Delete the paedophilia threads

[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. .

See James, here you are either being naive or arrogant. You think your argument would be the only persuasive one if there actually were any fence sitters (not that I think there are, I think that's BS on your part, sane people know right from wrong on this matter).

BUT, _if_ there were fence sitters James, letting this guy have a voice might persuade them toward his point of view. You are potentially allowing that James. You are potentially allowing a paedophile to recruit people. Your short-sightedness in the matter astounds me.

 

[S.A.M.]

Why does voting in this poll redirect to a thread called The Arab Mindset?

 

[leopold]

If only that were true.

if only what 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.

i haven't read very many posts in the afore mentioned threads. one or two posts.
so i really have no idea what he's been saying.
lighten up on james, i can think of no one better equipped here intellectually to take him (ancient) on.
there is however a limit to how far this should go lest we start attracting these types of people like flies. but even that has the advantage of keeping them talking for the ears of the FBI.

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.

i wonder how many muslims and christians are seriously offended by what is posted here? yes, i know, it's not the same thing.
look at it this way phlog we could very well get a glimpse of the mindset and tactics that are used by these types of people, how they justify it to themselves, this could provide the information necessary to steel our society against it.
in short what i'm saying here is "give a person enough rope . . .".

 

[glaucon]

I'm not making a general case, but a specific one on this one issue.

So you just support censorship in particular cases.

Stuff straw men much?

Hey, it was your vague support of censorship, not mine....

Or are you a kiddy fiddler too?

Ooooh.. ad hominem, how nice.
You realize of course that your implicative statement here amounts to slander yes? Ground for banning??

I suppose we should ban all discussion about racism as well, because that obviously exposes people to racism...

Go burn your torch elsewhere if you don't like it.

 

[ancientregime]

There should be no discussion of paedophilia, the subject is not open for debate, as sane people do not question the merits of the current laws we have in place to keep it illegal.

Further, I move that we delete all threads pertaining to the discussion.

If you are so damned intent that pedophilia is not a pseudo-science and that harm does occur to children according to Congressional Findings, then it would behoove you to post argument strategies that may help the invisible pedophiles with their reasoning process as to potentially stop abuse that may occur. Deleting a thread topic prevents such an expression and ideas. It would actually take away that one thing that may have changed their mind. It very well could be that thing that saves a child's life.

Your intensely emotionalized response also indicates that it may be possible that reason may not prevail, and like the bad guys can actually win the argument. Anyone can pm James. The lines are wide open, it's the internet. There is no reason why reason should not prevail. Censorship implies fear on your part.

BTW, I'm not doing anything illegal and you can report and piss and moan all you want to the FBI or whoever you like. I'll gladly smile at them as they leave and tell them to waste the federal tax money on someone else.:yay:

If you like censorship so much, you may want to try the Muslim world.

 

[visceral_instinct]

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?

Don't get me wrong, his posts have the same effect on me.

Some of the shit he posts makes me involuntarily clench my fists and dig my nails into the underside of my palms.

But clenched fists are not a rebuttal of an argument.

We all know why pedophilia is wrong. We know our reasoning is superior, so let's use that reasoning.

 

[visceral_instinct]

If you are so damned intent that pedophilia is not a pseudo-science and that harm does occur to children according to Congressional Findings, then it would behoove you to post argument strategies that may help the invisible pedophiles with their reasoning process as to potentially stop abuse that may occur. Deleting a thread topic prevents such an expression and ideas. It would actually take away that one thing that may have changed their mind. It very well could be that thing that saves a child's life.

Ha! You just admitted that having a child participate in a sex act they are too young to consent to DOES do them harm!

Here, wait a sec while I open my lock knife and cut you out of all those knots of faulty logic.

 

[scott3x]

See James, here you are either being naive or arrogant. You think your argument would be the only persuasive one if there actually were any fence sitters (not that I think there are, I think that's BS on your part, sane people know right from wrong on this matter).

BUT, _if_ there were fence sitters James, letting this guy have a voice might persuade them toward his point of view. You are potentially allowing that James.

And we couldn't allow anyone to deviate from established doctrine now, could we?

You are potentially allowing a paedophile to recruit people.

You seem to think that with a word you should be able to silence all dissenting views. The scary thing is that in many places it actually works.

Your short-sightedness in the matter astounds me.

I think he's allowing a dissenting viewpoint to be heard. If James view is right, then one would think that his arguments would sway people to this point of view. If, on the other hand, ancientregime's arguments are best, one would think that -his- arguments would sway people to this point of view. Or if they both have good points, then I would think that this would come across as well.

 

[scott3x]

We all know why pedophilia is wrong. We know our reasoning is superior, so let's use that reasoning.

I agree with the last part anyway (let's use reasoning). The term pedophilia has various definitions and, in my view, is not so easily pinned down into right or wrong.

