Could pedophiles be equivical to homosexuals?

[BobisOnlyBob]

This [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#Psychological_harm] stuff doesn't sound like a walk in the park. I wouldn't wish that stuff upon anyone. Although it is debatable whether these ill-effects are caused by the act of paedophilia or the social reaction to it and resultant feelings of victimisation in the child.

I agree, all of that is horrible and whomever would inflict that upon anyone deserves 5 minutes alone time with me in my sword room.

But, I believe such only happens if it is an act of force or coercion. Consensual, I believe, would have none of those effects. But, it would also possibly cause such trauma because of the social reaction, not the act itself.

Though, just my opinion. Take it with a grain of salt.

I think we've hit the core of the matter with this.

The fundamental problem is determining consent; you, LG0, believe that children of a given maturity or age range are capable of giving consent; governments across the word have set age limits, from 14 in some, to 16 in others, 18 in many, 21 in a few(!); many people have their own internal standard for working out if another individual can be considered mature enough to be giving consent in a matter. (I personally work via xkcd's creepiness formula [http://xkcd.com/314/], which gives a minimum age of consent as 14.) There is currently no standard test to assess maturity and the ability to give consent. I am certain there are some under the age of consent who are more than capable of giving consent on a fundamental level and understanding what that means; I'm also certain there are plenty above the age of consent who don't have a damn clue what they're doing and lack the maturity to give consent.


The other problems, more basic ones - the ones the start of this unfortunately-titled thread suffered from - are basic terminology (does pedophillia mean anyone under 18, or just pre-pubescents? What about Ephebophilia and Hebephilia?), conflation of the word "pedophile" with other terms as "child abuser" and "sexual predator", and a widespread believe that anyone who is a pedophile is unable to not act on their condition/trait.

 

[Dexiro]

I can actually say, that not being one would actually make life harder for me. At least, to me. It does have benefits.

For a while, Homosexuality did step on legal issues. Technically, it still does. :/

How would not being a paedophile make life harder for you?

And I guess I meant to say ethical issues rather than legal.

 

[BobisOnlyBob]

Euphemising only serves to get people on your side through deception. That's demagoguery and I for one won't be party to it. My logic alone should be the reason people agree or disagree with me, if they have qualms with my opinions for any other reason then their qualms are invalid.

I'm a scientist, not a politician. It's not in my job description to tentatively dance around issues so as not to offend anyone.

Fair again. I will simply ask politely that you consider your choice of words before pointing at a behaviour that is a part of a person, and calling it defective. It is quite likely to offend, and make them far less amenable to actually listening to your valid and logical points.

Um... and post it here? I would be banned faster than... well, the last time I was banned. :/

In other words, stories of those that had consensual sexual activities with late adolescents and adults. Though, you might not even believe them considering they are on a pro-Pedo website. :/

If it's not just anecdotal (i.e. I had sex with this kid and s/he loved it ergo paedophilia is fine) and is actually a methodologically valid study I'd believe it. I don't care about sources, I care about data and method.

This is partially what I mean by "determining the age and individual maturity at one can say a person is capable of giving consent is often the crux of these debates". There is currently no known test to determine if someone is capable of giving consent, regardless of what anecdotal evidence may be given. The legal morass of age-decided consent is disgustingly complex enough as it is; attempting to scientifically study children's understanding of consent and sexuality would be an almost impossible task for any sociologist in any country in the world.

To briefly address the comparison that kicked this all off - it would be somewhat like trying to study homosexuality in an intense atmosphere of homophobic hatred. Tantamount to impossible.

Also, to BIOB, I have appreciated your take on the matter.

Just BOB, actually. BobisOnlyBob. It's recursive. 8D

I can actually say, that not being one would actually make life harder for me. At least, to me. It does have benefits.

For a while, Homosexuality did step on legal issues. Technically, it still does. :/

How would not being a paedophile make life harder for you?

