Discussion: Is pedophilia pseudoscience?

[RobDegraves]

I'm currently trying to ascertain the origination of the perception of Ancient Regime.

However, motivation is hardly an argument for or against a subject.

Specifically, it's an argumentum ad hominem. A common logical fallacy.

 

[ancientregime]

It is not the naked 12 year old that is causing the revulsion. It is your, well, apparent lustful admiration that is stomach turning.

Now I'm the one who is lusting after 12 year old?! Bells is Liar. Nowhere did I say that I lust after a 12 year old girl. How do you know I'm not gay? How do you know I may not be asexual and I can see past all this sexual orientation bullshit? Her argument is so weak, she has to make things up.

Sorry Bells, you are confusing the emotion nausea with lust. The fact someone would feel lust is very different from nausea. Nausea and lust have different neural systems. If the adult were feeling lust, to say it is nausea is a misrepresentation of what is occuring. You have been conditioned to feel nausea at someones romantic appreciation. You go even further to call the act nauseating, but the act is not nauseating, it's simply a feeling of lust occuring in a person who finds another human's physical beauty romantically appealing. You are projectile vomiting your nausea on the situation where there is nothing but a sweet appreciation. You are the only one with a disgusting point of view in this threesome.

To prove this wrong, you have to show where the nausea orginates from lust full emotions. You won't do this. But I am open see you make an empirical effort and cite a study. I'm not interested in you moral explanations. This is a science site.

It is people like you, who deem it natural for adults to salivate at the very notion of sex with a 12 year old or even a 5 year old, deeming it as being a pseudo-science because in your mind, no harm could ever come to a child having sex with an adult. That is what is nauseating.

I never called it natural. I claim there is no evidence of harm where it exists in a context abscent of manipulation, threat or violence. Your Cognitive Distortion, All-Or-Nothing argument states that all sex occuring between children and adult is not supported.

Bells argument is so weak, that she must falsify what I have stated, issue that lie as something I said, then knock her own nonsense down, to make herself look like she's a winnin.

Bells, when you can face me without lying about what I said, then you'll make some progress.

 

[Stryder]

However, motivation is hardly an argument for or against a subject.

Specifically, it's an argumentum ad hominem. A common logical fallacy.

In regards to the topic:
Paedophilia is neither Science nor Pseudoscience (There is no Science to be represented or misrepresented in form) Which pretty much undermines the entire notion of a discussion, leaving the discussion to diverge to new levels.

As for your perspective of my questioning... it is indeed but that, a perspective and not necessarily as rounded as you might think.

 

[ancientregime]

No, no. This is your shining moment. So you are the one that should address the preset questions, after all I have nothing to address, nothing to substantiate, nothing to fear if I did a crime and was placed into General Populous.

Perhaps I should simplify it for you, since I already know that you've rounded up your wagon's into a circle from the impending danger you presume.

So simply:
Do you or do you not belong to a minority religious group?

Oh, so everyone must directly address your argument, but you don't have to directly address theirs? Selfish. You are being obstinate and selfish. Very unprofessional.

 

[Stryder]

Oh, so everyone must directly address your argument, but you don't have to directly address theirs? Selfish. You are being obstinate and selfish. Very unprofessional.

Again with the circles... I know you think it confuses the Native Americans, rallying the wagons like that, but to be honest, they know you are going no where.... So what's it going to be, answer the question or make yourself nauseatingly dizzy with your misdirectional retorts.

 

[ancientregime]

ancientregime


Your argument largely bases itself on a sliding scale, which makes for a poor quality argument. Let me give you an example.

Reductio Ad Absurdem

You state...

imagine a person who walks upon a situation where they see an aesthetically attractive person by their point of view, and this person happens to be a pre-pubescent human masturbating, would it be abnormal not to be turned on?

