Philosophy Forums
Forums Links Articles Gallery Chat
Style:

Powered by WSN Forum




Register | Forgot Password

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

printPrint


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Why is Pedophillia wrong?
Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 101
Posted 05/10/08 - 08:26 AM:
quote post
#126
Zhuangzi wrote:



I am talking about rape & so are others. I have yet to hear how pedophilic acts aren't rape. However much others want to promote pedophilia as being morally right - without any meat to back up their argument; you cannot escape the facts that people such as Sydney Cooke operate within society. They are pedophiles; they are child rapists & murderers (which comes under the umbrella of the term pedophile). I have noted that every person who has posted in favor of pedophilia has flatly ignored the facts & evidence concerning people such as this.


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.

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
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2006
Location: Inside the MotherShip
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 284
Posted 05/10/08 - 10:28 AM:
quote post
#127
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.


To use some of the reasoning on this thread allready put forward in defense of pedophilia; What does rape matter if it is against someones will? Why is it wrong? Prove it's wrong. What do consequences matter in rape? If you drug them they won't know any different. If society changed it's attitude towards it then who would it be hurting? Women (& men) enjoy it really.

To be frank, I'm not even sure what some people are on about in this thread, & it does seem that allot of people have great difficulty in even understanding what a pedophile is.

We can say that there are "pedophiles" that have a sexual attraction to children; who will never act upon these desires & will contain their urges. Is this hurting anyone? It could be argued they are in turmoil themselves in certain cases.

But the term pedophile is not exclusive to this "type", & the term pedophile does not have such a limited or narrow meaning. Sydney Cooke was a pedophile - in every sense of the word - & his kind is totally relevant to this thread.

I am unsure that "instances of convincing a child to have sex on it's own free-will" has anything to do with free will! Or the genuine wishes of a child. I would say this act constitutes rape. Apart from the sexual gratification of the adult, what do they get from it? I already know what you thoughts are on this. All I have seen on this thread from pro pedophilia - is wishful thinking & a totally untenable & unjustifiable position. However I may as well be talking to a heroin addict in active addiction; because nothing will get through to some people here that the act of having sex with children is wrong. To be honest I am sickened with the whole thread; I will not be posting any more replies.


Edited by Zhuangzi on 05/10/08 - 10:37 AM

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
Caldwell
Curator of whirligigs
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Under the banana tree, with Zuleiha.
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1424
Posted 05/10/08 - 11:53 AM:
quote post
#128
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.

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.

That pedophile, btw, had been caught at the airport, and it was found he had done it in the past.
Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173
Posted 05/10/08 - 12:44 PM:
quote post
#129
Dear stephendonnelly

There are 2 cases which can be viewed (since you obviously agree that rape is wrong in any case).

1) Pedophiles who attempt to lure kids with candy/money etc. but do not go further if refused.

Even though there is technically no "forcing" here, you should probably understand why this is wrong. Kids have poor judgment. There is a reason you don't give a kid a gun, or let him drive a car. There is no use arguing here. Attempting to get them to do something they do not perfectly understand in the first place by using a gift is just as criminal as rape.


2) Pedophiles who simply meet kids online/via regular means and decide to meet for... that

Once again, kids have poor judgment (by the way, you remember the actual age for it to be considered illegal, right?). If an adult is lured by something like that (such as those clearly-grotesque and obviously aimed at ratings TV exposures show), then obviously he is simply attempting to satisfy an impulse by taking advantage of a child. If he (mostly it is "he" and I don't feel like writing "he/she" all the time) decides to do it, it is obviously a vile act committed in the hopes of not getting caught. Even if an adult claims that there is "mutual love", there is no justification. First of all, kids (judgment again) have no clear understanding of love. In that case the best an adult could do is wait until the object of their love is old enough to make a rational decision (not like love=sex, right?). Because otherwise having sex with a kid is just what it is: a crime from any perspective.
HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51
Posted 05/10/08 - 09:07 PM:
quote post
#130
I will not be posting any more replies.


Wonderful. You weren't really talking to anybody here anyway.

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.

That pedophile, btw, had been caught at the airport, and it was found he had done it in the past.


