Bronze wrote:


Rape = done against will by force.

We are talking about instances of convincing a child to have sex on it's own free-will. Rape is irrelevent and 'wrong' REGARDLESS OF AGE. Sydney Cooke is irrelevent.

HalcyonGlaze wrote:

Same to you Lex. Why should I care if they don't know the consequences? Adults who don't know the consequences of things are able to consent. Who cares if they have poor judgment? Adults who have poor judgment can make decisions. Why are kids given some illogical amount of specialness? Explain to me that.

"Adults who have poor judgment can make decisions" Trouble understanding what I say? ADULTS are not CHILDREN.

As I said, there is reason why children are in the care of adults: because society, and any moderately reasonable person agrees that children CANNOT make choices on their own in many instances.

For example, a child might choose suicide because they live in a magical world where they will never die (in fact this happens sometimes). So is it ok to let children commit suicide?

You might explain it to a child, but they cannot understand. It's how the brain works: only in time does a person understand the life around him/her to make fully rational decisions, we simply cannot learn at infinite speed.

As for your other comment: "Who cares if they have poor judgment?" EVERYBODY does. That is the point. Because they have poor judgment, society chooses to protect them in order to give them a chance to become fully aware.

Con artists often seemingly legal means to defraud people of money. Still illegal if proven to be a scam. And the pedophiles that are caught rarely go: "I am a hero of love". They cower, stammer and cry because they know full well what they are doing and the consequences of that.

Before bs-ing everyone here about "why should children be special?", try asking a simple question: why am I alive? You will find the answer is that it is because SOMEONE fed you, clothed you, and even educated you for free for a number of years, and kept you alive ONLY because you were at some point a child. You really should be thankful they didn't screw you in the a2s instead, by your logic. (if they did, tough, it's a cruel world). Ideally, that is how things work.

Because that is what we call ethical standards.

You are the one lacking objectivity.

The mere fact that you are a pedophile means that the world's conception of children's judgment is illogical? I think not. This is one of the few cases where the world is right.

Caldwell wrote:

Yes, I, too, have a problem with this statement, Bronze. Maybe you have forgotten that manipulation of a child's mind is at work here, not the consensual sex between two adult people you have in mind.

It is a troubling and terrible reality that a pedophile travels to another country, with a luggage full of chocolates and candies, to lure some street kids (as young as 7 or 9 ) to have sex with him. Children have gotten STDs because of adults.

stephendonnelly wrote:
This is a rather "hot" topic, because pedophillia is such a taboo these days. A person who served a 10 year sentence in prison told me the following:



And to be honest with you, I believe him. Pedophiles are viewed by the public as the scum of society --- I don't think anyone will disagree with me here.

So, why exactly do we so shun pedophiles? I may take a LOT of heat from you guys for this, but I would like to express my views on this issue.

I have heard many people tell me that they don't have anything against homosexuals. People have told me that they don't care if a person is sexually attracted to his pet dog, so long as he keeps it within the privacy of his own home.

I have even heard people argue that some people are born as homosexuals. They say that homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality.

So, where do these people stand on the issue of pedophilia? Neither homosexuals nor pedophiles can argue that their sexual orientation is linked to hormones, since the hormones only give people heterosexual attractions. Furthermore, heterosexuality is the only form of sexual practice that procreates. Therefore, homosexuality is a "choice". 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.

The question is now becomes, "Is any form of sexual orientation other than heterosexuality equally legitimate?"

So, why is it wrong to be sexually attracted to children? Just like people who claim that they cannot help the fact that they are attracted to others of the same gender, there are people who claim that they cannot help the fact that they are attracted to people who are young.

A common argument given as to why pedophillia is wrong is because it often exploits the fact that children are naive, and thus incapable of resisting those who wish to have sexual relations with them. This would properly be labeled as child abuse. While this is certainly true for a seven or eight year old, I would argue that it does not apply to a twelve or thirteen year old. Twelve and thirteen year olds are old enough to make informed decisions on their own.

So then, someone could argue, "well, a 12 year old is immature, and thus prone to making bad decisions". But then, why do we allow sixteen year olds to drive? Is not the immaturity of 16 year olds a major cause for auto-related deaths? They are certainly immature, but not to the point where they are unable to make their own decisions.

Why then, is consensual sex with a minor who is 13 or 14 years old inappropriate? I mean, at that age, kids are already beginning to have sex with their peers. It's not like they don't know what they are getting into. Their decision may be influenced by immaturity, but it cannot be said to be uninformed.

People have said that children are "innocent" and "naive", and therefore is it wrong for them to engage in sexual practice at a young age. I can tell you from first hand experience that just a single visit to your local public school will quickly dispel this myth. Children may not have experiential knowledge of sexuality until puberty, but they certainly know everything about it by age 7 or 8. I have had kindergarten teachers tell me that they have been having problems with kindergartners using swear words just articulately as middle-schoolers. They know exactly what F*** means. It's not like they are innocently repeating words that they have heard other adults say. Kids are learning this stuff from other kids.

If homosexuals can claim that homosexuality is innate, they why cannot pedophiles claim that pedophillia is innate? I fail to see a difference. Neither have biological roots, other than the basic sexual drive that is present in all sexually-reproducing life forms.

Please note that I am highly against any form of sexuality other than adult heterosexuality. I am not trying to defend pedophilia, but merely trying to compare it's absurdity to homosexuality. The basis for my views is in the teachings of my religion (reformed Christianity). But, I know that many members here do not view themselves as being religious.

So, upon what basis do non-religious people view pedophillia as being inappropriate?

Thanks,

~ Stephen K. Donnelly

HalcyonGlaze wrote:


Really? There *must* be? Seems like you're already assuming something and then trying to prove yourself right. I don't quite think that's the way you're supposed to go about things.

Maybe it hasn't occured to you yet. But you know, you could just be, I don't know, wrong?

HalcyonGlaze wrote:

Informed. I know why Consent matters. Or at least, I have my own idea on why it matters. But I see no reason why informed consent is important. People do things all the time without knowing what the possible consequences are.

You: think that chilrdren should face the same consequences as an adult when making a decision, and should not be given any extra protection.
Counter-argument: children should be protected as their decisions do not represent the same free will manifested by an informed adult.

That is the only thing that should be argued, for simplicity.

The only reason I was not being entirely philosophical is because you are being overly obnoxious and rude. My policy is to respond in kind or to cease responding in such cases, since you cannot beat belligerence with logic.

Now for the actual argument: it is obvious that chilrden lack judgment. Given the chance, they might stick their fingers in an electric socket even when you have specifically described why they should not do it. We as a society choose to protect those who cannot protect themselves, just like the police would protect a man being murdered by an armed criminal. When children finally have enough rationale to make informed decisions on their own, they become adults and that particular protection (restriction of freedom) is naturally lifted.