an argument, and falls short of the definition of debate.
You are hung by your own petard.
She's as a child. Let her die as a child. What is your hang up with sex?
Bells
Staff member
As a parent, I honestly don't want to read what he has to say.
He has so far attempted to defend sex against children, so much so that he claimed his friend was jailed and registered as a sex offender for having sex with an 11 year old. He seems to think that it was wrong for his friend to be jailed because no harm occurred since apparently, the girl blackmailed his adult friend into doing it. Then he said his friend did it because he wanted to do it and that the child was a "hot to trot little bitch". And then when those of us participating in the thread balked, he said it was oral sex and that was not harmful and not sex.
Finally, we have this debate.
We could silence him with warnings and then bans. But what would that accomplish? As I said before, as a parent I don't want to have to read what he has to say. But in another light, we need to read it and then we need to repudiate it and refute it and him.
One thing I will note is that he assumes force must be present for rape. He feels that children can consent to sex. We know that to be false. Children, especially young children are not old enough to understand the relationship they are entering with adults and he can't seem to grasp that an adult wanting to have sex, desiring a child sexually and having sex with said child, that the whole act in and of itself is wrong. He has so far failed to provide an age when children can be too young to consent, saying only that they "feel good from it". I am actually scared to ask how he knows they feel good from having sex or whether his "feel good" comment stems from the fact that children will naturally touch themselves and explore their own bodies from the time they are babies. But then again, feeling pleasure from their own touch to their bodies does not mean it is right for adults to try to arouse them or to have sex with them.
He has so far attempted to defend sex against children, so much so that he claimed his friend was jailed and registered as a sex offender for having sex with an 11 year old. He seems to think that it was wrong for his friend to be jailed because no harm occurred since apparently, the girl blackmailed his adult friend into doing it. Then he said his friend did it because he wanted to do it and that the child was a "hot to trot little bitch". And then when those of us participating in the thread balked, he said it was oral sex and that was not harmful and not sex.
Finally, we have this debate.
We could silence him with warnings and then bans. But what would that accomplish? As I said before, as a parent I don't want to have to read what he has to say. But in another light, we need to read it and then we need to repudiate it and refute it and him.
One thing I will note is that he assumes force must be present for rape. He feels that children can consent to sex. We know that to be false. Children, especially young children are not old enough to understand the relationship they are entering with adults and he can't seem to grasp that an adult wanting to have sex, desiring a child sexually and having sex with said child, that the whole act in and of itself is wrong. He has so far failed to provide an age when children can be too young to consent, saying only that they "feel good from it". I am actually scared to ask how he knows they feel good from having sex or whether his "feel good" comment stems from the fact that children will naturally touch themselves and explore their own bodies from the time they are babies. But then again, feeling pleasure from their own touch to their bodies does not mean it is right for adults to try to arouse them or to have sex with them.
It would mean we are not sinking to his level, nor entertaining the sick pervert. We could just wash our hands of the sordid nature of this discussion. But no, because James is a mod, and James wants to talk about it, somehow it's being tolerated. I'm losing respect for James. I had to report the thread three times before any of the other moderators aside from James replied, and then all I got was a 'stop reporting this thread'.
Moderators need to look at each other's posts, it's no use if a moderator mods themselves. They are not a higher moral authority than any of the members.
If James wants to converse with someone who it potentially actively molesting children, that's his choice. I don't see why that has to be conducted in public.
I think the real question should be more about the "motives" that people post here in this forum.
Obviously some threads can identify to the kids that post here that there are some seriously sick people that frequent this forum. I
It's up to those kids to report them should they make any advances (even jokingly).
Paedophiles actually have no argument when it comes to discussion, other than that of the law being different in some parts of the world in regards to age's of sex and marriage.
For the most part, countries have a defined Age where a Child becomes a young adult, prior to that age the "Parent or Guardian" is suppose to be the "Moral and Responsible who thinks in the best interests of the Child and it's future of growth of becoming an adult" and they are expected to conduct that role within the confines of law.