Well, you see, *I* have a problem with your argument. What does manipulation matter? Nobody has explained this to me yet. And let me repeat, "they're innocent, ignorant of the true meaning of love, don't know the consequences" or any dumb argument like that is not a real argument because they make all sorts of assumptions that are never explained. What does it matter if they are "innocent" (what in the world does that even mean anyway, since it's clear nobody means it as "free of crime" or anything like that), who cares if they don't know what love is (when adults don't know, nobody says it's immoral then), what does full recognition of consequences matter (since nobody has commented on my automobile purchasing example).

Explain this to me. Imagine I'm behing your shoulder going "so?" to everything you say, up until we get to your main moral foundation. This is a philosophy forum, everybody should be doing that anyway, or be prepared to do it.



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.








Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173
Posted 05/10/08 - 09:53 PM:
quote post
#131
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.
Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173
Posted 05/10/08 - 10:08 PM:
quote post
#132
HalcyonGlaze wrote:

What inportance is mental strength in informed consent? Why is informed consent needed over regular consent?


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.
HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51
Posted 05/10/08 - 11:39 PM:
quote post
#133
"Adults who have poor judgment can make decisions" Trouble understanding what I say? ADULTS are not CHILDREN.


So? What about children makes them so different that they do not have the same standards? Like I said, I know your position. I KNOW what you're saying. I want to know why. I know you think children are somehow special. What is your reasoning though?

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.


Yeah, I'm pretty sure you don't agree with "whatever the majority says is right". I've only met one person who made an argument like this and ended up agreeing to its conclusions. For instance, would you agree that because the majority of the third Reich felt it nessesary to destroy the Jews, that they were correct? Unless you're that one guy (who only did it because he didn't want to be so obviously inconsistent), you're going to say no. And when you do, I have to ask "why then, are you making this argument"?

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?


Children own themselves. So yes. If they wanted suicide so much that they emancipated themselves from their parents to do it (which shouldn't be hard given the nature of what they want) then yes, they should be allowed. What right do you have to stop them? It's not you, it's them. It's their body, their life, and their property to destroy if they so choose. To say otherwise is laying claim to their life. Unless you got a good reason for the position that seems to say that children don't have rights. In which case, I'd love ot hear it.

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.


Uh, so? That doesn't affect my right to do whatever Just thing I wish to do.

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.


Everybody huh? That's interesting, consider I am somebody, am a part of society, and see no logical reason why children should be "protected" when that protection is Unjust. Obviously not "Everybody". Even if you mean the majority, then we're simply back to the stupid argument of "whatever everybody says must be right". Which you obviously don't hold.

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.


Really? Prove that last bit. I want to see all the medically diagnosed paedophiles who have been caught, and who cowered, stammered, and cried because they knew full well what they were doing. I'm sure you have tons of evidence or else you wouldn't have made the claim.

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.


1 - I'm not quite sure about the nature of parents, so I can't much comment on what my parents should or should not have done during my childhood. On the other hand, I am quite sure about my self ownership, and know that if I wanted sex with an adult so much, it'd be within my rights to simply leave my parents and do what I wanted.

2 - Nobody is speaking of nonconsensual sex. Please drop it. You're not going to get anywhere by talking about such rape.

Because that is what we call ethical standards.


Okay. Explain the basis for those standards, and why they apply to the idea of people being unable to consent due to mental strength and informed consent, and why this only applies to children. If you are going to reply with "society says..." then tell me, was it okay when "society said" something different in regards to child-adult sex? The age of consent was after all, Ten, in Britain up until moderately recently. During the time it was ten, was it okay to screw a 10 year old?

You are the one lacking objectivity.


Oh? I'd love to hear this.

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.


Okay....what is your IQ? 5? You do realize you just completely tripped over your own argument right? I mean really, what's wrong with you?

You just said "this is one of the few cases where the world is right" implying that the world is not always right, and is in fact, wrong quite often. "The world" is basically the same thing as "society" in this context. Thus, you just ruined all your arguments based on what society says, by right now stated that what society says is not always right, and is in fact, wrong often. Obviously you believe in some other thing besides society to base your moral judgment on (if you didn't society would never be wrong). Except for the little tiny snag in which You are failing to present this basis, and going to "soceity" for your arguments. Which is probably one of the worst arguments ever. Sorry if I take you for an idiot, but really, I'm waiting for something new or impressive or logical, and instead I get you...who just contradicted yourself in a big way.

