pedophiles going public

Ya. ok. Discussions of right and wrong and morality are deflections.

Whatever you say lib.

 

They exist everywhere else but your and stretcher's mind, actually.

I find it funny that both you and snakestretcher cannot come up with pro--pedo posts in this thread. Jonsa ceded the point.

You guys, tho.

BWHAHAHAHAHA

 

To the relativist, they are not.

To me, they are.

 

I would like to see a link. I would expect that most pedophiles have a bad history, and it usually contains abuse.

I have no issue with pedophiles who have not acted, and react out for help. I do not believe that they are the subject of this thread.

 

I would like to see a link. I would expect that most pedophiles have a bad history, and it usually contains abuse.

I have no issue with pedophiles who have not acted, and reach out for help. I do not believe that they are the subject of this thread.

 

I was discussing your moral relativism remark. And yes, sex for recreation is as deviant as any other sex. It's all based on one's perspective.
Breezes don't alter morality. So I disagree with your assessment. And I disagree on what you may or may not think is moral. You don't get to tell others what is or is not moral.

Pedophilia has a definition. We should all use it when discussing it.

 

What a delusional non response. The best of this thread.

Ordinary people don't find gays disgusting.

Liberals don't want to have sex with children.

Lash out when one has lost an argument or in this case NO ARGUMENT AT ALL.

 

You think gays are out to recruit new members? No need to indulge such silliness any further.
One would have to understand sexual orientation.

 

Rape has never been the topic in this thread. Sorry for your friends daughter, but offer nothing of importance to this thread.
I was referring to teens having sex, that they want to have sex. Rape is forced.

 

Not if one uses the definition of pedophilia. One would think a smart mind would know such simple things.

 

You have yet to address what is or is not moral.
Where do you derive your set of morals.
Until you do, what you say is moral is pointless.

 

Only a relativist concludes that.

The equivalent of breezes in this discussion is your relativism. The moment that you declare that morality is not synonymous with an absolute right and wrong, you are a relativist.

I'm not at all sure what this means. Definitions are based upon one's perspective, are they not?

Aha.

 

Nope. Wrong yet another time in this thread.

What absolute right or wrong? Something you've failed to address. Not surprising, because one doesn't exist.

No, they are based upon a dictionary. But if it is one's perspective, that makes it relative. I think you defeated your own argument.

 

What's illegal? Pedophila?

 

Not many offer this service of treatment of pedophiles. Your doctor doesn't know anyone to refer you to. Now what?

 

Conservative to Liberal translation:

Interventionist liberal judges: Any judge that dares choose human rights over public opinion.
Common sense: A mythical form of knowledge made up of anecdotes and aphorisms, but devoid of any scientific backing.
Hedonist: A person who bases their morality on logic instead of a 2,000+ year old book written by Middle Eastern sheep herders.

Now that is settled, let's get down to the meat. The ruling of a judge is NOT law. A ruling either accepts a law as constitutional or rejects a law as unconstitutional. When gays gained the right to get married, the courts did not create any laws, they struck down the laws that made it illegal for gays to marry.

 

So here we can see that sexual gratification would not be the only motive for such sexual assault.

Here too, we see that the two are not always connected in either direction. I did also find a study published on NCBI, that had an interesting blurb:

I am also putting out feelers on a couple of ask psychiatrist site to get opinions from the experts. I'll let you know if and when I get a response.

 

Utterly FALSE equivalence!

Explain why in the most conservative and repression regimes on the planet that there are still homosexuals? Who is "promoting the lifestyle" to "confused impressionable adolescents" in Iran or Yemen or Saudi Arabia?

There is no connection whatsoever between pedophilia and homosexuality.

There is no connection whatsoever to the degree to which a society is open or repressive either.

 

I just don't understand families like those,

It wasn't her fault she was raped and became pregnant but they dumped all the blame on her.

She did not deserve to be treated that way by anyone, let alone her own family.

 

No the guy who raped her was a ****ing pedo, she was 14. What the **** is wrong with you?

 

Obviously the term "discussion" is beyond the comprehension of the "mensa mind"!

You are not discussing anything at all!

Instead you are just using this thread as a blunt object to attack anyone on the left with whatever excrement you can throw at the wall in the futile hope that it might stick.

That is not a discussion. It is just a one sided tirade with zero substance.

 

As I recall you were fallaciously alleging that "the left" were making "pro-pedo posts".

Jonesa corrected you by pointing out that is was ONLY Landcover doing that.

Your disingenuous attempt to conflate him with "the left" is your problem only.

 

So is there another 'perspective' on the definition of murder? As for morality that, again, is entirely subjective. I consider war and hunting animals for fun morally repugnant, others may not. I also consider paedophilia morally repugnant. However, it is recognised as a psychiatric condition, an illness which can be addressed and dealt with, so here my perspective on morality is challenged. I don't consider, for example, a person suffering from schizophrenia, another serious mental illness, to be morally repugnant but there was a time, not so long ago, that our collective societal morality said that the mentally ill had to be locked up, out of sight and mind. That has changed with the development of drugs which allow sufferers to function in society.
Even until Victorian times there was a moral stigma attached to women who became pregnant and gave birth outside marriage. They were shunned, forced into poverty, their child taken from them and orphaned.
Morality and how we perceive it, moves with the times. Yes paedophilia is horrible, but I hope there comes a day when it is viewed in the same way as those suffering from psychotic conditions, and not as deserving of a 'bullet in the head' as a 'cure' as many here would like.

 

Good post with an excellent historical perspective.

But you do realize that to the "mensa mind" that will be misunderstood as a "leftist pro-pedo post"!

 

I can understand your reasoning and I know my hatred of pedophiles may be irrational, but I really cannot see public opinion changing for a very long time. I have known a lot of real hardmen in my time but all hated anyone who hurt kids, whether sexual or violently. I meant it when I posted that I think I am hard wired to despise these people.