It would be abnormal in an empathetic sense not to be. "The construct of empathy refers to the ability to identify with and vicariously share the feelings and thoughts of others. This naturally occurring subjective experience of similarity between the feelings of self and others is an important aspect of building interpersonal relationships." [1]

Empathy is empirically proven brain phenomena. [2] When we view things in the world, the emotions we see being expressed activate the brain areas where we feel those emotions. Those who don't feel what is being expressed by the other person either have a brain dysfunction or have been emotionally tampered with to feel other emotions that don't naturally arise from the phenomena. Mind you, this is all in light of a person who's attention is not fleeting.

Wrong. I have not used a premise to state something outrageous, then followed through with a conclusion. That is the absurd fallacy.

What you have done however is to take a vague notion of age rather than be specific.

How about if the attractive young person was 5?
How about 1?
How about a fetus?

Maybe you think it is outrageious because I kept the age range open. Your attempt to hit me with absudity is based upon your ability to split the pre-pubscent period into years. If I address a year, you could then bring your absurd claim again and say months old. Then, days, seconds, milliseconds. Your absurdity has no end. Nonsense.

Harm


You fail to see where the harm comes in.


One of the reasons for the laws against child porn is to do with harm. Harm comes when a child is forced to do sexual acts against his or her will ... amongst other examples.

I'm stopping you there. If you refuse to read the arguments based upon this discussion and then come to the discussion a blather'n, I'm not going to respond to you.

I already know forcing a child into pornography causes harm. I never claimed otherwise.

 

[ancientregime]

I'm trying to understand AR's perspective, to which the understanding of the basis of their philosophies in regards to their Religion is the motive, not bigotry or stupidity.

The motive is to accurately represent in a scientific way.

Now, you still haven't fully explained why you think an adult looking at a 12 year old naked female that feels emotion of apprection for her beauty. Why do think the aesthetic emotion should be tampered and replaced with an emotion of naseaua?:shrug:

 

[RobDegraves]

Hmmm... how about answering my points there Ancient Regime. Also.. I am going to address one of yours directly.

I never called it natural. I claim there is no evidence of harm where it exists in a context abscent of manipulation, threat or violence

So.. your contention is that there is no harm done to a child that has sex with an adult if there is no coercion right?

Again.. what age are you talking about?

10?
5?
1?

Be specific.

 

[ancientregime]

In regards to the topic:
Paedophilia is neither Science nor Pseudoscience (There is no Science to be represented or misrepresented in form) Which pretty much undermines the entire notion of a discussion, leaving the discussion to diverge to new levels.

As for your perspective of my questioning... it is indeed but that, a perspective and not necessarily as rounded as you might think.

So, you think you can just waltz in here at say, 'oh it's neither science nor psuedo-science discussion over'. We should pack up our arguments and leave now. Tssst.

Not only are you being unhelpful in decrying the debate pseudo-intellectually, you have no idea what science is apparently.

 

[RobDegraves]

Maybe you think it is outrageious because I kept the age range open. Your attempt to hit me with absudity is based upon your ability to split the pre-pubscent period into years. If I address a year, you could then bring your absurd claim again and say months old. Then, days, seconds, milliseconds. Your absurdity has no end. Nonsense.

It is hardly nonsense and you know it.

If you seek to apply a general principle, it has to apply in a general way. This is where your argument devolves into absurdity.

If you seek to apply a specific principle, you need to be specific as to what it applies to.

Obvious.

 

[ancientregime]

Hmmm... how about answering my points there Ancient Regime. Also.. I am going to address one of yours directly.


So.. your contention is that there is no harm done to a child that has sex with an adult if there is no coercion right?

It depends upon your defintion of coersion. In a manipulative sense, I agree coersion has the potetial for signficant harm.

Again.. what age are you talking about?

10?
5?
1?

Be specific.

I already was specific. Pre-pubscent means just what it means. What ever you are setting up, just get along with it.

 

[ancientregime]

It is hardly nonsense and you know it.

If you seek to apply a general principle, it has to apply in a general way. This is where your argument devolves into absurdity.

If you seek to apply a specific principle, you need to be specific as to what it applies to.

Obvious.

I already specificed pre-pubescent. Now, do you have an argument or not?