And I guess I meant to say ethical issues rather than legal.

Actually, I'd like to direct this same question to LG0.

@LegendaryGamer0: I am given to understand that paedophilia is a trait which you have and have come to terms with, and as a result would be unwilling to discard it as it makes up part of your life and experiences. However, I am curious as to how losing that would make your life harder, rather than easier.

 

[BGH122]

Oh, and why have I kept focusing on men with young women ? Because lets no delude ourselves. That is what we are talking about here. Women don't wanna sleep with young boys, because they have emotional needs and don't appreciate fart based humour nearly as much, and as for same-sex underage relationships, I think the same applies. If you want great sex with a male, regardless of gender, you just don't go for someone under 16. They either lack the practice or the size to get the job done. If your a woman and want to sleep with young girls... Well go you. IIRC that's really hard to prosecute. However, I still think that a combination of sloppy teenage technique and lack of emotional maturity is going to mean you look at college girls not kids.

I agreed with a lot of what you said, but I strongly disagree with this. The problem is that there's almost no societal support, or even lack of contempt, for men who admit they were raped by women so we really can't get a valid estimate of how much female on male rape occurs. It is, very occasionally, brought to light [http://news.softpedia.com/news/YouTube-039-s-Gang-Rape-Star-Had-Underage-Sex-82330.shtml] that significantly older women do 'rape' younger men. If we're talking about sex-only relationships then it's definitely not inconceivable that a 40 or 50 something woman would seek a young boyfriend of 17 if they were available. Focussing solely on men just seems presumptuous. To be honest, the misandric presumptions pissed me off, but I'll just let it slide since you clearly meant nothing by it.

I also question whether the 'hump and dump' approach of older partners is valid for a loving relationship between a younger and older partner. It seems to presume that no such relationship can ever exist and I'm not sure that's true (nor am I sure it isn't).

 

[BGH122]

Fair again. I will simply ask politely that you consider your choice of words before pointing at a behaviour that is a part of a person, and calling it defective. It is quite likely to offend, and make them far less amenable to actually listening to your valid and logical points.

People shouldn't be so defensive. I'm defective in many ways, everybody is. I apologise unreservedly if I offend people, but I will not worsen my reasoning so as to prevent the unpreventable: people get offended by things we consider innocuous.

This is partially what I mean by "determining the age and individual maturity at one can say a person is capable of giving consent is often the crux of these debates". There is currently no known test to determine if someone is capable of giving consent, regardless of what anecdotal evidence may be given. The legal morass of age-decided consent is disgustingly complex enough as it is; attempting to scientifically study children's understanding of consent and sexuality would be an almost impossible task for any sociologist in any country in the world.

To briefly address the comparison that kicked this all off - it would be somewhat like trying to study homosexuality in an intense atmosphere of homophobic hatred. Tantamount to impossible.

A sociologist definitely shouldn't be doing any such thing. Sociologists should stick to their damn role: hypothesis generation and preliminary testing. Sorry, I just get annoyed when people treat sociology as if it were a science when it's just one massive exercise in post hoc ergo propter hoc.

The science behind age of consent would be best found by finding the parts of the brain responsible for all related issues (outcome planning, decision making etc) and MRI testing various tasks attempting to cause neuronal activity in those areas then comparing age groups until we find the mean age at which reasonable performance emerges. It would just be a gargantuan task and extremely costly, for an issue which politicians are happy to get free votes off of with pedo-bashing and pseudo-moral rhetoric.

 

[BobisOnlyBob]

This is partially what I mean by "determining the age and individual maturity at one can say a person is capable of giving consent is often the crux of these debates". There is currently no known test to determine if someone is capable of giving consent, regardless of what anecdotal evidence may be given. The legal morass of age-decided consent is disgustingly complex enough as it is; attempting to scientifically study children's understanding of consent and sexuality would be an almost impossible task for any sociologist in any country in the world.