 

[scott3x]

If you are so damned intent that pedophilia is not a pseudo-science and that harm does occur to children according to Congressional Findings, then it would behoove you to post argument strategies that may help the invisible pedophiles with their reasoning process as to potentially stop abuse that may occur. Deleting a thread topic prevents such an expression and ideas. It would actually take away that one thing that may have changed their mind. It very well could be that thing that saves a child's life.

Ha! You just admitted that having a child participate in a sex act they are too young to consent to DOES do them harm!

He's playing devil's advocate. It's clearly not his own position.

 

[Repo Man]

I agree with the last part anyway (let's use reasoning). The term pedophilia has various definitions and, in my view, is not so easily pinned down into right or wrong.

The proper definition is the strong or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children by an adult. Sadly, here in the US it is popularly used to describe adults who pursue young teenagers, even to the point of using it for anyone over the age of 18 who pursues anyone under the age of 18. I think someone in his twenties who tries to pick up on a fourteen year old who looks older is an idiot. I think they are very different from a disturbed adult who thinks three year old girls are sexy. The same word shouldn't be used to describe them both.

 

[scott3x]

I agree with the last part anyway (let's use reasoning). The term pedophilia has various definitions and, in my view, is not so easily pinned down into right or wrong.

The proper definition is the strong or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children by an adult. Sadly, here in the US it is popularly used to describe adults who pursue young teenagers, even to the point of using it for anyone over the age of 18 who pursues anyone under the age of 18.

And then there are children who engage in sexual activities with children. Children who are charged with producing kiddie porn of themselves. It's a mess and it's high time that society face the mess it's created.

I think someone in his twenties who tries to pick up on a fourteen year old who looks older is an idiot.

In this society, I'd essentially agree. However, not all societies would have judged it to be so. Even up until recently, the age of consent in Hawaii and in Canada for adult/minor sexual relationships, excluding people 'in a position of trust' was 14 (they've now raised it to 16)

I think they are very different from a disturbed adult who thinks three year old girls are sexy. The same word shouldn't be used to describe them both.

I definitely agree that there are some definite differences between a pre pubescent and pubescent person. I think that labelling people as 'disturbed' for being attracted to very young girls (or animals or inanimate objects) can frequently be detrimental. Attraction to anything isn't illegal. What's illegal is acting upon certain attractions. As I've said elsewhere, I can be attracted to teens, even if they're below the age of consent. But as I said, it's one thing to be attracted to them and another to act on that attraction. Suffice it to say that by 21 I'd learned the laws of the land and proceeded to act accordingly in regards to this.

I've also voiced my concern that I don't believe that many of the restrictions against minors expressing their sexuality as they'd like to are good. Charging minors with creating kiddie porn of themselves is insane; I believe the fact that everyone isn't condemning this is proof that our society has lost its touch with reality. Other things society has instituted are equally bad. Say what you will about teenagers, but not all of them regret attractions they form at that age. The case of Mary Kay Letourneau and her student Vilii Fualaau is an excellent example and I find it telling that so few people are willing to confront the fact of their relationship. I have seen absolutely no judge or lawmaker apologize for Mary Kay Letourneau's being jailed. They wrote a good book together; It's title "Un seule crime, l'amour". Translated from french, it's "only one crime, love". True, Mary Kay Letourneau was married when she began her affair with Vili and no, I don't believe that cheating on one's spouse is good. But in North America, it's not a crime and clearly that's not why Mary Kay was jailed. Food for thought.

 

[Repo Man]

I'm not going to apologize for thinking there is something very wrong with the brain of someone who thinks three year old girls are sexually attractive. They have my sympathy though, unless they try and make their fantasies come to fruition. Even then, I'm not big on vengeance, but they must be prevented from having access to children if they cannot control their impulse to act on their fantasies.

 

[scott3x]

I'm not going to apologize for thinking there is something very wrong with the brain of someone who thinks three year old girls are sexually attractive.

You might be a bit right there. There are groups for people who are though and they seem like ok people; the groups I've seen that still exist essentially all stipulate that people should be law abiding; for what I think are obvious reasons, groups that don't stipulate this clearly tend to dissapear; or maybe it's just that they get tired of having to deal with people who are against it. In any case, I haven't seen any group that advocates breaking the law and I wouldn't want to be part of one for obvious reasons.

They have my sympathy though, unless they try and make their fantasies come to fruition. Even then, I'm not big on vengeance, but they must be prevented from having access to children if they cannot control their impulse to act on their fantasies.

I agree. Honestly, I admit I have a bit of a hard time finding what's attractive of a 3 year old but as long as they don't act on it, I don't see any harm. From what my mother tells me, I really started thinking of the difference between girls and guys when I was 5; I'd braid up the hair of a girl one day and she'd unbraid it at home so I could braid it up the next . I don't even remember it though. I -do- remember doing a native american play though; I was the winter and a girl I kinda liked was spring; when she came I 'melted', laugh .