See? I did love it.




Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173
Posted 05/11/08 - 01:59 AM:
quote post
#134
I don't think continuing this argument with a retard is getting anywhere.

The fact that I repeated myself several times is not helping. I didn't trip anything. That was basically an aside. Just because I said that I disagree with society in many ways, does not mean I am contradicting myself when agreeing with it. That particular principle is actually brought about by cohesive, logical principles and therefore I agree with it: just as I do with the do not kill principle, etc.

"Please drop it. You're not going to get anywhere by talking about such rap" Never once said a word about it. Learn to read, f***tard.

"that protection is Unjust" well I am so sorry not letting you f*** children is indeed very unjust. NOT. Like I told you already, that "unjust" protection is the reason you are alive. Why should anyone give you food and a home for free? That protection is perfectly just, because it is part of an orderly world: the same reason we have laws, etc. If you are saying protection for those who cannot protect themselves is absurd just say so outright so everyone can understanding where your pathetic ranting is coming from.

Anyway, I agree with the poster who did not want to respond anymore. I am not wasting my time arguing with brain-dead fetishists. You should continue your chat with the FBI.
Over and out.
klorius
Student
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 12, 2004
Location: Singapore
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 95
Posted 05/11/08 - 02:01 AM:
quote post
#135
Odd how people are not really bothering to address the specific question raised.

At any rate, for HalyconGlaze: are you asking why consent matters, or why it matters that consent is informed?

To be surprised, to wonder, is to begin to understand.
- Jose Ortega y Gasset

Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom. Mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power.
- Lao Zi
HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51
Posted 05/11/08 - 10:23 AM:
quote post
#136
Odd how people are not really bothering to address the specific question raised.


Which question? I don't see anybody answering my questions, but that's not too odd given hardly anybody ever tries to. They just run around in circles.

At any rate, for HalyconGlaze: are you asking why consent matters, or why it matters that consent is informed?


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.



The fact that I repeated myself several times is not helping. I didn't trip anything. That was basically an aside. Just because I said that I disagree with society in many ways, does not mean I am contradicting myself when agreeing with it.


Uh, it does when your entire argument hinges on how "society says so".

That particular principle is actually brought about by cohesive, logical principles and therefore I agree with it: just as I do with the do not kill principle, etc.




If they're so cohesive and logical, why I haven't I heard them yet? I've heard from you so far, that we need to "protect" children because children are "innocent" and don't have a firm grasp of things, and don't know what love is, and that's important because children are somehow different from adults lacking the same things, because society says so. I'm sorry, that has so many holes in it as to be meaningless. So either you're not telling me everything, or this is completely different from being "cohesive and logical".

Never once said a word about it. Learn to read, f***tard.


So you didn't say: You really should be thankful they didn't screw you in the a2s instead...

Sorry, if you didn't mean that literally, but given the context it was a fair assumption.

Why should anyone give you food and a home for free?


Do you mean parents or people in general?

Parents - I don't know

People in general - They don't have to.

That protection is perfectly just, because it is part of an orderly world: the same reason we have laws, etc. If you are saying protection for those who cannot protect themselves is absurd just say so outright so everyone can understanding where your pathetic ranting is coming from.


I'm sorry, your logic once again is nonsensical. What the hell does "It's part of an orderly world" mean anyway? What is an "orderly world" and why is whatever you're talking about part of it? I mean sheesh. This is a Philosophy forum, shouldn't it be standard to explain every little detail you can?
Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 101
Posted 05/11/08 - 05:03 PM:
quote post
#137
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.


You can manipulate adults into having sex with you too, you act as though this only applies to children. It's not illegal to manipulate an adult into having sex with you, so why double standard based on age?


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.


Adults have gotten STDs from adults too.


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?
Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 101
Posted 05/11/08 - 05:10 PM:
quote post
#138
Lex wrote:

Because that is what we call ethical standards.


So you are right because you simply declare that your opinion is the base of ethical standards?

Etheical standard is pretty much an oxy moron. Ethics are relative.