To briefly address the comparison that kicked this all off - it would be somewhat like trying to study homosexuality in an intense atmosphere of homophobic hatred. Tantamount to impossible.

A sociologist definitely shouldn't be doing any such thing. Sociologists should stick to their damn role: hypothesis generation and preliminary testing. Sorry, I just get annoyed when people treat sociology as if it were a science when it's just one massive exercise in post hoc ergo propter hoc.

The science behind age of consent would be best found by finding the parts of the brain responsible for all related issues (outcome planning, decision making etc) and MRI testing various tasks attempting to cause neuronal activity in those areas then comparing age groups until we find the mean age at which reasonable performance emerges. It would just be a gargantuan task and extremely costly, for an issue which politicians are happy to get free votes off of with pedo-bashing and pseudo-moral rhetoric.

My apologies, I used a broad label for a large set of disciplines relating to the study of scientific matters that affect the social lives of humans. Isn't it annoying when someone uses terminology you find personally disagreeable? 8P

But seriously, I was just being lazy with the word "sociologists". I naturally meant those whose scientific disciplines would be best suited to producing the appropriate hypothesises and tests for a system by which we could produce a "neurological and intellectual maturity test to determine ability to give informed consent" or some-such.

 

[BGH122]

---As an aside, if you are willing and have the time, may I ask why this issue in particular seems to be a personal crusade of yours? "...there should be a complete end to paedophile hatred and paedophiles should be encouraged to seek working treatments." Your opinion in a nutshell, I suppose. I obviously disagree to an extent. But WHY is that your opinion? WHY do you believe that when someone rapes a child, they should be sent somewhere where they are sympathized with rather than punished? I don't really need to know, but it would be nice.

Sure, you seem like a polite and earnest person (even though we profoundly disagree) so I've no problem sharing personal opinions with you.

Paedophilia in particular isn't a massive crusade for me, rather, pushing functioning medical treatments and applications of science is a crusade for me and paedophilia currently falls under that banner. I envision that the closest to a utopia we will ever reach will be when society accepts that its own personal opinions are just that, subjective opinion, and that logical morality must guide our law through science.

I don't believe it's useful to view life in a vengeful fashion (i.e. 'criminals must be punished, not coddled') when all the available evidence shows that authoritarian, fear-based rulership doesn't work for children (parents with a high F-scale (rate of authoritarianism, essentially) are far likelier to produce criminally violent children), doesn't work for behavioural modification (we've discussed that) and doesn't work sociologically (highly authoritarian nations always eventually end in revolution as has happened most recently in Tunisia and Egypt). I believe that if the majority of society agrees that a given action is repugnant to that society then the most effective method of preventing that action is the best method to apply, rather than the method which makes people feel most satisfied.

I don't agree with paedophilia (note, not ephebophilia). Until I see any evidence to the contrary, I believe it almost always harms the younger partner. Ergo, I want to see the best method of preventing paedophilia applied, which is therapy. That's why I've been debating this issue for the past four hours and trying (largely in vain) to get these incredibly simple points across:

1) At what age does a sexual relationship with an older person hurt a younger person?
2) At what mean age can a person think relatively rationally?
3) Why is hating someone for something we only presume they'll actually do acceptable in the case of paedophilia, but in no other case such as race or socioeconomic background (the latter of which is the best current predictor of criminality).
4) Why hate when it doesn't achieve the desired goals?

Those are my reasons for defending paedophiles.

EDIT: I didn't mean 'to get these simple points across to you', I think you understand where I'm coming from. It's some of the other people in this thread that leave me exasperated. I'm fine with people who disagree with my point, as long as they take the time to actually understand it first.

My apologies, I used a broad label for a large set of disciplines relating to the study of scientific matters that affect the social lives of humans. Isn't it annoying when someone uses terminology you find personally disagreeable? 8P

*Shakes fist* Damn you cosmic irony!

