That's your 'logical defense'? You spent time dreaming up an answer, and it involves a naked 12 year old? I think that says something about you.
Discussion: Is pedophilia pseudoscience?
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
- Status
That's your 'logical defense'? You spent time dreaming up an answer, and it involves a naked 12 year old? I think that says something about you.
No, you are not talking about the law. You are talking about opinion. Laws have an empirical basis, not a subjective one only.
The law was used to kill 20,000 innocent individuals called witches, based upon subjective opinion. The consensus of subjective opinion was a primary influence in the Witch Trials. Consensus is important only in the sense of corroboration of empirical evidence, not subjective opinion. When dealing with issues of crime and punishment, a consensus of subjective opinion used as evidence is a miscarriage of justice.
In relationship to the subject matter of this thread, I make the argument that no sexual acts between an adult and a child cause harm, but instead environmental factors cause the harm.
Those here that can only think that this sex must be obtained through manipulation, threats or physical force are tagging themselves with dangerous, narrow minded rapist point of view. If they ever crossed the line, we know exactly how they would cross the line due to their dangerously dogmatic view. It indicates that all interactions between adults and children must pushy and authoritarian. This close minded way may very well be the role they choose when interacting with children, but not all adults share this authoritarian view, this attitude incapable of relating to a child at their level. The inability to see the difference between rape and sex on their part is indicative of inarticulate and undistinguished mental characteristics.
Last edited:
Ancient, there's little point addressing a post to me, because you aren't going to sway me to your sick viewpoint.
I wouldn't want to sway you, you ought to let nature to that. You are locked up in circular reasoning based upon the society that cultured your emotions in association with certain human acts. Scientists do not look at things like this. They let nature determine their perception, not a moral agenda. An honest and unadulterated perception of the evidence, phlogistician is all that is important to them.
Bells
Staff member
You are sure that no sexual acts between an adult and a child causes harm? Righteo. I have seen physical harm that would probably make your eyes weep blood, from sexual acts that adults imposed on children. Maybe you might think that does not constitute harm or it could be something else, who knows. Are you saying that it is "environmental factors" that caused the actual physical and mental harm to the children? So much so that some of them can't even urinate without pain, some that required extensive reconstruction surgery.. not harm? How about the parents who find their small children, paranoid about their bodies at bath time, becoming distressed that their parents looked at their naked self when the week before, the parents were giving them their baths without issue.. how about the parents who find their small children physically abusing themselves and their sexual organs after being 'loved in that special way' by a trusted relative or friend? No harm there? Right.. I guess that was caused by environmental factors as well? Yes? No?
Your argument fails because there is a plethora of evidence of just how much harm such sexual acts actually cause a child by adults.
There was more than enough logic all throughout this thread and the debate. AR did a beautiful job. And its so obvious that you couldn't grasp any of them. So why waste more time to explain it further? We should get practical experiments to prove simple things to you. There are lot of such situations in life where people think they would act in a certain manner but end up acting differently. Beliefs got nothing to do with reality or nature. And making judgments based on such beliefs are next dumb thing to do. That's why there is science trying its best to explain situations involving a series of belief's and opinions. Unfortunately in many cases the law enforcement doesn't consider science. They subscribe to a series of beliefs to make the emotionally unstable public feel secure and served with their idea of justice.
No. I'm just a decent human being. You cannot intellectualise and justify your perversion. Live with the fact that you are sick and twisted. Stop trying to self justify, and seek help.
I read the posts of a sick individual desperately trying to justify a perversion.
AR has not done a 'beautiful job'. AR is self justifying. And outing some weirdos.
phlogistician fails to see the difference between and argument and a person's actual identity. He calls me a pedophile because I play devils advocate. Using his logic, a lawyer who defends a murderer then very well must be an accomplice to the murder.
Bells
Staff member
And what, pray tell, would those "practical experiments" entail or be?
In having sex with a child?
So it's natural for a father, as one example, to want or need to have sex with their toddler after being exposed to the child's genitals during nappy changes and bath times? So our belief that his actions would be wrong has nothing to do with reality or nature? Yes or no? Is it normal for a grown man or woman to be turned on at the sight of a child's pre-pubescent genitals?
Bells
Staff member
A lawyer who defends a murderer does not do so by saying that no harm was caused by the murderer or that killing causes no harm. When it is plainly obvious that harm has occurred, much like harm is caused by an adult having sex with a child. To say that no harm was caused to the child is, well, ridiculous in the extreme.
I am using Bells argument, but I do not direct my argument at her as a person.
People who use these arguments have a dangerous point of view, because there are individuals who have crossed the line and will cross the line in the future. Propagating a universal point of view that there is only one way to cross the line through manipulation, threat, and violence is dangerous. One should be cautious making claims that abusive methods are the only way possible that it can occur.
How do you propose to seek a scientific proof for such a situation? I mentioned earlier that I am not talking about incest. Its a whole different case study.
If the prosecution trumps things, a lawyer will argue for an accurate valence of the crime. All murder is not equal in magnitude.
