Why is Pedophillia wrong?: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Why is Pedophillia wrong? » Why is Pedophillia wrong?

Why is Pedophillia wrong?
Disclaimer: I am NOT a pedophile.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Why is Pedophillia wrong?

Zhuangzi
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2006
Location: Inside the MotherShip
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 277

Posted 04/23/07 - 03:51 PM:	#76
Zhuangzi wrote: 1. As you yourself have stated, we cannot know the effects of what you propose in western society, so how you are so sure of the results is totally beyond me. 2. The fact is that before a certain debatable age which will vary with the individual, the child even with knowledge is not physically, emotionally or mentally capable of meaningful consent & a sexual relationship with an adult in which they receive something that without it they are missing. GDA wrote: Agreed. If you agree with this then apply it to the rest of your post. Pedophilia (including the act of molesting children, which this word refers to as well) is very wrong. You seem to think there is nothing wrong with it & you think the problem around it is social attitude. All your posts say the same thing & this last one is no different. I have tried pointing out the fallacy of this argument & how we could apply it to anything. We wouldn't know if we'd all be better off with no goverments & no laws, but it's not something that is within the realms of possibility. I am longer willing to go round in circles discussing the same thing.
_____________________ Precisely the least, the softest, lightest, a lizard's rustling, a breath, a flash, a moment - a little makes the way of the best happiness. -Friedrich Nietzsche "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." - Douglas Adams

GDA
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 22, 2007
Location: London, UK
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 56

Posted 04/24/07 - 09:11 AM:	#77
Thomistic wrote: No the formal principles are both individual and more generally universal. Meaning - that each individual is different, but there is a difference between "different" and "defective". Such that a heart-condition isn't "natural" because the body is not at its healthiest to be as such. It is considered a "disorder" in the body from what the body ought to be. Just as homosexual orientation is a stunted orientation and the same with peds. Saying that the body 'ought' to be something implies that it was somehow designed to be a certain way. By whom were we designed? Nature does not count, as, although nature causes us to evolve, it does not consciously think 'Ah, that ought to be...' it does not know ought, however, it does know creation. For example, it may have created most humans whom developed four, normal-sized arms and legs, but also by nature, when something abnormal happens in the womb, we find that sometimes people have 'abnormal' arms and legs, nature could be said to have created those people as well. Thomistic wrote: Natural law is based on the major principle that everything has an "end", whether that end can be realized is a metaphysical question, but whether we have an "end" nonetheless is a natural question. It doesn't take a genious to realize that the penis is made for the vagina, that there is a sort of natural compatibility like a key and a locke, and I do not mean it in a freud sense, I mean it in an equal yet designed or formal-principle sense. If however this form or design is scewed, then keys will rub against keys and locks will rub against locks, but nothing will ever be opened. That is, the human sexuality will never be fulfilled. Not to say that all human's most important end is sexuality, its just but one function of our being. But it does not help to look at homosexuality as a "difference" rather than a "disorder" because it is very simple based on the nature of the human reproductive system that there is a sort of Order there. What makes compatability moral, or the only way to be fufilled? Your key in a lock example may be fitting for some things, but I do not think that fufillment is so rigid. We return again to the question of whether we have been 'designed' for a purpose or not. If we have been designed for a purpose, then you will probably (will) be correct. If we have not, then we must continue to discuss this. Thomistic wrote: All human being's desires are ordered to the Happy. Happiness being not a relative thing, but rather a "self-actualization" that shares "universal happiness" and "private happiness" (which is for the sake of the universal). Its kind of like saying the "private good" is for the "common-good" in society; thus they do not oppose each other like "Locke argued". And this self-actualization relies on doing only that which you are designed to do? Thomistic wrote: A basic moral truth is to fulfill a number of ends, that our body is ordered towards. Such that, our body requires food, and thus when we eat, it is a "moral-good". But when we starve it is a "moral evil". And since nature has mainly three parts: Object/act, Circumstance (time & place) and Intention (will, end, purpose), all three make up one moral choice. Object - Sandwich eating Circumstance - At a Funeral Mass Intention - Nurish the Body (This act is bad because the act is taking place in the "wrong place" - and this is what we mean by privation or evil, there is something missing, namely the proper place/time) Why is a funeral mass the wrong place and time? Thomistic wrote: another example: Object - smashing my son's head to plow a nail into the wall Circumstance - In my house, in the hall-way Intention - Put up a picture frame Obviously my son's head is not meant to act like a hammer, so the privation in this act is hammer, and it is quite obviously not right. This relies on the suppositon that all things have a design or purpose, which is fine, if you can explain how we know that they have these designs, and if you can explain who designed them. Thomistic wrote: Lastly: Object - eating a sandwich Circumstance - at a funeral Intention - To piss off the family This is wrong for two reasons - the intention is out of place (out intention towards others should be good, objectively. We always view our intention as good though, otherwise we wouldn't do it), and the eating a sandwich is not proper in the circumstances. Why should our intention to others be good, how is this part of our design, or is there some other reason? Why is being improper linked to being immoral? Thomistic wrote: This is basically natural-law - in a threefold cut manner. When you move you say Object - Sex Circumstances - with a child Intention - gratify sexual appetite We can tell the act is very wrong because the circumstance is out of place. We know that by virtue of the child's dignity (will), by the fact the child is not sexually mature (and therefore his/her body is not ready for sex), and that sex is made for two consentual adults, biologically and psychologically. Natural law is not all that complicated, all it really argues is that "water is good for the body" and when it says good it means "morally good". As if a natural good was univocal with a moral good. Sometimes people have a false sense of morality like: "God said-so". BUT if God does exist, he shouldn't have to say so, because we live by natural law every day. The only criticism I have of this is that it, again, assumes design. But that is your argument, is it not? That we have been designed to do things a certain way? This criticism is no longer serious if you can explain to me how we can truly know that we were designed (by something). Thomistic wrote: Philosophers like Kant, however challenge the "Object" of the act through de-ontological arguments. Hume questions whether any of it exists, and utilitarians render the object neutral (do whatever you want to get your intention fulfilled). But at the end of the day, these philosophies are just rationalizations and thought experiments to justify certain acts, or compromises to the nature of our being to "seek" those quick gratifications. Augustine said that it would be better for the entire world to be set on fire, rather than having one man tell a lie. That is a good exemplification of natural law, when he says what is better: sin is always worse. Of course, such a theory is not very practical in today's world, since it is very "ends justify the means" as if the means was neutral. Of course when Augustine argued this, he meant that it is far better to have integrity then to sacrifice our integrity (being true to our nature), to fulfill some pleasure. It is an interesting theory, all I am waiting for now is your explanation of who designed us, and how we can know that we were designed.