But seriously, I was just being lazy with the word "sociologists". I naturally meant those whose scientific disciplines would be best suited to producing the appropriate hypothesises and tests for a system by which we could produce a "neurological and intellectual maturity test to determine ability to give informed consent" or some-such.

This is sorely needed, but it isn't a high priority as far as things go for the reasons we've already discussed. It'll be quite some time before society can maturely debate paedophilia.

 

[Helmutye]

(they still make a hell of a lot less in virtually every field, and there's still plenty of unfair discrimination, but it's much better than it was)

Agreed with almost everything you said except this. The most recent proof that when variables are properly controlled there's no gender discrimination can be found here [http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/02/does-sex-discrimination-in-science-keep-women-down.ars] (and it's in science, one of the supposedly most gender discriminatory workforces).

Well, this article hardly says that there's "no gender discrimination." It seems to be considering access to grants and advanced degrees. My claim was actually that, with comparable levels of education, the salaries that women receive are significantly less than men (here's a wikipedia chart, backed by US Census Bureau data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Education_and_gender)

Also, I would dispute your claim that science is one of the most gender discriminatory workforces. "Science" is not a single field. There are tons of different types of science, and many different ways to work in a science field, and each one is very different. Science performed by a private company, for example, is incredibly different from science you perform at a University (I have worked at both). This article talks about science in academia, and academia is traditionally very liberal and very sensitive to gender and racial inequality. But private companies are not necessarily like that at all--the article talks a lot about inequality with regards to journal publishing, but if you're a chemist working at Dow Chemical doing QC testing for their new brand of pesticide you will not be doing much publishing, now will you?

However, this is probably an issue for another thread, yes? And I'm glad we agree on the other stuff! It is scary to see people so eager to strip others of their humanity.

 

[Leg End]

If it's not just anecdotal (i.e. I had sex with this kid and s/he loved it ergo paedophilia is fine) and is actually a methodologically valid study I'd believe it. I don't care about sources, I care about data and method.

I appreciate, however, that you're in no hurry to get yourself banned so we'll drop the issue.

Luckily however, I can send through PM because, to my knowledge, there is no rule against that.

I think we've hit the core of the matter with this.

The fundamental problem is determining consent; you, LG0, believe that children of a given maturity or age range are capable of giving consent; governments across the word have set age limits, from 14 in some, to 16 in others, 18 in many, 21 in a few(!); many people have their own internal standard for working out if another individual can be considered mature enough to be giving consent in a matter. (I personally work via xkcd's creepiness formula [http://xkcd.com/314/], which gives a minimum age of consent as 14.) There is currently no standard test to assess maturity and the ability to give consent. I am certain there are some under the age of consent who are more than capable of giving consent on a fundamental level and understanding what that means; I'm also certain there are plenty above the age of consent who don't have a damn clue what they're doing and lack the maturity to give consent.


The other problems, more basic ones - the ones the start of this unfortunately-titled thread suffered from - are basic terminology (does pedophillia mean anyone under 18, or just pre-pubescents? What about Ephebophilia and Hebephilia?), conflation of the word "pedophile" with other terms as "child abuser" and "sexual predator", and a widespread believe that anyone who is a pedophile is unable to not act on their condition/trait.

I believe we have. We have struck paydirt.

The most core question being, how do we gauge one's ability to consent? Sadly, we may never be able to. And, as you have said and is also part of my point, I have met a 7 year old that has the knowledge and wisdom of a Sage, while everyone around my age and higher has the maturity of an embryo. (O_O)

The other issue being, everyone has mixed view of what all of these terms mean, which has resulted in a Paediatrition(May have spelled that wrong) having the door to his office vandalized. (O_O)

It is a never ending subject.

I can actually say, that not being one would actually make life harder for me. At least, to me. It does have benefits.

For a while, Homosexuality did step on legal issues. Technically, it still does. :/

How would not being a paedophile make life harder for you?

And I guess I meant to say ethical issues rather than legal.

I answer your question with another question.