I am not arguing that when harm occurs no crime exists. You are trying to again oversimplify the phenomena of life. I am adamantly against harming children.
Your argument is an example of Cognitive Distortion, this All-Or-Nothing thinking.
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
I am not talking about incest either.
Is it normal and natural for a grown man or woman, say at the beach, to become aroused at the sight of a small naked child (who he/she doesn't know) frolicking in the water?
Yes or no?
You said yourself earlier, and I quote:
Well? Take out the incest part of it. Ancient has commented in the past about that as well... But is it our 'beliefs' that make the thought or knowledge that an adult becoming aroused at the sight of a pre-pubescent child, is wrong? Is it natural for an adult to become aroused at the sight of the genitals of a pre-pubescent child? Is it natural? Lets say a 7 year old..
I don't believe non-paedohiles have any interest in justifying paedophilia, so your attempt to distance yourself from the view you espouse fails.
That's an interesting, if one sided point of view, as it rather implies guilt. I wonder what that says about your state of mind? Oh, that you are guilty?
Why not we try a simple experiment and try to go a step ahead of AR?
If you can avoid getting sexually aroused finding yourself naked and locked in a room with a naked 12 yr old girl for 8 hours without any availability of clothes, I will give it to you that your claim is valid.
In fact i suggested a slightly different version of this experiment on a religious forum on techniques to recruit catholic priests.
This is hardly a decent experiment, any normal man would likely take off their own top and cloth the child, rather than harbour the discussion notions that you would otherwise support.
Luckily it's not something I'm ever going to have to deal with but I know the suggests that yourself and AR make in this subject would have me feeling nauseated.
....
The Fact however remains, Paedophiles are "Predators", however they are too weak to prey on anyone other than children. When an adult has an understanding of their own rights, they've gained experience in regards to law and realise they alone are culpable for their own actions.
A child learns and plays, but for the most part they look to people older than themselves for wisdom. For this they leave themselves open because they don't necessarily understand how they can be turned into being a particular way ("Groomed").
(Some predator's can be assumed to have a higher than average IQ. They usually tend to overlook their "crimes" as being crimes, as their IQ makes them "Subjective" and they rationalise their own basis of subjectivity. This sort or predatorial mind suffers an Acute form of Schizophrenia [please note that Schizophrenia is a generic term] due to their inability to understand that their own actions effects others, but is subjective enough to understand how they can manipulate the law or an audience to their own whim. It's known that some paedophiles that "take" children don't just befriend the children, but the adults/parents too and in most cases they are related family members that gain trust through the family circle.)
When people try to define that paedophilia is not a mental illness, I'll put it quite simply to you. The reason it's termed a mental illness is because when these sick twisted individuals are brought before a court on charges, there grounds of defence is they "were not mentally competent to stand trial as a normal adult" (e.g. mentally deficient).
They do this to get a weaker sentence because they know full well that if they were placed into a standard prison for their crimes, they wouldn't last a week.
There are certain crimes against humanity that even the hardest of convicted felons stand against and one of them just happens to be "paedophilia". Since long serving criminals can try to adopt ways of gaining respect through prisoners (and potentially prison guards), paedophiles are targeted for abuse if not physical violence.
While some might claim that paedophiles should have rights and be defended against such abuse in prisons (amongst other places), just remember that these "Lambs" are merely "Wolves in Sheep's clothing".
The only real debate about paedophilia to be had is:
Obviously there is no letting them off and I would personally prefer if they didn't use Mental illness as a scapegoat (A lot of people out there suffer mental illnesses without grotesquely abusing children.)
Some suggested methods:
- Surgically removing their testicles to remove testosterone and therefore their ability to be aroused physically. (Although it's not actually the testicles that cause arousal but a part of the brain)
- Make them Physically take drugs that either destroys the reward centres that generate pleasant reactions in regards to children and therefore stop arousal, or the usage of neural linguistic programming therapy to make them feel sick should they be within 20 metres of a child. (Obviously the latter does undermine their ability to function as a normal person in society, since they would likely hide themselves from the world)
- Lock them up (This really doesn't work, and causes more problems then good because obviously they will more than likely be killed by normal prisoners)
Last edited:
The difference here is you confuse the two, and I distinguish them. You make the claim that I am a pedophile, but you have no evidence supporting that claim. There have been lawyers that have argued to remove the death penalty, but this does not mean they are homicidal maniacs.
If one sided means accurately representing things by not confusing them with other things, then so be it, I'm one sided.
Normal from your culturally narrow point of view that her body emanates something shameful, nasty. It is normal in a universalist sense to look upon the flesh and enjoy it's beauty. It's a fellow human being, and there is nothing nasty about it's expression or appreciation of that expression. Stryder has been cultured to feel 12 year old nudity is perverse, and must stop this wonderful natural expression by covering the naked filthiness.
Here we have clear case of emotional tampering--the sight of a beautiful 12 year old female human nauseates him. His quality of esteem for humans is nauseating. Hmmm...
- Status