Obviously groups like UNICEF do identify the laws stance further:
There is the factor that anyone that suffers "Abuse" might not see it so at the time because they are "groomed". However later in life, it could effect them and haunt them and what ever is done to them can have the same effect as having it done then and there, which in fact would be Rape.
I'm pretty sure the only tolerance of debates here on Sciforums is to try and get it into those paedophiles heads that what they do and are is an abomination and is no actually tolerated.
Obviously some threads can identify to the kids that post here that there are some seriously sick people that frequent this forum. I
It's up to those kids to report them should they make any advances (even jokingly).
Paedophiles actually have no argument when it comes to discussion, other than that of the law being different in some parts of the world in regards to age's of sex and marriage.
For the most part, countries have a defined Age where a Child becomes a young adult, prior to that age the "Parent or Guardian" is suppose to be the "Moral and Responsible who thinks in the best interests of the Child and it's future of growth of becoming an adult" and they are expected to conduct that role within the confines of law.
Obviously groups like UNICEF do identify the laws stance further:
http://www.unicef.org.uk/publications/pdf/wffc.pdf
There is the factor that anyone that suffers "Abuse" might not see it so at the time because they are "groomed". However later in life, it could effect them and haunt them and what ever is done to them can have the same effect as having it done then and there, which in fact would be Rape.
I'm pretty sure the only tolerance of debates here on Sciforums is to try and get it into those paedophiles heads that what they do and are is an abomination and is no actually tolerated.
We can give them the same message by deleting the threads, banning the user, and handing the evidence over to their local Police too.
Tolerating this sort of debate from a potential child abuser, when you have the power to have them investigated is plain wrong. James has lost the plot.
Since it was a private message, I only quoted the part that essentially repeats the statement you made at the start of this thread. Everything else I considered private. If you want to reproduce your entire series of PMs to me, and my responses, that's just fine with me. But I'm not in the habit of posting other people's private messages without their consent.
I don't know where you got this idea from. It's wrong. A legitimate aim in a debate can be to show precisely why a particular position is untenable.
You're redefining "debate" to suit yourself. But ok, then, it's an argument. Call it what you like. I'm happy to argue with those who wish to promote pedophilia.
Well, no.
So far, the majority vote in the poll does not agree with you.
From the start I have responded to your concerns. The simple fact is that I disagree with you. If you can't handle disagreement and you lose respect for anybody who disagrees with you, that's your problem not mine.
All moderators received your reports. Clearly, all of them independently judged that your demand to close down the debate and delete all threads on pedophilia was excessive and unreasonable.
Hence the poll in this thread. We're discussing your issue here. If the community strongly feels that we ought not to allow any discussion of pedophilia, as you do, then we'll move forward to considering as a moderator/admin group whether to change our current approach to moderating that subject.
Better to hang the arguments of the pedophiles out to dry in the sun than to sweep them under the carpet and pretend they don't exist.
Evidence of what? At most, you have evidence that somebody thinks pedophilia is ok. Much as you and I may dislike that idea, it's not a crime. There are no thought police.
It is quite clear that you have strongly held views on this matter. I'd suggest that your intense emotional reaction is clouding your ability to think the matter through. Note that I'm not accusing you of "losing the plot".
No, it was selective quoting pure and simple James.
The Dictionary, James;
de⋅bate [di-beyt] Show IPA noun, verb, -bat⋅ed, -bat⋅ing.
–noun
1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
3. deliberation; consideration.
A jury deliberates to come to a verdict, ie, they consider both sides, weighing the evidence. Sorry, but it's YOU that is wrong.
See above, you are arguing with the dictionary, not me. Also, giving this creep attention and allowing him to promote his twisted views is not going to change his mind James. The exercise is futile, and playing into his hands.
But it's hardly a landslide in your favour, is it? Also, I suspect one of the voters to be a sock puppet, having only two posts to their name. The outcome of that poll, which was voiced in rather strong terms, shows how much of a contentious issue this is, but still you have the arrogance to proceed.
