This is getting ridiculous.
Stop telling me that I am advocating this and that, when I've explained numerous times that those things only apply in the future, if those things are not harmful in the future. You've baselessly assured me that the future will not be like that, and if that is the truth, then this doesn't matter at all.
What you're beginning to talk about now, whether you know it or not, is actively encouraging children to engage and experiment sexually, not just with people of their own age, but with much older people. Presumably teaching "sexual education" in a crude, harmful, and to coin my friend's terminology, extremely morally reprehensible way... it's borderline incest and rape advocacy.
If what I say is true, then I will (future tense) advocate free sexuality even for children, as long as it isn't harmful. I am (present tense) not advocating any actions because they are indeed harmful.
And about the ways in which you think I would teach sexual education, don't assume things. What I'm talking about is that children should be told everything truthfully about sex, and what they then do should only be if they're interested and consenting. And this is still in future tense, these things do not apply to our day and age, where it is still harmful regardless of interest and consent.
The quote you are responding to here has nothing to do with this. As the quote you're responding to says, I clearly say that I would never try to justify these acts because they are harmful. Verbatim.
Your living in an imaginary world that allows potential sex offenders the freedom to partake, in numerous ways, in unhealthy criminal acts against consenting children. What the fuck did I even just say? Apparently your ideal world consists of children growing up and being raised knowing that statutory rape, and clearly defined behavior disorders are good for humanity, and society in general. Yes, I have a serious problem with that.
Like I said, I would only advocate "unhealthy criminal acts" if they stopped being unhealthy and criminal. I obviously do not support harmful acts, but I believe some acts can be harmless in the future. In the future.
So I do not advocate those acts because they are harmful now.
Just like Warheit, your refutation against my idea of a possible future is "It is impossible."
Okay, to be fair, you're trying to justify your own desires, and some idealized sexual utopia that will never exist in any pre-apochryphal, civilized world.
I have argued about what makes sex harmful. If those arguments are right, and sex isn't inherently harmful by nature, then that means the harm can be undone. If it can be undone, then the future can be one in which sex isn't harmful to kids. But if you are right and this never happens, then nothing will change. I'm advocating open discussion with pedophiles and less hate, which I will advocate regardless of what the future is like.
Actually no, I'm just judging by the fact that heterosexuality cannot be cured, and that back in the 1960's people were trying to cure gays with no success. I get that pedophilia is harmful whereas homosexuality is not, but I think the way they occur in the brain is much the same, and thus pedophilia should be just as hard to get rid of as homosexuality.
Do you have any information to indicate otherwise?
But hey, I think all things sexuality are in dire need of more studies. There's still a lot of unknowns even just regarding homosexuality.
But they did have the same attitude towards homosexuality. It was viewed as a mental disorder, and that gays had a proclivity towards child molestation, and that it could be cured through treatments. Turns out it didn't work that way.
Perhaps, but what you're failing to understand is that there is no historical president that urges homosexuality to be changed or controlled. This cannot be said for pedophilia.
So how do you decide which professionals are qualified and which are unqualified?
This is a typically saddening reality of the professional medical world today; somewhat underdeveloped fields, ill-trained, and outright unqualified persons delivering treatment is kind of common today. I'm not trying to change your behavior, that's impossible, but you have a highly pathological reasoning behind your convictions that clearly shows itself when you talk about ideal futures.
By now, your argumentation consists of putting words in my mouth, saying that I am wrong and stating that my reasoning is bad. Cool.
What I mean is, there's a difference between treating someone who has trouble controlling his urges, and treating someone who just has urges. You apperantly think they are one and the same, but there are plenty of pedophiles out there, controlling their urges, proving you wrong.
It depends on what those urges are, ie sexual attraction to young people and the potential to enact those urges, then we're still talking about one and the same holistic treatment.
So, I'm not a bad person, except I may become one because I am aware of my sexuality? Is that what you're saying? Don't you think it is unfair to judge me as a child molester, just because you think there's a potential in me to be one? You can make up such accusations for anyone. Someone is aggressive? He's got potential to become a murderer.
By your nature, no, being a pedophilaic does not make you a bad person, I can see through enough layers to admit this, but by having this awareness about yourself you voluntarily confine yourself in a cautionary way because through your admission there is the potential that you will exhibit those clearly defined behaviors.