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?
crossword
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2006
Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 63
Posted 05/11/08 - 05:35 PM:
quote post
#139
I’m curious about something. I’ve read pedophiles often justify their acts to themselves and rationalize by saying the kids deserved it because the kids came on to them and were asking for it.

How does any old man really manage to rationalize to himself that a young person could possibly be attracted to him?

That is simply not the way the world works. Sure, sometimes you do get people with large age differences being attracted to each other.

Most of the time though, people are attacted to youth or the appearance of youth. It’s natural for us to be attracted to youthful, good-looking faces and firm bodies and clear skin.

Why would any child or even anyone in their teens be attracted to some ugly old man? How come the ugly old men can’t see how ridiculous it is to believe that any child could really be attracted to them?

I guess the ugly old men do know this, which is why they have to rape the child or seduce the child with chocolates etc. Of course at some level they must know the child could never be truly attracted to them.

Consider the recent polygamy scandal in the US. I heard one mother rationalize when interviewed by Lisa Ling that the reason underage girls marrying older men didn’t bother them is they knew the girls were well taken care of. But no one addressed the issue of whether the mothers could seriously believe that any young girl - let alone hundreds of them - would be attracted to some guy in his fifties. I didn’t hear that question being asked [but then I only caught that one snippet of the interview].
HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51
Posted 05/11/08 - 06:08 PM:
quote post
#140
I’m curious about something. I’ve read pedophiles often justify their acts to themselves and rationalize by saying the kids deserved it because the kids came on to them and were asking for it.

How does any old man really manage to rationalize to himself that a young person could possibly be attracted to him?

That is simply not the way the world works. Sure, sometimes you do get people with large age differences being attracted to each other.

Most of the time though, people are attacted to youth or the appearance of youth. It’s natural for us to be attracted to youthful, good-looking faces and firm bodies and clear skin.

Why would any child or even anyone in their teens be attracted to some ugly old man? How come the ugly old men can’t see how ridiculous it is to believe that any child could really be attracted to them?

I guess the ugly old men do know this, which is why they have to rape the child or seduce the child with chocolates etc. Of course at some level they must know the child could never be truly attracted to them.

Consider the recent polygamy scandal in the US. I heard one mother rationalize when interviewed by Lisa Ling that the reason underage girls marrying older men didn’t bother them is they knew the girls were well taken care of. But no one addressed the issue of whether the mothers could seriously believe that any young girl - let alone hundreds of them - would be attracted to some guy in his fifties. I didn’t hear that question being asked [but then I only caught that one snippet of the interview].




Ooookay. I think you really need to go do a little research, think about this some more, and then come back.

1 - Teliophiles exist.

2 - There's more to attraction than physical looks.

3 - Not all paedophiles are old men. There are even some who are young women. Heck, most paedophiles are probably not old men.

4 - Paedophile does not = child molester. Not all child molesters are paedophiles. In fact, I'd say very few are.

5 - That recent polygamy thing, assuming you're refering to the one in Texas, was caused by false accusations and data. Not a good example.

6 - Since when is marriage based only on looks?

7 - Since when are you not allowed to consent to a marriage because the groom is ugly and older than you?

8 - Keep in mind "lured in by candy" like...never happens. People probably get killed by pineapples more often.


crossword
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2006
Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 63
Posted 05/11/08 - 07:36 PM:
quote post
#141
HalcyonGlaze, Are you claiming that in every case where a child or teen has slept with a man in his 50’s, that child or teen was attracted to that man?
HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51
Posted 05/11/08 - 08:32 PM:
quote post
#142
Not at all. I'm simply fustrated (and I'm sorry about that, I'm not very Halcyon-ish) at this assumption that ALL paedophiles are greasy dirty ugly old men. That just doesn't make any sense. It's obviouse that not every child or teen who has slept with a man in his 50's did not find that man repulsive.