More arrogance James. If you think you can change this pervert's mind with your words, you are wrong. If you think you are doing anything other but air his twisted viewpoint, you are wrong. What exactly do you think you are going to achieve? We all know paedophilia is wrong, and this sicko is not going to change.
Bull SHIT James. Inaction on the part of the moderator community does not mean that they automatically side with you! Again you display your arrogance.
Which I started before your 'suggestion' please note.
How about we turn that on it's head, and ask if talking about the sexual assault of children is a topic for an allegedly science based forum?
Who is pretending they don't exist? All I am saying is that we should not entertain them. We know it's wrong, why give them a voice via this web site?
Pass the information over to the local Police and let them decide. You know, at least act like a decent human being.
Arrogance again James. If I disagree with you, my mind must be clouded? I can't have a clear, strong view, can't I? Take a step back and try and look at this without some 'freedom of speech' lensed glasses James. We don't have 'freedom of speech' here, we have a moderated site, not a free for all, and you are allowing a potential child abuser to intellectualise and peddle his perversion.
phlogistician:
Meh. Whatever.
You dictionary says nothing about requiring in a debate that each participant regards his opponent's position as tenable.
If you want to play dueling dictionaries, here's what my one says:
debate (n.):
1. A discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal
2. The formal presentation of a stated proposition and the opposition to*it (usually followed by a vote)
debate (v.):
1. Discuss the pros*and*cons of an issue.
2. Have an argument about something.
What ever gave you the idea that I'm trying to change ancientregime's mind? The chances of doing that in the debate are minimal at best.
Pots and kettles, phlogistician.
Don't you think it just a wee bit arrogant to demand that all discussion of a topic be shut down, just because you personally find it disagreeable?
I'm not primarily concerned with changing his mind. Think about it.
Well, I hope I'm also airing my twisted viewpoint just a tad.
But we don't all know that pedophilia is wrong. Clearly, at least some people think it's just fine and dandy. Some people are no doubt sympathetic to ancientregime's arguments.
You got me. It's a fair cop.
Huh? Are you claiming that sexual assault is not a topic that can be scientifically investigated?
That's a fair question. I might ask you to consider why we give a voice to pseudoscientists here who post incorrect Physics. Or why we give a voice to people prejudiced against Muslims. Or why we give a voice to people who think Israel should be wiped off the map. Or why we give a voice to people who don't like Abba. We know it's wrong, so why entertain any of this stuff?*
---
* Ok, so the Abba thing is debateable. Or maybe we shouldn't be allowed to debate that...
Meh. Whatever.
You dictionary says nothing about requiring in a debate that each participant regards his opponent's position as tenable.
If you want to play dueling dictionaries, here's what my one says:
debate (n.):
1. A discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal
2. The formal presentation of a stated proposition and the opposition to*it (usually followed by a vote)
debate (v.):
1. Discuss the pros*and*cons of an issue.
2. Have an argument about something.
What ever gave you the idea that I'm trying to change ancientregime's mind? The chances of doing that in the debate are minimal at best.
Pots and kettles, phlogistician.
Don't you think it just a wee bit arrogant to demand that all discussion of a topic be shut down, just because you personally find it disagreeable?
I'm not primarily concerned with changing his mind. Think about it.
Well, I hope I'm also airing my twisted viewpoint just a tad.
But we don't all know that pedophilia is wrong. Clearly, at least some people think it's just fine and dandy. Some people are no doubt sympathetic to ancientregime's arguments.
You got me. It's a fair cop.
Huh? Are you claiming that sexual assault is not a topic that can be scientifically investigated?
That's a fair question. I might ask you to consider why we give a voice to pseudoscientists here who post incorrect Physics. Or why we give a voice to people prejudiced against Muslims. Or why we give a voice to people who think Israel should be wiped off the map. Or why we give a voice to people who don't like Abba. We know it's wrong, so why entertain any of this stuff?*
---
* Ok, so the Abba thing is debateable. Or maybe we shouldn't be allowed to debate that...