Thomistic
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 29, 2006
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 696

Posted 04/25/07 - 08:53 PM:	#78
GDA wrote: Saying that the body 'ought' to be something implies that it was somehow designed to be a certain way. By whom were we designed? Nature does not count, as, although nature causes us to evolve, it does not consciously think 'Ah, that ought to be...' it does not know ought, however, it does know creation. For example, it may have created most humans whom developed four, normal-sized arms and legs, but also by nature, when something abnormal happens in the womb, we find that sometimes people have 'abnormal' arms and legs, nature could be said to have created those people as well. It depends if you are equivocating on nature and natural effects and causes. When discussing nature - we are descussing what is most often. There are sometimes disorders as medical science often calls them. To imply order is to imply design or formal principles. But yes natural ethics is based on the assumption that there is design. Let us speak of a clock being formed randomnly. Let us say that perhaps that did happen, without a "watchmaker" - it would still have a sort of function (to tell time) and if one part was misplaced it would not fulfill that function. That is all I am arguing. I do not believe we have to put God into this, but I think its pretty common-sense to say that the body ought to have water in it, since all human beings naturally desire to live. Thus, the highest authority to say "ought" is in reference to a natural disposition to survive, which does not necessarily mean "God". Of course if you ask what the end of "a natural disposition to survive" is, that is a different question. I could go into a cosmological or telelogical argument, but both would be inferences. I'd prefer to argue reductio absurdom (proving every other option impossible or unlikely). Darwinism, certain has truth to it. But I do question some of the conclusions like "we never wore clothes" as if there would be clothes to discern and find today? Plus, describing how a human is made, looking at each part independantly of another is not too much different then looking at each part of a clock independant of the "whole" of the clock. But I shouldn't get into that. Edited by Thomistic on 04/25/07 - 08:58 PM
_____________________ --"Anyone who follows both Hume and Darwin have entered into a state of contradiction and confusion, where the only conclusion can be made that they are athiests, by desire, but not by reason. And yet such a desire is only misunderstood for a true desire to believe in an all loving and forgiving God." ---"To the determinist, we are quite unaware beings, yet let him then not reveal to us this truth if it be true, for then we will become aware of it." ---"Dawkins uses the possibility of aliens to disprove the existence of God. He assumes that something he has never seen, never heard, never witnessed, exists, to disprove the very same thing."

danielloran
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 04/25/07 - 09:27 PM:	#79
This is my first postings on the net in awhile. Stumbled across this site, and I guess I instinctively navigated to a topic of extensive interest to myself. A lot of good postings, everyone seems clear on thier position. Though, .. it is clear in some that several people are timid and insecure about 'truly' publishing to an essentially unknown audience, their feelings on the matter. To wit: even if someone WAS purely a pedarest, they would not dare to admit it. I find this to be a serious obstacle in true analyzing of an issue. We cannot truly understand the desires unless we have a person willing to explain the genuine feelings. Does one need to logically analyze ones desires into whether it is medically or ethically appropriate? How about this one-- Pedophilic behavior 'could' be so enticing to indivuals simply for the reason that it is...so....FORBIDDEN. Even amongst those who are banished from society in our prisons, such desires are forbidden, and violently so. Knowing that the acts have been, currently are (this moment somewhere), and will always in the future be completed by easily HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS (maybe millions) of people across the world...EVERY DAY and NIGHT...suggest that engaging in this forbiddeness can be done without destroying the life or body of the minor. So too, by the fact that probably 80% of the acts are actually successfully kept secret, then the notion that it can be SAFELY done comes into play. One might believe: " I can DO this!" and " I can succeed". And, then, the satisfaction of knowing that you have trumped all of societies dogmas and moral prohibitions and done the MOST FORBIDDEN and despised act on the planet ( by non-pedo's.) Indeed, it can be satisfying to millions who themselves have families or status. You see...it is this temptation of pleasure so forbidden...that propels so many. There is no other argument in their thoughts, or justification. I thought this should put a new twist on this thread. Sorry for being so long on words. Lets see where this can lead us, or myself. Daniel.

danielloran
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 04/25/07 - 09:38 PM:	#80
One more thing I must add, that is my own philosophy: "Lions MUST hunt, even though such behavior is appalling, startling or disapproved by those that should observe" Being impossible to rid those of such instictive behavior, it is not sound logic to create an enviroment where noone who is opposed should ever witness it?

GDA
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 22, 2007
Location: London, UK
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 56

Posted 04/27/07 - 10:10 AM:	#81
Thomistic wrote: It depends if you are equivocating on nature and natural effects and causes. When discussing nature - we are descussing what is most often. There are sometimes disorders as medical science often calls them. To imply order is to imply design or formal principles. But yes natural ethics is based on the assumption that there is design. Let us speak of a clock being formed randomnly. Let us say that perhaps that did happen, without a "watchmaker" - it would still have a sort of function (to tell time) and if one part was misplaced it would not fulfill that function. That is all I am arguing. And although at first that is very convincing and logical, I cannot help but wonder; if the clock existed by itself, without anyone to perceieve it, would it have a function? Surely function is only as it is perceived? For example, with no one to know of the heart, no one can apply the concept of function to it. It would simply 'be beating' (in a non-verbal sense), there would be no one to say "Ah, the heart is designed to beat". Thomistic wrote: I do not believe we have to put God into this, but I think its pretty common-sense to say that the body ought to have water in it, since all human beings naturally desire to live. Thus, the highest authority to say "ought" is in reference to a natural disposition to survive, which does not necessarily mean "God". Of course if you ask what the end of "a natural disposition to survive" is, that is a different question. So due to the widespread desire to live, drinking water becomes an ought? And if that desire should change, so would the ought, right? So God would be involved if I were to ask said question? (Not that there is anything wrong with that). Thomistic wrote: I could go into a cosmological or telelogical argument, but both would be inferences. I'd prefer to argue reductio absurdom (proving every other option impossible or unlikely). Darwinism, certain has truth to it. But I do question some of the conclusions like "we never wore clothes" as if there would be clothes to discern and find today? Plus, describing how a human is made, looking at each part independantly of another is not too much different then looking at each part of a clock independant of the "whole" of the clock. But I shouldn't get into that. What is wrong with only looking at a part of the clock?