How would it make it easier?

I see no difference either way. It's just a trait of me. :/

Euphemising only serves to get people on your side through deception. That's demagoguery and I for one won't be party to it. My logic alone should be the reason people agree or disagree with me, if they have qualms with my opinions for any other reason then their qualms are invalid.

I'm a scientist, not a politician. It's not in my job description to tentatively dance around issues so as not to offend anyone.

Fair again. I will simply ask politely that you consider your choice of words before pointing at a behaviour that is a part of a person, and calling it defective. It is quite likely to offend, and make them far less amenable to actually listening to your valid and logical points.

Um... and post it here? I would be banned faster than... well, the last time I was banned. :/

In other words, stories of those that had consensual sexual activities with late adolescents and adults. Though, you might not even believe them considering they are on a pro-Pedo website. :/

If it's not just anecdotal (i.e. I had sex with this kid and s/he loved it ergo paedophilia is fine) and is actually a methodologically valid study I'd believe it. I don't care about sources, I care about data and method.

This is partially what I mean by "determining the age and individual maturity at one can say a person is capable of giving consent is often the crux of these debates". There is currently no known test to determine if someone is capable of giving consent, regardless of what anecdotal evidence may be given. The legal morass of age-decided consent is disgustingly complex enough as it is; attempting to scientifically study children's understanding of consent and sexuality would be an almost impossible task for any sociologist in any country in the world.

To briefly address the comparison that kicked this all off - it would be somewhat like trying to study homosexuality in an intense atmosphere of homophobic hatred. Tantamount to impossible.

Also, to BIOB, I have appreciated your take on the matter.

Just BOB, actually. BobisOnlyBob. It's recursive. 8D

I can actually say, that not being one would actually make life harder for me. At least, to me. It does have benefits.

For a while, Homosexuality did step on legal issues. Technically, it still does. :/

How would not being a paedophile make life harder for you?

And I guess I meant to say ethical issues rather than legal.

Actually, I'd like to direct this same question to LG0.

@LegendaryGamer0: I am given to understand that paedophilia is a trait which you have and have come to terms with, and as a result would be unwilling to discard it as it makes up part of your life and experiences. However, I am curious as to how losing that would make your life harder, rather than easier.

Honestly, I'm not sure I have an answer to that. :/

It's a long and hard thing to explain. Even then, it might not even answer anything. :l

My head is spinning. (O_O)

 

[BGH122]

Well, this article hardly says that there's "no gender discrimination." It seems to be considering access to grants and advanced degrees. My claim was actually that, with comparable levels of education, the salaries that women receive are significantly less than men (here's a wikipedia chart, backed by US Census Bureau data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Education_and_gender)

Also, I would dispute your claim that science is one of the most gender discriminatory workforces. "Science" is not a single field. There are tons of different types of science, and many different ways to work in a science field, and each one is very different. Science performed by a private company, for example, is incredibly different from science you perform at a University (I have worked at both). This article talks about science in academia, and academia is traditionally very liberal and very sensitive to gender and racial inequality. But private companies are not necessarily like that at all--the article talks a lot about inequality with regards to journal publishing, but if you're a chemist working at Dow Chemical doing QC testing for their new brand of pesticide you will not be doing much publishing, now will you?

However, this is probably an issue for another thread, yes? And I'm glad we agree on the other stuff! It is scary to see people so eager to strip others of their humanity.

You raise a valid distinction regarding science, I should have clarified that the article was looking largely at mathematical sciences (physics, EE, computer science etc) in an academic setting which has long been hailed as gender discriminatory (the proof is in the article). Furthermore, I strongly question the confounding variable control in the US Census Bureau since it has been shown (Farrell et al) that when other variables, chief amongst which is relationship/family status, are controlled the pay gap disappears and actually works slightly in favour of women. Either way, I think it's incredibly foolish and painfully unscientific to presume to show cause and effect from sociological studies. Correlation does not causation make.

