Could pedophiles be equivical to homosexuals?

[Jamous]

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)

:L I know exactly how that feels, my good man. Very, VERY annoying. And I'm sure you don't look like an ass.

 

[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)

:L I know exactly how that feels, my good man. Very, VERY annoying. And I'm sure you don't look like an ass.

Trust me, I do. (O_O) Always.

OT: Yes, because I see no reason why not. :/

 

[Nimcha]

Eh, probably not. The biggest opposition gay people have had to deal with is religious bigotry, while the problems people have with pedophiles stem from a completely different kind of reasoning.

 

[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

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.

lol, they don't, and that is kind of the point.
Comparing Homosexuality to Pedophilia is so obtuse.
But yeah, I learned many times in my social class that saying absolute truths is the fastest way to get disproven.
"Pedophilia has an astronomically low chance of ever being socially acceptable within the next 500 years", better?

 

[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.

lol, they don't, and that is kind of the point.
Comparing Homosexuality to Pedophilia is so obtuse.
But yeah, I learned many times in my social class that saying absolute truths is the fastest way to get disproven.
"Pedophilia has an astronomically low chance of ever being socially acceptable within the next 500 years", better?

Noooooo... I meant that they don't even remotely sum up the two subjects and that both when compared to each other, have nothing to do with each other. Not as an analogy, but as in, not at all.

"Pedophilia has a fair chance of being socially accepted as a sexual orientation and non-harmful(as if thoughts ever were) within the next 50 years or at least within my lifetime.".

I think that statement is more accurate and far less hostile/more neutral.

 

[BGH122]

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.

I don't think you understand what I meant regarding the genesis of their behaviours. Behaviours are either learned or innate, so they're either caused environmentally or genetically. Paedophiles aren't just walking along one day and suddenly think "Hey, let's go molest some kids!", this psychosexual behaviour is either the result of learning (perhaps an early life trauma, although that's just speculation) or genetics. Neither cause puts the blame on the paedophile and speaking in terms of blame simply isn't helpful. If we both agree that the act of molesting children is wrong then the best action is the one which prevents this act from reoccuring. As I've linked throughout this thread, therapy successfully reduces recidivism and fear doesn't ergo jumping to the conclusion that because they've done something we find abhorrent they're therefore human scum incapable (or undeserving) of help is incredibly detrimental to our cause and beyond myopic.

You seem to be operating off a vengeance based definition of the law: punishing criminals vestigially for the victim. My argument is that this isn't helpful because it doesn't do anything to prevent further criminal acts and it is this that should concern us.

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.

So let me get this straight? Defensible arguments are fine as long as you like what they're supporting?

You admit my argument is defensible and ergo it must be logically valid since there's no other kind of defensibility in logical debate, however, since it legitimises an argument you consider indefensible it's therefore obfuscatory? That's genuinely funny. You can't possibly think that the proper response to having your beliefs challenged by a logical argument is "that's obfuscatory".

Furthermore, I still don't think you understand why it's not relevant whether they were born paedophilic or learned their paedophilia: both arguments lead to the same conclusion, that their condition is something with which they need help, not condemnation and that it's still really tough for them to have to live with such urges, regardless of the cause. You're focussing on an irrelevant point to avoid dealing with the larger debate.

Lastly, I'm not sure if you think having an expansive vocabulary is some sort of insult, but I'm a little nonplussed by the fact that you think I'm using a thesaurus. This is how I speak both online and in real life. I apologise if the fact that I've worked hard to educate myself is somehow disagreeable to you.

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.

Actually, it was your reading comprehension that sucked. Re-read the sentence you (mis)quoted with an illegitimate [sic]. It states "And the effects upon a 17 and 364 day year old?". Not, as you claimed, "17 day and 364 day year old [sic]". I also find it hilarious that you're equating a typo with being 'lazy about defending' a logical argument. Surely you see how absolutely ridiculous that is (had it even been true)? It's best that we drop this now and that we focus solely on the debate at hand, or else this will go on forever.

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.

Straw man argument. I have never once argued that fucking children is acceptable, quite the opposite. Either you're too dense to understand the difference between hating people and hating their actions or you're deliberately trying to annoy me.

I also note you've utterly failed to respond to the argument, instead 'phoning friends in Britain' to ask if our laws say 'fucking children is a bad thing'. My argument was that if sex below age of consent is paedophilia and paedophilia is universally bad then how do we explain the different ages of consent, and ergo definitions of paedophilia, in the US and UK? Are all the 17 year olds involved in sex in the UK paedophiles under US morality? If so, doesn't that wreck the notion that paedophilia is a single thing with a nice clear-cut definition.