More selective quoting, and deliberate ignorance James!
3. deliberation; consideration.
Like I said, a jury 'deliberates' holding both sides of the story as equally tenable, and using the evidence to sway them.
Then what is the point? You are giving him a voice, probably reinforcing his arguments, and giving him the attention he seeks. Can any _good_ come of this?
6 to 9 one day in, don't go calling victory just yet, and it does show that this is not a landslide in your favour, and one sock puppet has probably voted against my proposal. It shows it's a contentious issue, and really, as a mod, do you think it should be you causing controversy?
So far, me and five others. Did you see the poll? Can you justify the debate, by demonstrating what good it will do?
I have thought about it. I know you aren't going to change his mind, and you are allowing SciForums to be a springboard for his perversion. If someone started a thread about why it's OK to verbally and physically abuse people because of their race, I doubt it would last very long. I don't understand where you are coming from with your participation in this 'debate'.
See Stryder's comments. Paedophiles need psychiactric help. I really don't think I need qualify 'all' by excluding the mentally ill. All sane people know it's wrong.
No, I'm saying it cannot be justified, scientifically.
Is pseudoscience advocating harm? Is pseudo science a crime against a person? Come on James, you can do better than that. On prejudice against Muslims you may be closer to the mark, and we have seen people banned for anti-muslim and anti-semitic sentiment, so if anything, you are highlighting a double standard.
I live in a country that tolerates the existence of NAMBLA. And I'm fine with that. They are free to say what they think, I'm free to ignore them, and to treat their opinions derisively.
I've just ignored the threads in question, and I think I'll continue to do so.
I've just ignored the threads in question, and I think I'll continue to do so.
phlogistician:
If I'm not trying to change his mind, then what do you think I am hoping to achieve by debating him? Or by debating anybody with a fixed opinion on any topic, for that matter?
Answer: I hope to influence the opinions of other people, who read the debate for themselves, although they are not participants in it. I hope to inform the uninformed, and to make people think, and to provide an opportunity for those who are informed to see how their views compare with my own.
This goes beyond formal debates, of course. Why write anything at all on sciforums? If you're not expressing a view for the consumption of other people, why post at all?
You ask "Can any _good_ come of this?"
My answer is: I hope so. I hope that I might change the mind of at least one person who was thinking that ancientregime was making some good points in previous threads. I hope that some people will come out slightly better equipped to deal with these kinds of arguments the next time they come across them. I hope that people are outraged by ancientregime and want to speak out against his views, both here and elsewhere. I hope that people doing google searches might find the debate thread and use it as a resource. And so on.
I'd say it is ancientregime who stirred up the controversy. I'm just calling him on his bullshit. He challenged others to debate him. I accepted.
If somebody started such a thread, I think they would immediately be met with 50 angry and contrary responses. The thread might be closed down, but it wouldn't be censored.
The Formal Debates forum, by the way, was always intended to allow for the civilised debate of contentious topics. Since participants in the Formal Debates must agree in advance as to how the debate is to be conducted, there can be some latitude in moderation of these debates. Of course, the format requires that an issue actually be debated, and both sides of the argument put. The subforum cannot be used as a soapbox for a one-sided argument. Moreover, the expectation is that some Formality is required; hence, turn taking, no personal insults, etc.
I would happily allow a formal debate on the topic "That verbal and physical abuse on racial grounds is acceptable", provided it met the criteria of a serious formal debate.
You may not be aware, but this is a hot topic of debate in the psychiatric community. There is some argument over whether pedophilia ought to be classified as a mental disorder at all. (Note: this has nothing to do with an argument about whether child sexual abuse ought to be illegal.)
You can make blanket statements like that if you like, but without argument they rest more on emotion than reason.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
In some cases, the answer may well be "yes", but it's beside the point.
I have banned self-declared pedophiles from sciforums in the past. ancientregime is not obviously one of those.
phlogistician said:
If I'm not trying to change his mind, then what do you think I am hoping to achieve by debating him? Or by debating anybody with a fixed opinion on any topic, for that matter?