Alekhine
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2007
Location: Over the Line
Total Topics: 25
Total Posts: 459

Posted 05/02/07 - 07:05 PM:	#82
I'm probably going to get smashed for this, but I don't think that pedophilia in theory is wrong. It may be wrong in practice, but in my opinion if the child thinks that they are old enough to give consent, then they are. It is only their life that they are screwing with. Please don't yell and scream and make death threats at me for my statement.
_____________________ Meh

LinkSkywalker
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2007
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 27

Posted 05/03/07 - 01:08 AM:	#83
I've read a bit of this thread, but not the whole thing, so I'm not going to try and build up an argument or convince anybody, I'm just going to put down the basics of my opinion, which can be taken or left as you please. I, myself, am not a pedophile, I would never seriously consider having sex with...well, anyone but my bride-to-be, who is several years older than I am. However, I find the notion of pedophilia erotic. I enjoy erotic stories wherein one or more sexual participants are underage, and I enjoy sexual role play where one or both participants portray themselves as underage or inexperienced. That said, I think there's something to pedophilia laws. Once a kid hits 12, I really don't think it's anywhere near as serious an offense so long as the kid is willing. However, I would still consider it unethical in the first degree (which, according to my own ethical theories, would make it worth of being illegal) because even if both parties are consenting, the elder party is not the younger party's peer. Adults, simply because they are adults, are able to exert pressure and fear on children even with a simple question. If a 12 year old girl or boy, for example, has a 30 year old neighbor that they often do chores for, they probably have a close, friendly relationship with that person. If one day, that person suddenly gives them a deep kiss, they may not know how to react. If that person begins to initiate sex, the younger party is likely to be confused by the conflict between this friendly authority figure that they do not want to disappoint, and the fact that they don't want to have sex. Then again, such a situation could easily arise with an 18, or a 22 year old as well. People mature at different rates, yet it's impossible for laws to account for that. I know a lot of 16 year olds I would trust with alcohol, and I know a lot of 30 year olds that I would NOT (though I don't think I have the right to make that decision for ANYONE, but that's another argument.) I don't think any lawmaker is stupid enough to think people suddenly become mature enough for things at a given age--they just do their best to approximate a good median. All that aside, there are some serious problems with the USA's current laws regarding pedophilia. As has been stated before, the minimum age of consent needs to be lowered a lot. 15 or 16 year olds are more than capable of making their own decisions--and I actually do know a girl who slept with a 20-23 year old for a few weeks when she was 15. She wanted him, he was willing, she was willing, and nothing was wrong with it--because the police never found out. I also have a friend who, at age 18, copulated with his 17 year old girlfriend. No big deal you would think--but apparently this makes him a dangerous predator! He was bound by law to never see the girl again (a girl he was very serious about might I add) and he had to register as a sexual offender. I'm not particularly close with the fellow, so I don't know what exactly he had to endure because of that oh so harmless act of statutory rape. I may post in this thread later...I seem to have a lot to say. X'D

SpiraMirabilis
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2007
Location: It varies
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 46

Posted 05/21/07 - 09:48 PM:	#84
I am not a pedophile either... however: I happen to think I am at least somewhat attractive and I have noticed shy young boys (15-17 I suppose, I am 24) occasionally looking at me when I'm out with friends at the various places young people gather (I still try to delude myself as being 'young'.) Anyway, I love that! I have had many an urge to take one of the cuter ones in a back room and relieve him of a measure of his shyness. I've never acted on any of this of course because it would be illegal and I don't know them but my moral judgement says that I don't really find anything wrong with a 16 or 17 year old having sex but I certainly do find the same thing with a much younger child reprehensible. Where is the line I wonder? Past puberty? I don't know, it's hard to say when someone is capable of making an informed consent.

Roman Candle
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 20, 2007
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 40