Sure there are some people who go mad and follow their abhorrent fantasies, but you seem to imply that any and all with such fantasies will be very likely to do so. I don't think so. There are horrible people of every kind. There are rapist heterosexuals and there are rapist pedophiles. The sexual fantasy isn't the core of it, but their lack of judgement is.
I tend to have the same general faith in the goodness of humanity as well, but this does not always make it so; the universe is not benevolent.
Driving a group of people underground helps no-one. Many pedophiles do not break the law, and so there's no reason for them to be ostracized. Driving them underground does nothing but make them feel like outsiders and in some cases perhaps turn them into dangerous individuals. Everyone would benefit from a more open and less hateful environment.
They have been driven underground for a very good reason.
What the fuck? That has nothing to do with the quote. I'll play along;
When I make a judgement about someone in my mind, the first reason I give myself is usually the most accurate and reliable, hence instinct. When I say, "Hey, I think today I'm going to babysit Jerry, and maybe I'll get some action," I think to myself, "That is a really absurd statement." Of course, I would never think something like this, because the desire never occurs within me to begin with, so our differentiating trait would seem such that my rational, instinctual judgement of my own internal dialog served me well in this regard, where as yours might not.
You would obviously never think that thought, because it does not appeal to you.
In my case, if that phrase appeared to me, I'd think "yeah, brain, I can see why you'd like that, but no, that is a really absurd statement."
See, I have the desire AND the judgement in order to both be a pedophile and to dismiss the thought because of its' absurdity. I'm sure you must have had inappropriate desires before, not relating to sexuality. Ever wanted to punch someone but stopped yourself because it would be a bad idea? Or ever wanted to something crazy like throwing a ball through the library? Most likely you've felt something like that before, and decided against it despite having the desire to do so. Id vs. super-ego, y'know?
What? I honestly don't understand what you're saying here, I'm sorry.
For a pdeophiliac you're a little ignorant, the extreme emotional state toward children is coupled to that sexual desire or fantasy as they perceive it empathetically, granted I'm sure there are apathetic molesters in the world. Repression of sexual desire is harmful in it own way, and shouldn't be confused with the morality of sexual acts, but its when those sexual acts come to manifest out of the repression, often in a surge, do the consequences become real.
Are you trying to say something about child molesters who justify their actions versus child molesters who just don't care? I don't know how this relates to what I said, but not all pedophiles molest children, so there are no victims, which is what I think this branch of the discussion was about anyways.
I wasn't necessarily speaking about, for children, but sure, that too. Education, awareness, knowledge all the things. All of it is better than shoving it as far underground as possible.
Education and awareness would be even better for children.
Okay, clarify please, what do you think is the issue here, that I am side stepping?
You're candy coating pedophiliac behavior in a guise of some perverted happy Mickey Mouse land, and I'm not even sure you like kids. You're coninually side stepping the issue, you know imagination isn't a crime, but you refuse to concede that enacting on them is a serious concern, stop being thick.
What do you mean I "refuse to concede that enacting on them is a serious concern", conceding that enacting on them is harmful is exactly what I do in the quote you are responding to.
I'm saying it right here. A child molester (i.e. pedo who enacts the urges) clearly harm their victims. Pedophiles who don't enact their urges do not.
Originally Posted by Myself
How can you tell me that I refuse to admit this, when you're responding to me saying exactly that?
Do we agree or was that sarcasm? Some of the symptoms of depression and stress are poor judgement and apathy. Treating a pedophiles depression isn't just nice for them, but it helps them not turn into criminals.
Yes, that's would be a kind thing to do for a pedophile.
This is basically like with any other group of people, I think. If you neglect them and treat them badly, a lot of them will turn into dangerous people.
What? Murder is harm by definition. Unless you disagree that death is harmful?
Serial murders don't necessarily cause harm, it's usually very thought out, and precisely exacted upon the victims with some purpose, unless they're utterly psychopathic.
Okay cool. Watch me descend into madness as this demon slowly takes over my mind and makes me do abhorrent things even though I've told you many times that I wouldn't.
Where we differ is in our concept of in potentia, you seem to think that just because you can and have been able to resist pedophiliac urges, that you can keep doing so indefinitely; I disagree.