Luckily however, I can send through PM because, to my knowledge, there is no rule against that.

That could work.

 

[Dexiro]

How would not being a paedophile make life harder for you?

I answer your question with another question.

How would it make it easier?

I see no difference either way. It's just a trait of me. :/

I don't care how it'd make it easier, I was just puzzled about how it could possibly make your life harder.

So you admit that being a Paedophile has no benefits. And by definition gives you sexual urges towards children, no matter how strong those urges are.

While you might not find it difficult to fight that urge it's still something that your life would be easier without, even if not noticeably so. So my original point still stands that Paedophilia is a defect.

Their are also other negatives such as having to deal with discrimination.

 

[Leg End]

How would not being a paedophile make life harder for you?

I answer your question with another question.

How would it make it easier?

I see no difference either way. It's just a trait of me. :/

I don't care how it'd make it easier, I was just puzzled about how it could possibly make your life harder.

So you admit that being a Paedophile has no benefits. And by definition gives you sexual urges towards children, no matter how strong those urges are.

While you might not find it difficult to fight that urge it's still something that your life would be easier without, even if not noticeably so. So my original point still stands that Paedophilia is a defect.

Their are also other negatives such as having to deal with discrimination.

It would make it harder because it gives me a strong emotional attraction to children. Though, I'm not sure if you could say that is a plus anymore than anything else. It's a feeling of the desire to protect.

Gives me benefits in the sense that I would make a great father. :/ Among other things.

I don't feel the need to fight it, because it's not like an urge like "lolol I NEED TO FUCK", it's an attraction just like a typical heterosexual attraction. I still don't see how my life would be easier at all. :/ My point still stands that it isn't and it is hard to define exactly what it is.

People don't like it? Too bad for them. I don't really care what others think. Now, when they try to burn my house down, thats when it's gone too far. And sadly, that seems to be the typical reaction.

 

[BobisOnlyBob]

*Shakes fist* Damn you cosmic irony!

Spoiler: @BGH122: Click here to claim your reward

[/spoiler]

I'm glad this thread has turned around into a more reasonable discussion of the matter, even if it has strayed somewhat from the originally intended topic.

On that note, I do actually think the original poster had a point [I]somewhere[/I] along the line of the trainwreck that was the first pages of this thread, even if it wasn't well-expressed or explained.
While paedophilia and homosexuality are incomparable beyond the fact that they are both socio-sexual behaviours and mental states, the difficulty of discussing homosexuality as an issue in prior decades is most certainly precedent for the sort of communications difficulty we have nowadays discussing paedophilia. I suspect in due time, with some help from discussions like this one, reduced media panic, and scientific study of the topic, further understandings will be reached. While I strongly doubt paedophilia will ever be accepted to the same level as homosexuality currently is in the world (which is only saying so much...), and have my reservations about that ever being a possibility, I do hope that in time we will be able to discuss it without immediate backlash, and having to subsequently wade through a mire of confused terms and crossed wires.


[QUOTE=LegendaryGamer0]The most core question being, how do we gauge one's ability to consent? Sadly, we may never be able to.[/QUOTE]

This is one of my major qualms with the entire issue. To be perfectly honest and blunt, this is why I disagree with laws against "pseudo-pornography"; that is, illustrated non-photographic pornographic images of underage subjects. If paedophilia exists, and causes individuals to have a compulsive sexual attraction to youths unable to give consent, surely is it better that said compulsion can be dealt with, privately, in such a way that no child is ever placed in the path of potential harm? While I understand that purely sexual compulsions do not make up the entirety of paedophilia, I do believe that simulation is a valid way for many people to indulge in activities physically infeasible in reality. Is this not [b]The Escapist[/b], after all? We frequently take issue with those who hate games for being "murder simulators" - and yet sex simulation is so quickly looked down upon, or even considered dangerous. Just wait until we have fully immersive digital environments; the backlash against games which let you indulge in things considered taboo will be almost as massive as their uptake!

