Discussion: Is pedophilia pseudoscience?

[leopold]

It depends on what you are arguing, I'm currently trying to ascertain the origination of the perception of Ancient Regime.

he's apparently saying the AOC isn't young enough.

While I've declared my personal views on the subject, 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.

i suggest we put it to a poll to see if the AOC needs to be lower than what it is.

 

[Stryder]

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

Actually there is a technique that I didn't mention which is the best yet. Simply put it's a form of radiological invasion of a persons mind, the equipment of course is trialled under different terms but the outcome is that a person can be 24/7 monitored, influences and feedback can be assessed and even to a certain degree their brain can be retrained to adjust if they suffer a problem that they have been diagnosed with.

Admittedly there is a small amount of poisoning, about the same as your wireless networks and mobile phones.

Of course it's currently a controlled experiment because the very nature of it brings into question about Eugenics, although it is by far the more human method but it does require the subject or patient to realise their faults need fixing.

 

[RobDegraves]

Hmmm...this is what you said...

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?

So... your contention is that having sex with a 6 month old toddler is both consensual and non damaging?

 

[Randwolf]

There is a category of ages before the turf begins to grow, I mean all of them.

That there is a category of ages before "the turf begins to grow" is not disputed by anyone. The question to you, dear neighbor, is this:

At what point do these "non turfed" youngsters have the ability to consent / enjoy sexual relations with a thirty something adult? Immediately upon exiting the womb? Or do you agree that intercourse with a newborn might cause damage?

I have a feeling that you will not answer this question, it requires too much specificity, right?

 

[scott3x]

are the laws as they stand in regard to sexuality fair? Because if they're not, surely you would agree that they should be changed, no?

That's a different discussion, and not the one Ancient is having.

I disagree, but if you believe there is evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing it. Note that I haven't said that I always -agree- with ancient on how the laws should be changed, although I do in some cases.

If you wanted to discuss some aspect of the law in particular, contrast where it varies from state to state or country to country, consider historical, environmental and cultural factors, yeah, that would be a valid discussion.

I believe that's what ancientregime is doing.

I cannot tolerate Ancient's line of reasoning in the current debate however.

Then disagree with him or ignore him. As long as he's not advocating to -break- the law, I don't see why you have such a problem.

 

[scott3x]

Disclaimer: No children were harmed in the production of this thread.

Lol . I think that, no matter what side of the debate you're on, I think the truth is more likely the opposite; we only focus on the people who are writing here. But if you're writing here and arguing away on the pros and cons of the laws as they stand, I'm willing to bet that you have a relatively healthy respect for them. While James may feel that he won't persuade ancientregime to change his views and perhaps ancientregime may feel the same way in terms of persuading James, judging from the 305 views of the debate thread on this subject, I think it's safe to say that they're not the only people who have been reading the thread. And that's not even counting the more then 130 posts and 1000 views of this one. So, in essence: if you feel strongly about the issues brought up in this thread, does it make sense to simply trash it all? Or should we instead try to reach consensus on this issue and all go away happy campers? Ok, ok, perhaps that won't happen in this lifetime. But perhaps one day it will become a reality.

That day, someone may say, as Isaac Newton did,
"If I have been able to see farther than others, it was because I stood on the shoulders of giants."

Those giants, in my view, will be all of those who put in all the effort they did into resolving this very divisive issue.

 

[Bells]

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.

Your statements and arguments speak for themselves. If you do not wish to be viewed as such, conduct yourself differently.

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.

Still not getting it, eh? Or is comprehension an issue?

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.

Okay. But at what age does it become acceptable? Do you think a child of, say, 4 or 5, could enter into a sexual relationship without being coerced or manipulated into it by the adult? How about a 1 year old?

I notice you have been asked this question several times on this forum and you have failed to answer it ever single time.

Does the harm have to be physical for you to accept that it is harm? Or is mental and psychological harm also fall into the "harm" bracket? And in what situations would you view harm to the child as being possible?

Lets say the blanket rule/law was removed. Should the adults only be prosecuted if and when harm occurs? Would those particular adults be seen to be paedophiles since they caused harm while others who apparently do not cause harm be viewed as normal? Is it only abnormal and wrong when harm occurs?

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.

Who exactly are you saying this to?

You have, thus far, failed to answer any question directly, instead going on a round about trip, picking out certain words and then completely misrepresenting what has been asked of you.

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

Read what you have posted and the context in which you posted it.

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.

Still can't answer the question?

Hmmm... how about answering my points there Ancient Regime.

Here is a broom and pail. It will help clean up the mess from smashing your head into sharp bricks. Lets just say he can drive you to that point.

 

[Randwolf]

So, in essence: if you feel strongly about the issues brought up in this thread, does it make sense to simply trash it all?

No, it does not. I think that as with most debates here on SF, much of the contention lies in the definitions. While I am still awaiting a reply from Ancient, I find it hard to believe that even he advocates the position that intercourse with a newborn is not harmful. If this is conceded, then where is the line? Not necessarily predicated upon some arbitrary age, whether that be one year, ten years or even eighteen, but none the less, I think any reasonable person would agree that there is some age below which an individual will be harmed by most sexual encounters, and this does not even address the psychological issues.

Again, to definitions. If someone wanted to argue that having a certain "age of consent" is capricious and arbitrary, we could discuss it. I believe you have brought this very point up in your arguments, Scott. However, I personally feel that there should be a differentiation between pre and post pubescent. Even if there was any merit to Ancients apparent position that sex with prepubescents is "ok", he has failed to show where there is any benefit associated with this behavior. Perhaps he would argue that the child "grows" somehow? I have no idea...

