pedophiles going public

Dinner can traumatize children if it was poisoned.

 

Sick alert.

 

I'm not a liberal, and I didn't use word molest, but anyway I'm here.

 

You must have an alert for anytime the word Jew is used on this forum.

 

If you are so openminded will you argue with me in my thread on the topic and try to defend your baseless claims? I'm openminded too.

 

Agree.

 

And still this man failed to argue on the point.

 

Not enough progress.

 

I've heard a lot of irrelevant things before, but this is pushing it. But I guess you also proved my point again. Parents needs to make sure the dinner isn't poisoned because the children don't know what a poison looks like- or the side effects.

 

You mean Rush has come out?

 

In your opinion, and as they say opinions are like aholes, everybody has one

 

No they don't, since it isn't being mainstreamed.

 

Likely the reason that your thread died down is that this is your belief and your opinion and nothing that was said in that thread was likely to sway you.

The problem with having sex with a child and why it can be harmful is that below a certain age...children are still learning what it right and what is wrong. And the primary source of that...is family. If a child grows up seeing that X is wrong and Y is right through observing the actions of their family, then as an adult they're going to likely continue that trend of believing that X is wrong and Y is right.

Now here's the rest of the problem. A child has a difficult time telling an adult "no". I'm not talking that age when a toddler's favorite word is "no" and they use it all the time...but when it comes to serious matters, it's not as easy. Adults are intimidating and they hold the power. If a teacher were to sexually engage a child, the child knows that the teacher has been given some level of authority over the child. Usually when the parents say "Now you be good and do whatever Mr/Mrs Teacher tells you to do."

To the mind of the child...the child has been told that the Teacher has the authority. "...do whatever Mr/Mrs Teacher tells you to do..." stays with the child and if that teacher is a pedophile...

Same with a Scout Leader. The parents tell the child that while you're at a scouting event/activity...you're to listen to them. Babysitters, police, neighbors, etc...any person that a child has been told that they have to listen to could potentially abuse that authority.

Priests...Ever wonder why Priests have an easy time of keeping a child in line? Because the child seeing the parents following the words of the priest. Mommy or Daddy confesses a sin and the priest tells the parents what to do to atone. The child sees that the Priest has authority over the parents. And if the Priest has authority over the parents and are higher up on the food chain than them...what chance does the child have when Father McPedo wants to have a little private pat and chat? Or what about a family member. An Uncle or an Aunt. Heck even an older sibling or cousin. All may have a higher standing than the child and as such has been told to listen to and to obey. And again that authority can be abused.

And that's at the core of the argument. A child until a certain age does not have the emotional or mental wherewithal to truly consent to something like this. They don't know the implications of saying "yes" could be.

And if informed, understood consent can not be given...then it becomes an act of sexual molestation.

And I'll anticipate one possible response to this. "What age do you use?" And I can't answer that. Some children mature faster than others, others much slower. Since it's going to be too much of a pain in the tuchas to go on a case-by-case basis...we set an age of consent. In the US...18 is considered the age when the majority of people have learned/experienced enough to make an informed determination of what they do with their lives.

So there it is. I'm sure this has about as much chance at swaying a pedophile as I have of successfully attacking Fort Knox with a banana and a rubber chicken...but that's my opinion.

 

The trouble with the internet is people cannot know if you are a troll or someone who genuinely holds the views you suggest. I think you will find a better response if you arranged a private debate, since the majority of people have no experience debating this subject then invite 20 odd people along. Make sure they are interested in the subject so a mix of mum and dads with children from 1 to 14, obviously you will have to keep your identity secret so no recording devices, other people or police about. My guess is that you will not win such a debate, but please,please tell me how you get on.

 

These people want everything to be 'not my fault'. If they can get a tame boffin to declare a hipster-approved disorder biological and/or genetic, they're very very happy. It removes all responsibility

 

You don't have to, explicitly. You only have to accept non-responsibility (biological origins). That first step is eventually followed by the defence of those blighted. First comes 'understanding', then comes defence.

 

Do you think we are so rich, and so permanently safe, that we can afford to spend significant money on 'understanding' paedophiles? No significant money is spent on understanding rapists and murderers, and this is no different.

 

I know and it is absolutely insane.

I have found, even though I am fairly young (35) myself, that the younger the person the more they tend to do so. Usually this changes once someone gets thrown out on their butt and has to fend for themselves, finally learning the world doesn't owe them anything.

 

The same problem as listed above (being young) usually leads to this type of response as well, along with comments like "You disagree with me so you are wrong/stupid/evil" or all three.

He/she literally has MAYBE 5% of his posts where he/she is not personally insulting or attacking someone else for their beliefs.

 

There is no crime of pedophila. You will find it on no law books anywhere in the country. This is because pedophila and hebophilia are not based upon action but attraction. Meaning that one can be a pedophile and never actually sexually molest a child. Additionally, one does not need to have attraction to a child to molest them. Their motivation can be completely different. The end result is the same which is why the crime is child sexual abuse/molestation.

Pedophila has long since been a mental illness. The recent tactic of comparing pedophilia to sexual qorientations is not to normalize it, but to drive home the point it is an inherent trait the person doesn't have a choice in having. Now that means they can't help the attraction. They do have the choice of whether to act. However, like kleptomania, the impulses can be overwhelming, and without professional help, can cause the individual to act, despite their desire not to. The real problem is that people tend to react as if the individual has already harmed a child, if they seek help. The current movement is an attempt to remove the negative stigma of non offending pedophiles, so that they can get help without being harassed. They don't need to be locked away for life as they can get the help.

 

AAAWWWWW, you don't like me (showing you to be lying about what I posted )

 

Nice try, but comprehension failure. The ability to practice one's religion does not allow them to impede or violate others' rights. If my religion had human sacrifice as part of its practice, I can't just go and grab someone to sacrifice. It's similar to freedom of speech. Sure you have a right to burn a flag in protest, but that doesn't give you the right to take my flag for the burning.

 

Um, when was this proposed?

Molesters aren't even respected in prisons.

 

Not quite. Pedophila in and of itself is indeed an inherent trait in much the same way that sexual orientation is, or in the same manner that kleptomania is. On the other hand, yes an abused individual can learn to treat children in a sexually abusive manner. They do so out of a sense of "this was done to me so I'm doing it to you" revenge, or they think that is simply how you treat children. But it is not out of a sense of sexual attraction.

Now, from the child victim's end the reason behind the attack means nothing. The child is damaged regardless. The distinction is important in how to treat the individual. Someone mentioned earlier that there is no cure for pedophila, and this is true. However there are many conditions to which there is no cure, but we are able to treat them, such that they can live normal or near normal lives. A cure would mean that no further action is required. Some people are on medications or therapy for life. Their condition is not cured but controlled.

 

Unfortunately pedophilia and hebophilia are closer to kleptomania than a sexual orientation. They're impulse disorders. So while we can control our attractions from our sexual orientations, pedophiles have a harder time, because it isn't simply an attraction.