Sorry, that was a bit of a tangent.

[QUOTE=LegendaryGamer0]Honestly, I'm not sure I have an answer to that. :/

It's a long and hard thing to explain. Even then, it might not even answer anything. :l

My head is spinning. (O_O)[/QUOTE]

Then I'll withdraw my question and take the spotlight off you. On the off chance that you do happen to think of a good answer though, feel free to post it all the same.

 

[BGH122]

*Shakes fist* Damn you cosmic irony!

Spoiler: @BGH122: Click here to claim your reward

[/spoiler]

I'm glad this thread has turned around into a more reasonable discussion of the matter, even if it has strayed somewhat from the originally intended topic.

On that note, I do actually think the original poster had a point [I]somewhere[/I] along the line of the trainwreck that was the first pages of this thread, even if it wasn't well-expressed or explained.
While paedophilia and homosexuality are incomparable beyond the fact that they are both socio-sexual behaviours and mental states, the difficulty of discussing homosexuality as an issue in prior decades is most certainly precedent for the sort of communications difficulty we have nowadays discussing paedophilia. I suspect in due time, with some help from discussions like this one, reduced media panic, and scientific study of the topic, further understandings will be reached. While I strongly doubt paedophilia will ever be accepted to the same level as homosexuality currently is in the world (which is only saying so much...), and have my reservations about that ever being a possibility, I do hope that in time we will be able to discuss it without immediate backlash, and having to subsequently wade through a mire of confused terms and crossed wires.[/quote]

Agreed wholly. This is getting to be something of a trend. Quick! Say something about causation and correlation being identical so that we can break this agreement-fest.

As a side note, that image was hilarious.

 

[Torrasque]

*snip*

sigh i don't even know where to begin,

first off puberty does start around 12 or 13,bear in mind that is an average

second, you couldn't have missed my point more which was asking if you think pedophilia could ever be socially acceptable like homosexuality has become

and third, undermining me personally does not make my point less valid nor yours more valid

Ok, I'll answer your three points.
1. Puberty starts at 14 at the earliest. That is when signs are starting to show, and everything is actually starting to happen. Yes, there are cases of kids having it at 13 and 12, but puberty does not start in earnest until 14-16.

2. I think I showed in my post that you are completely retarded to compare homosexuality to pedophilia. Its like comparing eating an orange to shooting a cow and eating a steak. Or comparing an FPS to an RTS. Pedophilia will NEVER be socially acceptable. The only thing that could potentially happen, is people with the disorder are not as shunned as they are now, but whenever anyone says "Pedophile", they instantly think of child molester.
Has the real meaning of the word been corrupted? You bet your ass.
So has gay, fag, and ******.

3. I wanted to show you how ridiculous your position was, but showing you your argument with a few additions.
Any argument worth it's salt will still hold if you replace the point being argued, with it's counter-point.

 

[Zuljeet]

snip again i guess.