This is why the distinction between ephebophilia and paedophilia is necessary. All countries agree that sex with someone below the age of 13 is a crime, however there's huge deviation in how ephebophilia is treated.

You've also misunderstood my point about judges and lawyers, but I fear that was due to a miscommunication/lack of clarification on my part. I sought to argue that their opinion on how an act reflects the law is irrelevant to deciding how the law should reflect our morality. They decide if an act is legal or illegal under the current legislation, but the driving force behind the legislation is morality and science. Judges and lawyers are an irrelevance to this debate since we are debating the morality and science behind the law which is underlies the interpretations of the law by judges and lawyers and is ergo ipso facto more important.

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.

I'd love to see this evidence that "assholes who can't keep their hands off little kids should bear the full brunt of society's wrath". Scientific evidence, not just 'society hates paedophiles'. I'd absolutely love to see the evidence that suggests that paedophiles being hated by society does anything to affect their paedophilia, especially since it's well documented that stronger punishments have no effect upon crime rate:

"In no state has the number of murders diminished after legalizing the death penalty."

I agree that child molestation is an awful thing with terrible consequences, and I have argued as such in the thread. I do not agree that we should hate the sinner for their sin (to borrow from Christianity), especially since that approach doesn't deter the convinct.

- 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.

Baseless and yet defensible. Somewhat a contradiction in terms, no?

 

[thegermanguy]

oh,come on. you just wanted to create a thread where everybody is so shocked by reading the title that they just have to reply...and it works.

you can't possibly be thinking about this subject seriously. just comparing it is bad enough...

oh come on! god forbid a thought enters my head besides which pokemon can kill zombies the best!



and while i'm here, WILL YOU PEOPLE ACTUALLY READ WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY? INSTEAD OF JUST READING THE BLOODY TITLE?

also please stop just autonomically posting the definitions of both terms and actually try have an opinion!

ok ok sorry man! obviously you do think about this and did not create this thread for the "shock"...

but can you really blame me for susprecting this? some threads seem to be only created in order to get as many replys as possible, no matter how strange the subject is. I don't know, but where I live no one would even compare something like pedophilia to being homosexual. as many people before me have already said: a homosexual relationship is between two equals, but pedophilia not. even in 100 years there will still be one adult, who is completely aware of what he/she does, and one child, who is mostly not.
so I don't think pedophilia could ever go the same way as homosexuality. never ever ever.

btw: I also did never think about which pokemon can kill zombies the best, but thanks to you, now I do ^^

 

[Gaming King]

*stops reading like 5 posts in when people get to be bigoted shitheads*

I commend you, first poster. Thanks for noticing something completely obvious that most people are too retarded to see.

I will acknowledge, however, that bigoted as they are, the people who said shit like "because homosexuality is two adults blah blah blah," that's fine, but treating paedosexuals like SHIT isn't fair, because THEY DON'T FUCK CHILDREN, STUPID. Most are in fact abstinent. Some gay people are, too. Paedophiles know the difference between right and wrong. They aren't going to just do something horrible to a child, especially because THEY LOVE THEM and DO NOT WANT TO HURT THEM. Isn't that obvious? The people that DO commit that sort of sick crime against children are nothing but sociopathic fucks who would go rape a regular adult woman if they weren't paedosexual.

BALANCED POSTING. Try it sometime.

I would presume those peadophiles that don't abuse children are not found out and thus not treated like shit. Those who do, I have no sympathy for them.

AS for peadophiles knowing right from wrong and not wanting to hurt children... Well I am sure someone else will pick you up on what seems like a series of spurious statements.

Nice hidden insult.

 

[Gaming King]

So I just realized, on this main topic from the first post, it's hilarious that while the trend the topic creator mentions of "the age of maturity" going up, society yet chooses to sexualize children so God damn much. Actually, it's not hilarious, it just pisses me the fuck off. Instead of letting kids be kids, they throw them in fucking sex education* at ridiculously young ages, then condemn any sexuality involving children (which I use broadly here), including in media (like the controversy over that new MTV piece of shit show, Skins), while they dress their fucking loli daughters up like prostitutes. It's hypocritical and evil. Pick a side. If you ask me, they should just LET CHILDREN BE FUCKING INNOCENT. Stupid assholes. The media, the schools, the lousy fucking parents, fucking hormones and shit everywhere, they all are murdering childhood.



*This, of course, isn't everywhere, and is always avoidable one way or another, if the parents aren't cunts. But a hell of a lot of parents these days are cunts.

 

[Gaming King]

And yes, I make late replies.