I remember kissing 2 neighbour sisters when I was 6; they were about 6 and 4. Apparently the mother didn't like it, though, because I was never invited to their house again :-/. I also remember seeing a cousin of theirs, maybe about 4 or 5 only with underwear on in their garden.. and how she's pull on the underwear to make it look like a bikini. I was very interested but like I said, no more access to the neighbours, laugh . Ofcourse, I started going to school with the older of the sisters starting from grade 2, but she told me to never talk about our past friendship. I didn't, but I still found her attractive all the way until I left that school in grade 7. I liked other girls more, but I simply couldn't approach them. I was something of an outsider, although due to my headstrong if quiet way of being, I had a bit of respect; ofcourse, bullies can at times appreciate that type of quality for sport, especially if they're in numbers; my mother thought that perhaps it'd be best to try a private school and I agreed; it was a good private school, a hippyish waldorf school; I liked it although I had some troubles there too by the time I was 16/17 and really liked this girl in my class but again, hard to approach her; in that case, I actually did approach her a bit though, but it didn't work out, for various reasons I believe (for one I was muslim and even in this school, I was still somewhat of an outsider, although I did have 2 friends in class; who were also pretty much outsiders ). ah my life. Anyway.

 

[James R]

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.

Neighbourhoods are full of busybodies who make assumptions about other people and want to run them out of town. You sound like one of them. Ooh, there's a single mother. She must have slept around. She must not have thought about having a child. She must be stupid for not using contraception. She should have picked a better man to father her child. She smokes and she is a bad mother. She takes money from the government to support her good-for-nothing brat.

Ooh look. I don't like what ancientregime is saying. He must be a pedophile himself. He's encouraging people to rape kids. He must be into child pornography too. I'll bet his computer is full of filth. He should be locked up for the protection of good people like you and me, just in case some time in the future he might possible consider committing a crime. I'll bet he is the head of an internet pedophile ring.

etc. etc.

 

[darksidZz]

this thread confuses me as do teh responses : shrug :

 

[copernicus66]

Neighbourhoods are full of busybodies who make assumptions about other people and want to run them out of town. You sound like one of them. Ooh, there's a single mother. She must have slept around. She must not have thought about having a child. She must be stupid for not using contraception. She should have picked a better man to father her child. She smokes and she is a bad mother. She takes money from the government to support her good-for-nothing brat.

Ooh look. I don't like what ancientregime is saying. He must be a pedophile himself. He's encouraging people to rape kids. He must be into child pornography too. I'll bet his computer is full of filth. He should be locked up for the protection of good people like you and me, just in case some time in the future he might possible consider committing a crime. I'll bet he is the head of an internet pedophile ring.

etc. etc.

Well said. Ancientregime is harming no one, nor is he breaking any laws, by daring to express an opinion that is viewed as abhorrent by many.

 

[phlogistician]

Neighbourhoods are full of busybodies who make assumptions about other people and want to run them out of town.

No James, I am not one of those people, and the difference here is that I don't need to make assumptions, Ancient's position is clearly stated.

You sound like one of them. Ooh, there's a single mother. She must have slept around. She must not ... to support her good-for-nothing brat.

Run out or arguments James? Need to draw the debate and start stuffing a straw man? As a moderator, you should know the importance of staying on topic.

Ooh look. I don't like what ancientregime is saying. He must be a pedophile himself. He's encouraging people to rape kids. He must be into child pornography too. I'll bet his computer is full of filth. He should be locked up for the protection of good people like you and me, just in case some time in the future he might possible consider committing a crime. I'll bet he is the head of an internet pedophile ring.

etc. etc.

James, parodying what I say doesn't detract from the possibilty it's true, and that you are failing in your duty as a human being to pass the information over the relevant law enforcement agency.


Oh, and nice dodge on my point that if you think your argument can sway fence sitters, so may his, by the way. I guess you have no argument for that, so that's why you tried to draw the debate.

 

[phlogistician]

Well said. Ancientregime is harming no one, nor is he breaking any laws, by daring to express an opinion that is viewed as abhorrent by many.

Hes justifying child abuse. Please don't think this is simply a matter of free speech, that's naive. Why would someone try and justify something so abhorrent? Think.

 

[Asguard]

phlogistician, you do realise that in some eroupian countries its illegal to question ANYTHING which relates to the holocost. I could assume that in alot of small US country town questioning WHY a the atacks on sep 11 happened and if US actions contributed to it could get you beaten to death. I find fred phelp's opinions and actions to be VERY discusting but that doesnt mean i can kill him for his opinions. We live in a world which surposedly respects free speach and that means free debate. As distastefull as this topic is he has the right to put his argument just as you do