pedophiles going public

I have no idea what Land said since I now have him on ignore, so if I am missing a context here then I apologize. But pedophiles can indeed be victims, especially if they are non offending. And please don't give me the BS that if they haven't harmed a child they are not pedophiles. When non offending pedophiles reach out for help, they are far too often the victim as people immediately treat them as if they already had harmed a child, with harms ranging from harassment to physical beatings and more.

 

I'm defending nobody. Work on your comprehension skills and quit listening to the imaginative voices in your head. And no, whether 6 or 12 a child is still a child.

 

Which 'pro-pedophilia' posts? Those in your imagination, or those too complex for you to understand?

 

only conservatives seem to be confused about consenting adults vs unconsenting children

 

Of course it was a lack of morality, or lack of the proper kind? This depends upon the age about which we're speaking here, and - also - not two very young people. We're talking about older upon younger.

No amount a rationalization regarding life expectancy works when you consider what we're really talking about here.

 

Hey.

Snakestretcher cannot come up with any 'pro-pedophilia posts in this thread. He doesn't see them.

Really. He's now the third (IIRC) leftist unable to do so, and at least the third one who would far rather attack posters on the right than actually attack the pro-pedo posts and posters.

 

I have shown you that a child cannot legally consent to sex or anything else, therefor your analogy between a hug and sex is irrelevant. A child cannot consent to either.

 

And here's another one who would rather attack the conservatives than attack pedophilia.

No one is confused about that concept, Freshair. You invented that. If there is any question about who is saying what, it is generated by your side's abject refusal to cede that the notion of 'consensual' cannot stop a slide into moral depravity.

Siblings can consent too. Are you in favor of allowing incest as well? Multiple wives can 'consent', as can multiple husbands. You really want to nuke societal norms because you've been reduced to the standard of 'consent' to avoid acknowledging the constantcy of judeo-christian right and wrong?

I've also offered the topic of mainstreaming bestiality as just such an example. Leftists weakly bleat their objection to it on the ground of 'consensual' - that the animal cannot give consent - so then I point out that animals don't give their consent to being slaughtered for food either.

And *poof*. Your argument disappears into a mushroom cloud, and you cannot defend any justification for a moral slide based upon what you've 'consented' to being codified into law. Because you refuse to admit that your morality is not based upon the proper version of right and wrong - and you have substituted 'consensual' in its place (read: "if it feels good, do it") - you are defenseless to the accusation that you have no legally or morally consistent way to stigmatize bestiality.

If 'consent' is your standard, you'd have to elevate animals to the level of humans, and then you'd no longer be able to eat them or support society eating them.

If I were to have started this post by asserting that I could force any logically consistent leftist into being a vegetarian based upon this argument, you'd have laughed.

I'm laughing because you cannot argue consistently and avoid it.

 

I just wrote how 'consent' is a poor basis upon which to decide what is wrong and what is right. Try to answer it if you can.

 

I suggest building a bbcode macro that ends your sentences with "in my head".

It will make things much more clear.

 

Is killing less or more severe a crime than sexual abuse in your opinion?

 

Marriage should never be codified into law with which to begin. Why should law recognize a marriage?

What stops two enterprising people from taking advantage of these myriad laws simply to gain a tax advantage, and avoid "paying their fair share"?

 

This is a good point.

Deviancy does create these offshoot dysfunctions.

 

Leftists argue in exactly the same way. They claim that their debate opponents have failed in exactly the same display of cognitive dissonance.

 

And I am doing the same in exposing the lack of moral consistency in those who are attempting to tear down opposition to deviant behaviour, and I'm using both incest and bestiality as examples. Opposition to pedophilia is merely the next domino in line, but (IMO) requires the two I've mentioned first to be attack and overcome.

 

I wonder why you would use as defense 'popularity'.

Is right and wrong determined by popularity?

 

Often, they are. Pedophiles are often conditioned to the behavior as a result of past victimization.

Is the same true of homosexuality? It certainly seems to be supported by evidence.

Of course, those who have succeeded in normalizing societal reaction to the lifestyle have squashed such information, and now do with such studies the same thing that they are attempting with AGW skeptics research.

Patterns abound.

 

For now.

The left and right used to agree on the deviancy of homosexuality as well. The Left, however, is 'progressing'.

 

This is exactly why I asked if right and wrong is determined by 'popularity'.

Graphs that boast of the acceptance of gay marriage as law, for instance, argue "yes".

 

I know that there are plenty of people on the left who would never "progress" to being okay with adults having sex with children. Like was stated before, only homosexual sex/marriage between two ADULTS is acceptable. Having sex with children is always going to be off limits because there are always going to be parents on the right and left who love and care about and want to protect their children from such losers.

 

By refusing to acknowledge that there are pro-pedo posts in this thread, you're defending the pedo.

 

I agree.

But that's true of any deviancy mentioned, including homosexuality.

I still think the point stands. Liberals, generally, are moral relativists. That's a requisite core tenet of liberalism - at least the kind that I find dangerous to our country.

Moral relativists by definition cannot take an intransigent moral stand. It's bound to change based upon circumstances.

Like "popularity".

It's this aspect of underlying ideologies - what makes each individual tick; what their core beliefs are comprised of and how they can be broken down - that makes this topic so interesting.

If we were forced simply to argue whether pedophilia were acceptable at this moment in time, the topic would have died of boredom by the third page. There are two variables that allow it to continue: the pedo poster who several leftists couldn't acknowledge as a pedo for over 20 pages, and this underlying and (IMO) more interesting discussion.

 

Perhaps the ages each of you think as children is the reason? Some think anyone under 18 is still a child. And sex at 14,15, 16, 17, or 18 is not harmful to the person. In fact, I bet many of those age group children have sex. I bet you did.

 

Ah. Another liberal provides for me a fantastic example of the decay of moral relativism.

You say that sex at 14 isn't harmful? By whose measure? Yours? Because you say so? You think that 'harm' doesn't obey its own sliding scale?

Of course it does, but it's evident that you'll decide that there is no harm based upon the flimsiest degree of evidence: your own rationalization.

And that's exactly why leftists are not the backbone of morality of this country; they're the osteoporosis of it.

 

Any sex that isn't under the covers with the lights off for pure procreation is a sexual deviancy. If one wants be a truly a purist. But deviancy is subjective.

Moral are not objective and are always subject to change based on societal wants and needs.

In this country, USA, it was common for teen girls to marry. And were considered old maids if not by 18 or 19. Societal views changed and so did the age of consent. Actually back then, not sure there was an age of consent.