Answer: I hope to influence the opinions of other people, who read the debate for themselves, although they are not participants in it. I hope to inform the uninformed, and to make people think, and to provide an opportunity for those who are informed to see how their views compare with my own.
This goes beyond formal debates, of course. Why write anything at all on sciforums? If you're not expressing a view for the consumption of other people, why post at all?
You ask "Can any _good_ come of this?"
My answer is: I hope so. I hope that I might change the mind of at least one person who was thinking that ancientregime was making some good points in previous threads. I hope that some people will come out slightly better equipped to deal with these kinds of arguments the next time they come across them. I hope that people are outraged by ancientregime and want to speak out against his views, both here and elsewhere. I hope that people doing google searches might find the debate thread and use it as a resource. And so on.
I'd say it is ancientregime who stirred up the controversy. I'm just calling him on his bullshit. He challenged others to debate him. I accepted.
If somebody started such a thread, I think they would immediately be met with 50 angry and contrary responses. The thread might be closed down, but it wouldn't be censored.
The Formal Debates forum, by the way, was always intended to allow for the civilised debate of contentious topics. Since participants in the Formal Debates must agree in advance as to how the debate is to be conducted, there can be some latitude in moderation of these debates. Of course, the format requires that an issue actually be debated, and both sides of the argument put. The subforum cannot be used as a soapbox for a one-sided argument. Moreover, the expectation is that some Formality is required; hence, turn taking, no personal insults, etc.
I would happily allow a formal debate on the topic "That verbal and physical abuse on racial grounds is acceptable", provided it met the criteria of a serious formal debate.
You may not be aware, but this is a hot topic of debate in the psychiatric community. There is some argument over whether pedophilia ought to be classified as a mental disorder at all. (Note: this has nothing to do with an argument about whether child sexual abuse ought to be illegal.)
You can make blanket statements like that if you like, but without argument they rest more on emotion than reason.
P said:
I don't understand what you're saying here.
In some cases, the answer may well be "yes", but it's beside the point.
I have banned self-declared pedophiles from sciforums in the past. ancientregime is not obviously one of those.
Riiiiiight. You think there are fence sitters on the question 'is it OK to fuck children' you can sway. Naive at best, James.
Has anybody sided with him? The only reason people have given so far for not deleting the thread is free speech and to shoot him down. I don't see anyone agreeing with the sick bastard.
But action would be taken. It would not be jusrtified by a moderator,....
Then you clearly need to be able to draw a line over academic debate, and actually thinking it's OK to harm someone James. Someone who tool the position that it was OK to harm someone on racial grounds could never be right, there is nothing to debate. Same goes for this soapboax of yours. Debating this freak lends credibility to him, as if there is the possibility he could be right. Do you not see this?
Currently it is classified that way. Currently it is illegal. Everyone agress it's immoral. There really is no debate, James.
Apart from the fact that it's illegal for good reason, and society will never accept it? Please James, stop making out like my outrage is not justified, when you have given no solid reason for entertaining a paedophile.
You started this tack. You asked;
James R said:
and I replied that it could not be justified scientifically. Ancient Regime is trying to justify paedophilia, not investigate why people are paedophiles, get it?
And those that make racial slurs, but by mentioning paedophiles here you are clumsily sidestepping the double standard I pointed out previously.
Just be honest James, that's all I ask. Be a good person. Accept there is no justification for Ancient Regimes position, so it's futile and counter productive to let him voice it.
get a grip dude, the FBI monitors the web for this very reason.
do you really believe that anyone here hasn't reported him?
i feel sorry for him in a way because he's gonna get his shit kicked out, in my locality the law pursues people like him with a passion.
If only that were true. Even if it were, it would not divest James of his moral obligations to inform the local Police Force of the things this guy has been saying. it might be evidence enough for search and seizure of his computer, which may well lead to the arrest of active paedophiles. But James would rather play the pseudo-intellectual and tolerate this pervert.
- Status