To the other, as his friend would probably attest, there is certainly no benefit to the adult in a situation like the one referenced in this thread. No benefit to a normal, well adjusted adult that "gets a little" here and there, at least.

So what is your take on this Scott? Do you find any difference between sex with a fifteen year old, precocious teen and sex with a newborn? If so, it becomes a matter of gradation, and where is the line? If you see no distinction, than I believe I will have to agree with Phlog and relegate you to the sicko file...

 

[leopold]

Or should we instead try to reach consensus on this issue and all go away happy campers?

we can do exactly that by leaving the AOC where it is and leaving the special cases to the department of justice.
do you agree scott?

 

[ancientregime]

Actually there is a technique that I didn't mention which is the best yet. Simply put it's a form of radiological invasion of a persons mind, the equipment of course is trialled under different terms but the outcome is that a person can be 24/7 monitored, influences and feedback can be assessed and even to a certain degree their brain can be retrained to adjust if they suffer a problem that they have been diagnosed with.

Admittedly there is a small amount of poisoning, about the same as your wireless networks and mobile phones.

Of course it's currently a controlled experiment because the very nature of it brings into question about Eugenics, although it is by far the more human method but it does require the subject or patient to realise their faults need fixing.

What, religion is not good enough for you?

 

[ancientregime]

Hmmm...this is what you said...



So... your contention is that having sex with a 6 month old toddler is both consensual and non damaging?

What do you mean by sex?

 

[ancientregime]

That there is a category of ages before "the turf begins to grow" is not disputed by anyone. The question to you, dear neighbor, is this:

At what point do these "non turfed" youngsters have the ability to consent / enjoy sexual relations with a thirty something adult? Immediately upon exiting the womb? Or do you agree that intercourse with a newborn might cause damage?

I have a feeling that you will not answer this question, it requires too much specificity, right?

You have to be specific about what you mean by sex. What don't you paint us a picture of exactly what you mean. Then it can be tested for harm.

 

[James R]

If she was masturbating, do you think it would be perverse for the scientifically proven natural mechanism of empathy to kick in and become aroused?

Interesting that the first thing you imagine a 12 year old girl would do if locked in a room naked with you would be to masturbate.

You're so fixated on the physical, I don't think you are capable of viewing a child as a person at all.

 

[Randwolf]

You have to be specific about what you mean by sex. What don't you paint us a picture of exactly what you mean. Then it can be tested for harm.

I might ask you the same, Ancient. Exactly what picture do you conjure up of "sex" with a newborn? You licking her clitoris (or his penis), or perhaps penetration? You tell me?

Why don't you just answer the frikken question? Is there any child too young to consent?

 

[Bells]

You have to be specific about what you mean by sex. What don't you paint us a picture of exactly what you mean. Then it can be tested for harm.

How exactly would you "test" masturbating, oral sex or penetrative sex with a newborn or a toddler, or a child of any age? Would you view actually performing the acts as a form of "test"? Or would we just go by some random thoughts of what you think would happen?

 

[Repo Man]

I might ask you the same, Ancient. Exactly what picture do you conjure up of "sex" with a newborn? You licking her clitoris (or his penis), or perhaps penetration? You tell me?

Why don't you just answer the frikken question? Is there any child too young to consent?

I just imagined a scenario (not based on anyone in this thread) where a man who fancies eight year olds condemns a man who likes toddlers as a sicko.

 

[ancientregime]

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.

Your statements and arguments speak for themselves. If you do not wish to be viewed as such, conduct yourself differently.

Bells apparently cannot tell the difference between an argument and real person, even when it's pointed out to her.

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.

Still not getting it, eh? Or is comprehension an issue?

Bells still flees wildly from arguments she can't win. She thinks a question means she has defeated the argument.

Since Bells refuses to address my arguments, I refuse to address her comments. When I see her avatar, I will skip to the next post. I refuse to read her posts or recognize her due to her unprofessional behavior.

 

[Bells]

Bells apparently cannot tell the difference between an argument and real person, even when it's pointed out to her.



Bells still flees wildly from arguments she can't win. She thinks a question means she has defeated the argument.

Since Bells refuses to address my arguments, I refuse to address her comments. When I see her avatar, I will skip to the next post. I refuse to read her posts or recognize her due to her unprofessional behavior.

Still can't answer the question?

I have addressed your arguments, only to have you completely misconstrue them and twist them around so that they are completely opposite to their original intent.

It is obvious now that you cannot bring yourself, in your role as "devil's advocate" to answer some very pertinent questions to this debate and discussion.

 

[ancientregime]

Interesting that the first thing you imagine a 12 year old girl would do if locked in a room naked with you would be to masturbate.

You're so fixated on the physical, I don't think you are capable of viewing a child as a person at all.

If you had compentenly quoted me, you may have an arguement. I never said:

"first thing you imagine a 12 year old girl would do if locked in a room naked with you would be to masturbate."


Arguments are darn easy aren't they when you lie about what someone said, then knock it down. It's a sign of desperation when you don't use the what actually was said. Try again, with a direct quote.

 

[ancientregime]

I might ask you the same, Ancient. Exactly what picture do you conjure up of "sex" with a newborn? You licking her clitoris (or his penis), or perhaps penetration? You tell me?

Why don't you just answer the frikken question? Is there any child too young to consent?

No, why don't you keep me out of you machinations. By doing so, you are wrapping up a personal attack by putting it in rhetorical language. Quit trolling the thread or you will be ignored.