Posted 05/22/07 - 09:08 AM:	#85
In response to the argument earlier about whether paedophilia means rape, I think it's clear that in this context that's not how we mean it. Forced abuse and humiliation of anyone is generally considered wrong. The vulnerability of children simply adds to the sense of outrage. Why we find child rape so offencive isn't really a question worth discussing, separately from an is-rape-moral thread. So in this case I think we have to be asking either: Whether a child can be consenting; cases where the child considers themselves consenting, but because of the attentions of a groomer leading them in direction; or where a child actually does request sex from an adult and is fully consenting. Whether or not children are considered unable to give consent only because we do not give them opportunity is an interesting point; but in some ways irrelevant. If you're not trying to find a moral absolute, which you seem not to be, then all you can say is "Is it 'right' for our model of society?" or "Would it be 'right' in this other possible model of society?" Since, as it has been pointed out, it's largely impossible to decide how people raised in a radically different society would react, the only fruitful question, (disregarding finding a definitive moral value), seems to be "Is it workable with our present society?" or "Would it be workable in a very slightly modified version of our present society?", (that is, 'should we change our society in order to accomodate this?'). I think that a society in which someone is actually well enough informed about the world before their pubescence to give reasonable consent is far enough removed from our own to place the question firmly in the sphere of speculation. Additionally, it ought to be considered whether it is possible to have an informed view on your later sexual life without experiencing sexual development. Otherwise, can you really understand the power of the role sex plays, and how it will really influence your life? So I think we are limited to the question: "Can this work for us" I'll admit, though, that I don't know enough about what 'informed consent' is taken to mean to start discussing that. So mostly I'll be assuming that it is possible to give consent as a child. Also, as mentioned earlier, it is important to bear in mind the difference between paedophilia refering to children who have not hit puberty; children who have recently undergone puberty; and minors on the cusp on being able to give consent. First of all, I think sex with a child who is not sexually developed is fairly indefencible. Even if we can't decide whether it's directly harmful, A: Given that the child will then pass through the system of counciling and concern that has been described, if that is what is doing harm, then harm is still being done; and B: Even if we change our views and alter the reaction so that that potential harm is removed, the risk alone of the sex itself doing damage to the child should be enough to deter a responsible adult. Then we have the issue of children who are recently sexually developed. As pointed out, down the years it has been common practice for people at such an age to marry. However, the crucial difference is that at this point they were no longer considered as children! Before we confused everything by inventing the teenages, you were a child, then you were an adult. However, the is no chance that a twelve/thirteen year old in a modern society can be considered an adult any more. So from this point of view, the identity of paedophile, as we now mean it, doesn't neccessarily apply to those people since they were not having sex with someone who's self-identity is that of a child. However we, at the ages of puberty are not ready to join the modern world which is extremely complicated and involves a lot of responsibility, (and moreover ever-increasing opportunity to flout your responsibilities). The reason I think it is irresponsible to have sex with a mostly-developed 12-14yr old is because that is the age when people are trying to work out exactly what their sexuality means to them. What role they want it to take in their life, and particular their orientation. This makes us vulnerable, and particularly liable to do things which will make a permenant, regretted impact. I remember at that time being massively frustrated by the world's beligerant refusal to just admit that everyone is completely bisexual. At the time, I was sure that I was right, that I'd come to the enlightened position - that I was ready. Looking back I'm very grateful that at the time I didn't have sex with anyone. I wasn't right, and what I thought I should have been doing would only have led me to worse situations. Your first sexual encounters are extremely important, and set a precedent for how you will conduct yourself in future. Doesn't it seem right that that should happen when you're certain of yourself and what you want? An interesting point originally raised was "Can paedophilia be said to be innate or predisposed?" Well, on a psychological basis, the attraction to youth seems fairly natural. There also seems to be a natural inclination for things which have the characteristics of young things - we love puppies; dogs, less so. Think of anime - presenting a, (for some, at least), perfected idealisation of the human form. Big eyes; big forehead; small mouth; small frame; large head; often flat-chested, (although admittedly often the opposite). All properties of young, recently born things. And doesn't it seem that we should, from an evolutionary point of view, have some sort of attraction to young things, as a species. From there it seems a small step to sexual attraction. Confusing the issue is the fact that there seem to be two different types of paedophile. One is attracted to youngness. The other is attracted to perversion. Paedophilia is rapidly become the last great taboo. And people seem to be putting all that blame and anger into this last one. And the more it's hated, and reveilled, the more it becomes attractive to people that really are 'deviant'. Not just in having non-standerd beliefs or feelings, but in having a genuine attraction to what other people move away from. The actions of these people, I believe, are what makes it so difficult to carry a reasonable debate on the subject, and force all people who have a true fetish for children not to seek help, and not to try to overcome it, but to supress it. And we all know how well that works, (Catholic Church, anyone?). Personally, I would place a line at 15. This isn't any particular philosophical distinction, just anecdotal observation. It seems to me that that's about the point where people reach a certain level of maturity. And I don't see anything wrong being being attracted to young boys/girls of this age or older. I mean, I am, but then I'm not sure that I count, (being 17 myself). Before this point, it seems (likely) that damage can be done; after it, it can be reasonably assumed that no one's going to be scared for life. In fact, quite possibly they would benefit, (it's always nice, to lose a little shyness ). This is just my perception - perhaps sexual responsibilty can only be attained by someone who also has the responsibility of a marriage or a mortgage or whatever anyone wants to suggest. I couldn't say, honestly. I've just tried to go through all the issues methodically.
_____________________ "Everybody knows, you only live a day, but it's brilliant anyway"

DeusEx
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 4

Posted 04/24/08 - 12:01 AM:	#86
stephendonnelly wrote: Neither homosexuals nor pedophiles can argue that their sexual orientation is linked to hormones, since the hormones only give people heterosexual attractions. Says who? I strongly suspect you're wrong. Many of the possible biological explanations for homosexuality have to do with hormones. Furthermore, heterosexuality is the only form of sexual practice that procreates. Therefore, homosexuality is a "choice". What does whether or not you can make a kid have to do with whether or not homosexuality is a choice? If someone says homosexuality is not a choice, they're usually saying that either something early in someone's life or their genetics determines whether they're homosexual. Whether or not you can have kids doesn't change that your genes made you a certain way. You have to make a choice to take on the lifestyle of a homosexual. You must psychologically "convince" yourself that you are more attracted to people of the same gender than you are to people of the opposite gender. I think you're just plain ignorant about homosexuality, on the scientific factual level. Pick up some books before trying to draw any conclusions about homosexuality, let alone if it has any relation to pedophilia. Perhaps you haven't had any openly homosexual friends in your life, and so you haven't had anyone to correct some of the things you're saying.

HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51

Posted 05/01/08 - 12:47 AM:	#87
Zomg First post! I've read through most of this thread, not all of it, but I have a fairly decent idea of what's been said I think. I find it funny that a handful of people have begun their statements with "I'm not a paedophile but..." so I'm going to begin with this: I AM a paedophile. At least in the "average" every-man, vernacular sense. Not in the medical sense because I'm not attracted solely to pre-pubescents (and once you get young enough I find them attractive, yet wouldn't have sex with them because I don't find the sex attractive, so that kind of ruins the diagnosis as well). I simply have a preference range that bleeds into that young. I suppose in a medical sense I'd be an ephebophile, since my primary attraction is younger adolescents. Anyway, obviously to most people, I don't see paedophilia as morally wrong in any way. I'd say though, that me finding younger girls attractive in no way colours this perception on the matter in any logical sense. In that I mean, there's never been a time in which I was like "I wonder how I could rationalise my attraction?". It's simply that my moral ideas just happen to allow the attraction and interaction. So now having said all that, I'll comment on something I see bandied about often, in that children are naive, easily manipulated, are more likely to be hurt from such sexual interaction, etc. To this I say "so?". I won't even question its truth (also because I would agree that our society causes these things to be true), because should it be true I don't see any reason why it would matter at all in a moral sense. Instead I question the relevance. What do I care, what the consequences are? Since when is it proven that consequences determine what is Right and Wrong? Instead, I say there are concrete, Wrong actions, and anything that isn't Wrong is "Right" in that it isn't Wrong. I feel I have to clarify in that way, because I don't believe there are "Right" things in the way people usually mean them (preferable actions that we must do, because they are Right, such a moral imperatives to feed the hungry, or help out your fellow man, or what have you). Instead there are only Wrong actions, and everything not Wrong is permissible to do. Point being, I don't see any reason why having consensual (in that, the child says "yes" to it) sex with a minor or a child is Wrong. If it's not Wrong, it's a permissible action. By the very fact that it's consensual, it is permissible. However it's often stated that it's in fact, impossible for a child to consent. Usually because they are naive and don't understand the full ramifications of their choices, and are not fully appreciative of sex and the emotional consequences that could erupt from it. Ignoring the question of how they know that, I'd say this position is fairly illogical, due to the fact that the people who hold this opinion are infinitely inconsistent with its application. For, I am completely ignorant of automechanics. If I should attempt to purchase a used-automobile, I'd possibly, nigh likely (if I didn't find assistance or do research into the subject), make an uninformed decision that is likely to cause me much woe, as I'm not fully appreciative of the subject and potential consequences of buying a crappy auto. Yet, I'm able to consent to the purchase, despite the fact that heck, it is perfectly possible I could drive out in that hunk of scrap, and get myself killed due to the auto having a severe flaw that I wasn't aware of. Thus, not only am I unappreciative of the subject, but the consequences of making a bad decision are possibly terrible. I could even have severe emotional trauma, if my child was riding in the seat next to me, and I got into a wreck that resulted in her death, all due to a problem with the auto. It wouldn't even have to be a severe problem. For the sake of argument, say it's a problem that isn't illegal to have, in that, no Country is going to say that the dealer shouldn't have sold the auto. Thus, it seems clear to me that if the second situation is not morally wrong in any way, and I am able to consent to a bad auto purchase despite my lack of knowledge, that it is also not morally wrong to engage in consensual sex with a child, and a child is also fully able to consent, and no amount of bad possible consequences should stop that. At this point, since I accept that consensual sex is okay, and it seems that a child is able to consent, then I must conclude that it's completely possible to have sex with a child and not be on the Wrong side of morality. But still, almost everybody disagrees with me (heck, I've had actual paedophiles disagree with me) so it's always interesting to hear their arguments if they've got something fresh to say.

Mr Sterling smg
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 05, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 05/05/08 - 06:29 AM:	#88
The jury is still out, but there seems to be a lot of scientific evidence suggesting that people are indeed born homosexuals. There are also a lot of documented cases in which animals have had life-lasting sexual relationships with animals of the same sex. In the case of giraffes, for instance, I doubt that the reasons are culture-related etc! not really the evidence is coming down on the side of genetics and gestational circumstance. From an anecdotal stand point most gay men surveyed new from about age 5 onwards that they weren't like the other boys. From a Darwinian stand point Male homosexuality is a gene line slated for extinction. "survival of the fittest" by contrast lesbianism is a choice. They are made not born. As for paedophilia? Jury is still out the science of it is incomplete (if indeed there is a jury impanelled). By definition paedophilia is the sexual attraction to pre-pubescent. It is by local laws that include pubescent teens in the definition. as for harm and trauma? I have lived with a woman who was molested between the ages of 4-9. While she is only 1 person, from my reading in trying to understand her feelings and emotions she is not alone in her feelings. To make a long story short she feels as though she was robbed of her childhood and that her place in life was that of an object. I would have to ask those that don't understand the psychological trauma to ask themselves? "How would you like to have an adult cock pushed into you mouth at the tender age of 4?" if that isn't enough then have this scum bag threaten your family with violence if you told anyone? That instance aside, consider the behaviours of children. When a novel experience is had a child in its exuberance will tell every adult they encounter about this experience. Now take that away from them and replace it with consequences. The manipulative expression by the adult "We will get into trouble if you say anything" or "We can't talk about this with anyone". Children do not wish to get into trouble and yet one has tricked them into doing something that will get into trouble. If something is "OK" to do then why can't we talk about it? Immediate trauma may not be apparent at the time of incident. However when time has passed and education of the ways of the world come into play in and about puberty the "wrong" of what they did as a child with an adult hits home hard. They grow into traumatized adults. Now before I am dismissed as one who does not know what I am talking about I'll let in on a little secret My brother is a pedo and has been in prison as a result of it. I spent a great deal of time learning to deal with it. Equally I spent a great deal of time crawling around his noggin. It took me 3 months to get over the feelings it left me with. Children are curious, indeed curious about many things, as adults we don't let them do a great many things because they are not physically nor mentally ready for the experience. They will explore amongst their peers and learn about each other and I feel adults should stay out of it.

HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51

Posted 05/05/08 - 07:57 PM:	#89
as for harm and trauma? I have lived with a woman who was molested between the ages of 4-9. While she is only 1 person, from my reading in trying to understand her feelings and emotions she is not alone in her feelings. To make a long story short she feels as though she was robbed of her childhood and that her place in life was that of an object. I would have to ask those that don't understand the psychological trauma to ask themselves? "How would you like to have an adult cock pushed into you mouth at the tender age of 4?" if that isn't enough then have this scum bag threaten your family with violence if you told anyone? That instance aside, consider the behaviours of children. When a novel experience is had a child in its exuberance will tell every adult they encounter about this experience. Now take that away from them and replace it with consequences. The manipulative expression by the adult "We will get into trouble if you say anything" or "We can't talk about this with anyone". Children do not wish to get into trouble and yet one has tricked them into doing something that will get into trouble. If something is "OK" to do then why can't we talk about it? Immediate trauma may not be apparent at the time of incident. However when time has passed and education of the ways of the world come into play in and about puberty the "wrong" of what they did as a child with an adult hits home hard. They grow into traumatized adults. I think that this is considered "rape" and not inherent of Paedophilia. It's obviouse by your question that this is rape, since you use verbs like "pushed" and have the obvious offender threaten, meaning he did something wrong. Rape is wrong regardless of age. But we're not talking about rape. We're supposed to be talking about Paedophilia. Children are curious, indeed curious about many things, as adults we don't let them do a great many things because they are not physically nor mentally ready for the experience. They will explore amongst their peers and learn about each other and I feel adults should stay out of it. Thank you for making statements of fact and then assuming that these statements somehow prove themselves. Yes, they're curious and as adults we don't let them do some things as a whole. Does that mean that it's okay? No. You have to give a reason why it'd be okay. AND give a good reason why "adults should stay out of it". Rather than just "They do, so there."

Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 97

Posted 05/06/08 - 04:00 AM:	#90
stephendonnelly wrote: Besides, heterosexuality has procreation as its defense as being the only truly biologically natural form of sexual orientation. You say it as if heterosexuallity and pedophilia are two mutually exclusive concepts, obviously not true. I would agrue that MOST pedophiles are heterosexual, in that they are attracted to children of the opposite sex. In fact, if you observe indiginous groups of people you'll notice they ALL have sex with girls immediately at puberty, which is around 13 years of age. In this sense, pedophilia is truely natural and non-pedophilia seems to be socially forced, it seems to be a meme. Here is my stance on it, I'm very liberal and I believe if there is no victim there is no crime. Incestual sex should not be illegal, nor should bestiallity, given consent in the former scenario and in the latter scenario, I don't feel particularly obligated to protect animals' rights seeings how we are a society that slaughters millions of animals everyday. It's legal to hunt animals for fun, I don't see how we could possibly care about thier rights. So the question is: Is there a victim when a 12 year old is enticed to perform sexual actions on an adult? If a 12 year old is enticed to have sex with a PEER, we don't see it as a huge deal. I think this issue isn't so much a question of pedophilia as it is a question of children's right to decisions. Are we oppressing children, descriminated based on age, by not allowing them certian freedoms of choice (like sexual consent among other things)? Also, children seem to be the only major group of people that it's legally sactioned to be disenfranchised. I'm not sure, it's tough. I understand that children cannot make allof thier decisions themselves, but that certiantly shouldn't justify enslaving them and oppressing them entirely. So where SHOULD that grey line inbetween lay?
_____________________ Why is the word 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If you need to know how to spell it, the word is right on the cover, if you need to know what the definition of 'dictionary' is, you wouldn't exactly know to look in a dictionary would you?

Zhuangzi
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2006
Location: Inside the MotherShip
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 277

Posted 05/06/08 - 05:41 PM:	#91
My position is clear from my above posting. I have tried to reason the fallacy of the argument from the pro pedo camp. It seems that there are some posting who think paedophilia is a very good idea, & we shouldn't be denying children the obvious pleasures of sex from adults. In fact the pro pedo camp actually think it's wrong to deny children such obvious pleasures. It seems that the main argument put forward from the pro pedo's is this; That it is societies attitudes which creates all the problems. OK. Given this argument; can those who are pro the sexual abuse of children, please answer these questions. - Can we take other acts generally considered to be "wrong" & very unsavoury, by society, as inherently wrong?; & place the same value argument upon other things? Can we say it is simply a case of societies attitudes that make these things "wrong" & that if we changed in our attitudes then everything would be roses. Please categorically explain what is wrong with any of the following. - Legalising & encouraging sex with dead people. A necrophiliacs favourite motto is "dead people never say no!" Who is it harming? what's the problem with it? But lets not stop there. How about putting the dead to good use. Younger dead can be used as exotic food, middle aged people can help with feeding the poor. Older people can be used as cat food & fertilizers. But why stop there? Lets not deny the obvious pleasure the serial killer gets from killing. Lets legalise murder. With a simple change in attitudes we can all go around killing; & we can do away with the stupidity of imprisoning people for it. & lets not forget fucking children. Why not just change our attitudes to everything? Legalise everything, let everyone out of jail, throw away every law book & lets have a free for all. It's our subjective viewpoints & personal value judgements of right & wrong which is the real problem, yes?, nothing is inherently wrong, it's simply the way we view certain things. So lets tackle the real enemy; deluded human morals. I look forward to a reply.
_____________________ Precisely the least, the softest, lightest, a lizard's rustling, a breath, a flash, a moment - a little makes the way of the best happiness. -Friedrich Nietzsche "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." - Douglas Adams

HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51

Posted 05/06/08 - 08:34 PM:	#92
Yawn I have tried to reason the fallacy of the argument from the pro pedo camp. It seems that there are some posting who think paedophilia is a very good idea, & we shouldn't be denying children the obvious pleasures of sex from adults. In fact the pro pedo camp actually think it's wrong to deny children such obvious pleasures. It seems that the main argument put forward from the pro pedo's is this; That it is societies attitudes which creates all the problems. I have no idea why this silly idea exists, that if somebody is not against something, he must be for it. Obviously if somebody is not anti-paedophile, that does not mean he is pro-paedophile. Further, your comments reek of idiotic slander and bias. Using words like "sexual abuse of children" already implies that it IS sexual abuse. Along with other snide little things. As to that argument you've been hearing, I'd agree with it, yet that's not the main reason for...anything. It's completely irrelevant if it is or is not true. It only means that any concequentialist argument is wrong from the start, assuming concequentalist arguments are valid in terms of morality in the first place. But since I don't agree with the latter, I have no inclination to point out the, frankly, obvious notion that many psychological problems associated with child-adult sex comes from societal expectations and views. Legalising & encouraging sex with dead people. What's wrong with this? Well, it implies government, and government is morraly wrong. But I'm certain that's not what you were expecting. A necrophiliacs favourite motto is "dead people never say no!" Who is it harming? what's the problem with it? But lets not stop there. How about putting the dead to good use. Younger dead can be used as exotic food, middle aged people can help with feeding the poor. Older people can be used as cat food & fertilizers. But why stop there? Inherently, nothing is wrong with any of this. It only matters if the person who died stated prior to death, if he would like something done with his body, and gets it in writing. If not, well, his body is pretty much unowned, but at that point it'll probably be claimed by a member of the family. If, however, somebody had no problem with his body being eaten, then who cares? Consent it what matters, if it is there, then obviously it is an okay thing to do. Lets not deny the obvious pleasure the serial killer gets from killing. Lets legalise murder. With a simple change in attitudes we can all go around killing; & we can do away with the stupidity of imprisoning people for it. & lets not forget fucking children. Why not just change our attitudes to everything? Legalise everything, let everyone out of jail, throw away every law book & lets have a free for all. Obviously if somebody has no problem with being murdered, it is an okay thing to murder him. There are millions who commit suicide. It's perfectly reasonable that some of those people might allow themselves to be murdered. In fact, this has happened before. What with the person in Germany who allowed himself to be killed and eaten by somebody else. That's a perfectly just thing to do. BUT, that's not what you mean. You mean something stupid. Because for some innane reason, you automatically assume that concequences matter at all, and that the only possible argument ever is that the negative conequences for "child abuse" (nevermind the obviouse FACT that that's a different thing from consensual sex) are imposed by society. Why did you even reply? I'll admit, yes, that argument was said a lot. But I didn't espouse this view. If you didn't read my post, and posts after it, why the hell did you post again?

Zhuangzi
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2006
Location: Inside the MotherShip
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 277

Posted 05/07/08 - 02:43 AM:	#93
HalcyonGlaze wrote: Why did you even reply? I'll admit, yes, that argument was said a lot. But I didn't espouse this view. If you didn't read my post, and posts after it, why the hell did you post again? I don't know why I even bothered replying again either, to be honest. It's all the same whine again - sex with children is good for them & it's societies attitudes which is the problem; the classic pedo argument - "they wanted me to have sex with them". I don't think it is rational or that it can be argued convincingly that paedophilia is anything but the "sexual abuse of children". I think it has been far more convincingly argued in this thread that sex with children is bad for them for a plethora of other reasons other than those of social attitude; it is quite clear that there are complex issues around the capacity of a child to give knowing & informed consent. The reasoning as to the wrongness of paedophilia acts is not in simple consequentiality; it is the act itself which causes the harm. Yes my post was stupid, it was meant to be, I don't agree with my questioning that the only arbitrary measure of "right" & "wrong" is subjective attitude.
_____________________ Precisely the least, the softest, lightest, a lizard's rustling, a breath, a flash, a moment - a little makes the way of the best happiness. -Friedrich Nietzsche "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." - Douglas Adams

DoctorInWaiting
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 36

Posted 05/07/08 - 05:43 AM:	#94
A paedophile I managed to talk to on a work experience in a local prison said it was a "fetish that is morally wrong and a sexual orientation" Philosophically it is, however sexual age is 16 and by violating a legal point of view (as well as intervening with helpless children-which in itself is a form of ultimate immoral power exertion) is totally objected against. I for one do not condone (and never will)
_____________________ "The Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways, the point however is to change it" Marx and Engels "Freedom of conscience entails more dangers than authority and despotism." Michel Foucault Society is rebelled against if society condemns

DeusEx
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 4

Posted 05/07/08 - 07:28 AM:	#95
Mr Sterling smg wrote: not really the evidence is coming down on the side of genetics and gestational circumstance. From an anecdotal stand point most gay men surveyed new from about age 5 onwards that they weren't like the other boys. From a Darwinian stand point Male homosexuality is a gene line slated for extinction. "survival of the fittest" by contrast lesbianism is a choice. They are made not born. People often make the mistake of thinking that homosexuality is a gene slated for extinction. The first piece of evidence to the contrary is it seems to have been around for all of human history, which strongly suggests there's some reason it refuses to die out. The second is that there have been some studies suggesting that homosexual men make good uncles for children, helping rear them and thus increasing their survivability, and the child could carry the gene even if they themselves are not gay (the gene could be 'inactive' -- you carry lots of genes like that, for the purpose of making your young). Basically, even if homosexuality makes you less likely to have children, it could still contribute to the survivability of your genetic line as a whole (your family). This topic is still ridiculous. Pedophilia isn't wrong because it's a choice, it's wrong because there's no way a five year old can give consent and know what they're talking about. It's wrong because it hurts kids bodies because they're not developed yet. It's wrong because it creates a relationship with a really askew power dynamic. There are plenty of good reasons that have nothing to do with choice.

HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51

Posted 05/07/08 - 07:57 AM:	#96
I don't know why I even bothered replying again either, to be honest. It's all the same whine again - sex with children is good for them & it's societies attitudes which is the problem; the classic pedo argument - "they wanted me to have sex with them". I don't think it is rational or that it can be argued convincingly that paedophilia is anything but the "sexual abuse of children". I think it has been far more convincingly argued in this thread that sex with children is bad for them for a plethora of other reasons other than those of social attitude; it is quite clear that there are complex issues around the capacity of a child to give knowing & informed consent. The reasoning as to the wrongness of paedophilia acts is not in simple consequentiality; it is the act itself which causes the harm. Yes my post was stupid, it was meant to be, I don't agree with my questioning that the only arbitrary measure of "right" & "wrong" is subjective attitude. Well, it's certainly a good thing then, if your post was meant to be stupid. Except that your reasoning is flawed, namely, there was more than just a rehash of everything you'd heard before. Namely, what I said. And you don't think it's rational that Paedophilia could be anything other than "the sexual abuse of children"? Well, that's funny, because last time I checked it was actually a medical diagonosis refering to a very specific attraction, and not an action at all! Funny, that. And, if you would like to tell me exactly why a child can't give consent, I'd love to hear it. That would, you know, mean something. A paedophile I managed to talk to on a work experience in a local prison said it was a "fetish that is morally wrong and a sexual orientation" Philosophically it is, however sexual age is 16 and by violating a legal point of view (as well as intervening with helpless children-which in itself is a form of ultimate immoral power exertion) is totally objected against. I for one do not condone (and never will) I severely doubt you actually talked to a paedophile. But hey, maybe he was...somehow. Yeah yeah, "helpless children", power exertion...like my helpless automobile-purchasing and the terrible immoral power exertion the dealer must be exerting over me and my niavety...oh wait. I can still freaking buy a car! I'm sorry, but it's kind of annoying to hear the argument asserted over and over without any solid reasoning. I'd like some REASONS for why these children are helpless in the decision making process, and why it even matters if they were. This topic is still ridiculous. Pedophilia isn't wrong because it's a choice, it's wrong because there's no way a five year old can give consent and know what they're talking about. It's wrong because it hurts kids bodies because they're not developed yet. It's wrong because it creates a relationship with a really askew power dynamic. There are plenty of good reasons that have nothing to do with choice. Great! I love hearing the same unfounded assertions over and over! It makes my heart happy. Oh wait. No I don't. I'd like some explanations on why it even matters if a child knows what they're talking about. Since when do I have to know what I'm talking about to give consent? I already pointed out that little flaw in my first post here. After that, it gets kind of stupid. For one, paedophilia is not "sex with children". So it should inherently do nothing to children's bodies. After that, there's more to sex than intercourse, and most actual paedophiles wouldn't want intercourse because it would indeed hurt the child., and because as I've seen, it's just not an important thing for them. Third, what the hell does it matter, if indeed, there was a "really askew power dynamic"? Heck, what do you even mean by that?

Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 97

Posted 05/07/08 - 01:16 PM:	#97
DeusEx wrote: This topic is still ridiculous. Pedophilia isn't wrong because it's a choice, it's wrong because there's no way a five year old can give consent and know what they're talking about. I don't think there is any way the child wouldn't know. If you ask a 5 year old to put his or her mouth on your penis I think he or she would understand what that meant. Bare in mind we aren't talking about physical force/rape. It's wrong because it hurts kids bodies because they're not developed yet. If it hurts then kid will not want to do it. If the kid doesn't want to do it then it will not happen. I hear anal sex can be painful at first, doesn't mean it should be illegal. I think vaginal sex is also painful the first time. It's wrong because it creates a relationship with a really askew power dynamic. It's not illegal to have an askew power over someone when they are over the consent age, even though it would be just as 'wrong'. You can psyche a legal-age friend into having sex even though he or she may not really want to. It can apply to timid housewives, you could take advantage of an emotionally distraught person. It's not something just applies to kids yet you only want it to be illegal by appling it to kids? There are plenty of good reasons that have nothing to do with choice. I'd like to hear them, I actually want to be wrong on this issue because I had never really thought of it before and here I find myself objectively, unbiasedly supporting pedophilia . It would make me more comfortable if someone offered a good, rational reason why it should be illegal to f--- a child that doesn't end up contradicting or being a double standard. I havent seen that reason yet though.
_____________________ Why is the word 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If you need to know how to spell it, the word is right on the cover, if you need to know what the definition of 'dictionary' is, you wouldn't exactly know to look in a dictionary would you?

HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51

Posted 05/07/08 - 03:46 PM:	#98
I've never heard such a reason either. Although I have to point out again, just because you are not against it does not mean you support it. Rather, you'd simply apathetic towards it, in the "I don't really care if people do it or don't do it" way. Against it seams to imply you want people to stop, while supporting it seems to imply you encourage it. But then again, maybe not.

Zhuangzi
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2006
Location: Inside the MotherShip
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 277

Posted 05/07/08 - 05:13 PM:	#99
HalcyonGlaze wrote: Well, it's certainly a good thing then, if your post was meant to be stupid. Except that your reasoning is flawed, namely, there was more than just a rehash of everything you'd heard before. Namely, what I said. I haven't read anything on this thread or anything from you or other paedophilia sympathisers & protagonists which gives even the slightest rational explanation to support any of the assertions put forward in defence of paedophilia. Explain & prove why paedophilia causes no harm to children, remembering to apply this argument to the likes of sydney cook. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/465986.stm
_____________________ Precisely the least, the softest, lightest, a lizard's rustling, a breath, a flash, a moment - a little makes the way of the best happiness. -Friedrich Nietzsche "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." - Douglas Adams

HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51

Posted 05/07/08 - 05:31 PM:	#100
I haven't read anything on this thread or anything from you or other paedophilia sympathisers & protagonists which gives even the slightest rational explanation to support any of the assertions put forward in defence of paedophilia. Explain & prove why paedophilia causes no harm to children, remembering to apply this argument to the likes of sydney cook. Then it is an absolutely obvious thing that you're not reading anything at all, and shouldn't even be here. I mean really, I have to wonder why you're on a philosophy forum if you're not even going to objectively and calmly look at facts. FACT 1 - Paedophile does not = Child Molester. I don't even care if you think children can't conset to sex and adult-child sex is always harmful. The point is, Paedophile simply MEANS SOMETHING, and the thing it means does not inherently include "child molester". Learn to Medical Dictionary please. FACT 2 - Not everybody cares about concequences. I do not, so the constant reference to possible harm just bounces off me, and frankly, if you want to go that route, you'd have to first convince me that concequences matter in ethics. FACT 3 - Is similar to FACT 2, in that I don't care about concequences. Thus, my real arguments are not concerned with the idea that "paedophilia causes no harm to children". Again, see FACT 1 for why you need to stop using the word "paedophile" for "child molester" as in this case, I'm using your version which is wrong and stupid. FACT 4 - I don't think anybody here is arguing in defence of non-consensual sex. If it's nonconsensual in an obvious way (in that they said no, or used obvious force like drugs and bindings) frankly, shut up about it. This is slightly related to FACT 1 as well. Nobody cares about rapists. They are rapists, nobody is defending them. FACT 5 - I've already explained my reasoning. If you'd like to argue it, make arguments against me specifically. I will not repeat myself just because you appear to not want to objectively look at anything and read what I have to say. Go back and read it, quote me, and offer your critisizm in a logical manner, keeping in mind the previous facts.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.