re. your lack of evidence and my hatred of pedos
- Since we can agree that pedos make a conscious choice to fuck children (If you have no evidence to the contrary that somehow a pedo should be treated with more deference because they were "born that way", then you have no argument here), that completely validates my hatred. The pedo made a conscious choice to do harm to an innocent, so fuck them. Reformation of the offender may be possible, but that would NEVER undo the mess they have made of another's life. It can't be undone or "fixed", so the pedo should bear the full societal and legal responsibility. It is not the same if someone is merely aroused by kids BUT NEVER ACTS ON IT. As long as the individual keeps his/her hands to his/herself, they can think w/e they want.
Regarding your desire to obfuscate for the benefit of "winning" a debate
- There is nothing wrong w/ creating a defensible position for the benefit of a debate. Supporting pedophilia is indefensible, however. Hence the unsupported assertions of congenital mental illness("OK, say I can't prove they were born that way..." Your words, not mine), followed by the list of psychiatric classifications propping up said assertions. If you had just said "We really should be nicer to pedos, because maybe they are just sick." instead of running your thesaurus into the ground, then I probably never would have responded.
Re. Typos
- I don't doubt that you are getting a ton of responses. Given the topic at hand, a quick proofread would save time and trouble. Don't start shit and then get lazy about defending it.
Re. Statutory rape laws in Britain
- I can't speak to how the British have worked out their laws concerning statutory rape and pedophilia. I called some friends residing in London and they are of the understanding that fucking children is a bad thing and the laws in Britain reflect that. On that note, Judges and Lawyers (of any nationality) aren't there to establish a scientific consensus. They are there to determine whether a law has been broken and what to do about it based on what lawmakers have determined. You want to argue that consent laws are invalid? Great. Change the laws or somehow convince the British that fucking children is acceptable so that someone in the position to change the laws can do so. Again, you clearly have time on your hands, now go build a consensus.
Re. American morality
- I can't speak for other Americans. This is my position and if others (dis-)agree that's fine. I know from experience and a mountain of documentation that pedophilia is a horrifying, destructive thing and assholes who can't keep their hands off little kids should bear the full brunt of society's wrath.
Re. trolling
- meh. think what you like. People who disagree with me aren't trolls. People who make baseless assertions for the benefit of generating a huge response tend to be.

 

[Leg End]

*snip*

sigh i don't even know where to begin,

first off puberty does start around 12 or 13,bear in mind that is an average

second, you couldn't have missed my point more which was asking if you think pedophilia could ever be socially acceptable like homosexuality has become

and third, undermining me personally does not make my point less valid nor yours more valid

2. I think I showed in my post that you are completely retarded to compare homosexuality to pedophilia. Its like comparing eating an orange to shooting a cow and eating a steak. Or comparing an FPS to an RTS. Pedophilia will NEVER be socially acceptable. The only thing that could potentially happen, is people with the disorder are not as shunned as they are now, but whenever anyone says "Pedophile", they instantly think of child molester.
Has the real meaning of the word been corrupted? You bet your ass.
So has gay, fag, and ******.

I must say, I am horrified at your analogy. :/ The two examples do not even compare to this discussion.

Never say never, the same was said many years ago about Homosexuality.

 

[Jamous]

Ok, since I made my last post based on that single story I linked to, I'd love to hear your opinion on how society should treat paedophiles.

Well, like human beings for starters. Not trying to stab them in a dark alley is even better. :/

Possibly seeing if there is a logical reason for the attraction and if such... "activities", would actually be harmless. Though, I refer to consensual activity. Raping a child in a van near a park is still fucked.

This [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#Psychological_harm] stuff doesn't sound like a walk in the park. I wouldn't wish that stuff upon anyone. Although it is debatable whether these ill-effects are caused by the act of paedophilia or the social reaction to it and resultant feelings of victimisation in the child.

I agree, all of that is horrible and whomever would inflict that upon anyone deserves 5 minutes alone time with me in my sword room.

But, I believe such only happens if it is an act of force or coercion. Consensual, I believe, would have none of those effects. But, it would also possibly cause such trauma because of the social reaction, not the act itself.

Though, just my opinion. Take it with a grain of salt.

Good stuff. You must get a lot of flak; despite not doing everything. Because thinking or feeling things is as bad if not worse than acting upon them.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I read it in my mind but it seems like multiple things.

Can you better detail it?

Yeah, of course. Basically, I meant to add /sarcasm. Some people hold the view that thinking or feeling things that are 'wrong' is as bad if not worse than acting with them. They're usually the types that go on to rail against video games. I think they spout utter bollocks.

I hate the internet for that. So hard to detect sarcasm. XD

It -is- quite annoying, isn't it? ;;D

 

[Leg End]

It -is- quite annoying, isn't it? ;;D

You have no idea, broseph.

It has cost me my ability to not look like an ass. (O_O)