Zekksta said:
For the record I saw the *natural* jibe coming the second I hit post so I edited it, hoping that you wouldn't view it instantly, you did.
Okay.
Zekksta said:
I can't form a counter argument, I don't know what to say in rebuttal to your post. Mainly cause I don't understand it, then again you've probably already passed me off as an idiot so maybe that post is intentionally confusing, I don't know.
No, I can't really pass you off as an idiot yet, simply for not being able to form a counter-argument. Or rather it is the very reason that you admit that you can't form a counter-argument that indicates that you aren't an idiot. Your intelligence doesn't necessarily have to be at stake here, it could rather be that you are (perhaps for the first time ever) confronted with a line of thought or idea that you've never encountered before and that you haven't undergone the relevant thought process needed to form a well grounded opinion and a way to argument against what im telling you.
So in regards to that, only time will tell. Though I can tell you that a typically idiotic response would be to stuff your ears with your fingers and go "lalalalala", and maintain an unreasonable hatred towards paedophiles without actually pondering over or question why you hate them so much, and in light of these ideas that I seem to have brought up that are unfamiliar to you.
Sure, you might come up with a new spin on the subject that doesn't require you to agree with me fully, but if you refuse to grow at all when having confronted this unfamiliar line of thought, that would be pretty idiotic, and I think you can see that as well.
Zekksta said:
All I can really say is, I am not big on discrimination. I don't discriminate against a race or gender. I don't discriminate against someone if they are gay/straight/bi/transexual/whatever.
Exactly, and why are you not big on discrimination in regards to these specific traits?
Partly because it doesn't really hurt anyone to be the way they are, but you can't refuse to admit that you also think that way because one part of you knows that the people who are what they are (woman, man, bisexual, homosexual, heterosexual, transexual, whatever) can't really help the way they were born, or that they were born at all. Right?
So if it's unfair to discriminate against someone for reasons that doesn't necessarily hurt anyone (and regardless of how "sick" we might think that paedophilic desires are, they don't always have to hurt someone other than the paedophile who bears them if that peadeophile doesn't give outlet for his or her feelings and actually proceeds to molest a child), and it's unfair to discriminate against these people when they can't help being born the way they are. Why would it ever be more "ok" to discriminate against paedophiles when the situation is exactly the same?
Zekksta said:
The one thing, I can not even bare to hear is an argument stating the pedophilia is not a problem. I've gleamed from your posts you don't support pedophiles, kudos to you.
Oh it is very much a problem. Even in a world were exactly every paedophile is able to keep yhim/herself from ever molesting a child or produce/spread child pornography where children get molested, paedophilia would still be a problem, because the paedophiles themselves still suffer from it.
It might even be a problem that is impossible to solve.
However, it is a problem that I believe we can help to reduce the harmful effects from. But it can't be done through hatred, prejudice and disassociation from the paedophiles. Because the problems of paedophilia isn't the paedophiles themselves (they're just humans like the rest of us), it is the phenomenon in question that poses a problem.
If you think of the paedophiles as carriers of a sort of disease that they (on the best occasions) can control enough and make sure that it doesn't spread, but sometimes it does "leak out" and harms other (sometimes due to a wilful act of the carrier, and sometimes due to lack of personal strength) you'd get what I mean. But we can't learn anything of the "disease" if we just dissasociate ourselves from it, and try to "purge" the carriers afflicted. Because no matter how many we try to purge, there will awlays be more, because apparently it is something that has it's origins in before the carrier is even born (or perhaps due to outside factors yet to be determined). We don't really know for sure yet. But we sure as hell aren't gonna learn anything by hiding from the problem.
It is the responsibility of society to get intimate with the problem, and try to solve it. Or failing that, try to minimize the harmful effects from it. Disassociation and contempt won't lead to either of those, it will only perpetuate the problem AND it's harmful effects.
Zekksta said:
But being understanding, even sympathetic towards a pedophile is what I'm taking issue with.
Why?
As previously stated, being a paedophile doesn't have to mean that the person have actually molested a child. only that the person in question feels sexual attraction towards children and feels that he or she would recieve sexual gratification from sexual interactions with children.
But when it's still just going on in the paedophiles mind and hasn't manifested in real actions of child molestation. Don't you think it's a better way to find and help the paedophiles by trying to be sympathetic and understanding, instead of condemning and disassociate ourselves from them?
I mean, if you've got a problem that have yet to inflict harm on anyone else than yourself, who would you rather ask for help with it? The person who will laugh at you/condemn you and insult you and calling you a "freak" repeatedly? Or the person who, despite not suffering from the same problem him/herself, but still wants to understand your situation and support you in whatever way he or she can to make sure that your problem doesn't hurt anyone else?
Which one would you feel more inclined to talk to, and ultimately listen to when that person says that you have to make sure that your problem doesn't result in you hurting others?
Zekksta said:
Being molested as a child can fuck you up man, I'm not speaking from personal experience, but experience by proxy. I don't want to presume you haven't seen/experienced the damage personally, but if you haven't then maybe you can try to understand my feelings towards it.
If you have, then what the hell man. How can you pity someone who would willingly do this to a child if it was socially accepted just because nobody could prove it was *unnatural*
Im taking issue with your feelings towards it when those feelings are evidently preventing you from dealing with the problem in a way that might actually help to solve or minimize the harmful effects from it, rather than perpetuating it.
I wish children overall did have the emotional and mental capacity to give consent to sex, because it would eliminate this problem at once. But they can't do that. Children can barely be allowed to have the power to decide what to eat and wear and when to sleep and stay awake without guidance and supervision, and even with the best guidance and supervision they sometimes suffer from problems related to it.
So it is pragmatically unreasonable to expect a child to handle something like it's own sexuality at a too early age. In fact, im even skeptical towards many countries current laws on when people are legally allowed to have sex (in my country it's already at the age of 15, something I have seen doesn't really work particularly well and that it should be increased to like 18 or 20 years of age).
So ultimately we must deal with paedophilia itself, because there's no way we can put the children through having to decide these things at an age too early.
But we're not gonna be able to deal with paedophilia through condemnation and disassociation. That road only serves to make every paedophile into a child molesting monster.
As I said before: If we teach them that they are monsters and treat them like monsters, then ultimately they are going to behave like monsters.
So how about treating them like the troubled PEOPLE that they are instead?