 

[RobDegraves]

I agree coersion has the potetial for signficant harm.

Excellent.

Now... at what age would you say that a child is able to consent?

Can a one year old consent?

Can a ten year old consent?

I already was specific. Pre-pubscent means just what it means. What ever you are setting up, just get along with it.

No.. you are not being specific. Prepubescent could mean a toddler or even a fetus. Is that what you mean?

Either be specific or abandon any hope of sounding logical or scientific.. because without those you have no science at all.

 

[Stryder]

The motive is to accurately represent in a scientific way.

Now, you still haven't fully explained why you think an adult looking at a 12 year old naked female that feels emotion of apprection for her beauty.

Why does a person have to be naked to have beauty? That would be a more appropriate question.

Why do think the aesthetic emotion should be tampered and replaced with an emotion of naseaua?:shrug:

There is no "Aesthetic emotion".

An artist when confronting an audience with artwork when asking "What feelings do you feel when you see this portrait?" would not be happy with "an Aesthetic Emotion" as an answer. They want to know the real feelings, the balance and mergence that makes up the sensation as a total.

The same is with everything else, there is no emotions in honesty, the revulsion is actually the implication of say a person suggesting sexual arousal. This is why it makes sense to cover a child, not so much for my own benefit but that of those that are presented with such a scene.

Now I've answered your question, answer mine please.

Do you belong to a Minority Religion?

I ask this because I'm trying to understand your subjectivity which currently shrouds the concept of any rational that myself and others have to you.

 

[ancientregime]

• 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)

Are you advocating that people caught downloading child porn should have their genitals mutilated, their bodies poisoned, and locked up like animals?

 

[Stryder]

I advocate you should answer my question.

 

[RobDegraves]

Stryder

By demanding that someone focuses on a side question, you admit that you cannot answer the central premise.

It's not helping your side.


Ancientregime

By refusing to be specific... you admit that your statement is not in fact scientific.

 

[ancientregime]

Why does a person have to be naked to have beauty? That would be a more appropriate question.

No that is not a more appropriate question. Beauty can exist with or without clothes. Although, the flesh is raw beauty.

There is no "Aesthetic emotion".

Aesthic is theory as to what is beautiful. When we see something attractive, we get postive emotions. I indicate a category of postive emotions by aesthetic emotions. Forgive me, I have been informal.

The same is with everything else, there is no emotions in honesty, the revulsion is actually the implication of say a person suggesting sexual arousal. This is why it makes sense to cover a child (a 12 year old is the subject here)[my emphasis], not so much for my own benefit but that of those that are presented with such a scene.

I already addressed this with Bells...
Sorry Bells, you are confusing the emotion nausea with lust. The fact someone would feel lust is very different from nausea. Nausea and lust have different neural systems. If the adult were feeling lust, to say it is nausea is a misrepresentation of what is occuring. You have been conditioned to feel nausea at someones romantic appreciation. You go even further to call the act nauseating, but the act is not nauseating, it's simply a feeling of lust occuring in a person who finds another human's physical beauty romantically appealing. You are projectile vomiting your nausea on the situation where there is nothing but a sweet appreciation. You are the only one with a disgusting point of view in this threesome.

Now I've answered your question, answer mine please.

Do you belong to a Minority Religion?

Yes. It's what the others call, dare I say it...

...Shcience.


It' not really a religion, but many people view it that way.


....Oh, those faith-basers.

 

[ancientregime]

Ancientregime

By refusing to be specific... you admit that your statement is not in fact scientific.

I was specific. There is a category of ages before the turf begins to grow, I mean all of them. that is just as specific as mammal in the animal taxonomy. What don't you get about that? How many times do we have to go over this?

It's obvious you are trying to set something up. Don't make me play the Psychic Carny who guesses your age. What's your argument? Why are you so intereted in age? Come on with it.

 

[leopold]

I already was specific. Pre-pubscent means just what it means. What ever you are setting up, just get along with it.

HEY, wait a minute.
you hold everyone else up to the scientific light now its YOUR turn.
answer the question ancient regime.