If that is true, most of your post doesn't make sense. Obviously it's possible, for some of those paedophiles who are indeed ugly old men.
Individual
Existentialist Buddhist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 41
Posted 05/12/08 - 12:34 AM:
quote post
#143
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

There seems to be a large amount of evidence suggesting that pedophilia does have a biological cause. The idea of "morality" is a social construction. We can't pick it apart beyond appealing to a rough sense of intuition, with non-violence (ahimsa), that is, respect for life as a foundation. With this in mind, pedophilia is unethical because it causes harm to children for the sake of selfish pleasure. We should not condemn pedophiles or torture them, but we should reform them if possible and, if not possible, keep children safe.
litkey
Kant's retarded son
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 51
Total Posts: 831
Posted 05/12/08 - 06:11 AM:
Subject: an illness?
quote post
#144
I think its to do with how a person feels. For example, when I look at a little girl, say she's 12- she just doesn't look sexually attractive, I would prefer a girl that had a figure, something that I personally prefer.

So, that opens the question- would I fuck a girl of 12- if she had a lovely figure? No. Why not? Because I know she is immature, she would probably want to play marbles or play with dolls: this would not be attractive to an adult - generally speaking.

If a person feels X then we have to admit the feeling of this person - it's real.

So, age is one thing, and a person's sexuality is another. Some girls, even young at 15, have the build of a woman, and are ready for sex, and indeed many have sex - although mostly with people their own age. But with other girls at 15- one can see that they are young, immature, and not sexually attractive.

So, why would a person ( a man) be attracted to a small child? It has to be an illness, a mental illness; but how do you deal rationally with this? We tend to deal with this emotively. "string the fucker up and kill him!" If we can prove this is a mental illness what does one do? I think castration might be the way forward- an illness is an illness, but this can cause serious harm to people, to young people.

Going to trial with a lawyer who considers your whole life-style a Crime in Progress is not a happy prospect.
-Hunter S T

The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware.
-Henry Miller
Simple Occam
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 509
Posted 05/12/08 - 11:27 AM:
quote post
#145
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?


Apparently that thought has not occured to you because you seem quite sure thatI am wrong and you are not. Yes, there *must* be some reason, other than individual or cultural bias, that makes this and other kinds of behavior wrong. Interesting that you ignored what I wrote in support of that conclusion, choosing instead to portray my remarks as "assuming something and then trying to prove yourself right". All I'm doing is asking what makes it wrong. Is it wrong because we hate it or do we hate it becasue it's wrong. Whether you or I think it's wrong or not, is not the issue. Whether on thinks it's good, bad or indifferent, I'll have a similar question to ask: what makes it so? I thought I might be fairly safe ground to assume that pedophelia is wrong, such that if anything is wrong it is. But if you want to quibble about that it's OK. I'm guessing that if you or your little brother or sister was the victim of such an act, you might FEEL differently. But the question of what makes it wrong still remains. I was hoping for some discussion of that but you decided to seize on one word I wrote... "must"... and pretty much ignore everything else I said in support of the statement. And, apparently, you felt so sure about your position that it was OK to be sarcastic with me. And I suppose that decision on your part has no absolute moral implications?

Since this is a philosophy forum, I thought it would be interesting to discuss the topic as such, rather than just promoting one's own viewpoint about pedophelia. One of the recurring problems in our contemporary global village is to understand morality in a way that transcends cultural bias, without simply endorsing one or another faith-based morality to the exclusion of all others. Secular morality or "political correctness" pretend to to be unbiased in this way but the things we think are bad now were much more easily accepted in past generations and the reverse is also true. Slavery, child labor, arrangeds marriage, racial and gender-based inequities of job opportunity, education and access to public resources are all assumed to be wrong by "modern" moral standards but were well accepted in the past. Now we tend to look back at history and condem our predecessors for their practices. But what makes slavery wrong? Or denying voting rights to any but white men? Is diversity good and segregation bad? Personally, I share most of the modern values; but as a philosopher, I seek something beyond opinion or bias on which to based my beliefs. The problem is that we are a world of relativists and skeptics who, occasionally, get morally outraged about certain things but without any principled notion of morality that might explain rationally WHY we are so mad about this or that thing.

Edited by Simple Occam on 05/12/08 - 12:01 PM
HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51
Posted 05/12/08 - 02:37 PM:
quote post
#146
There seems to be a large amount of evidence suggesting that pedophilia does have a biological cause. The idea of "morality" is a social construction. We can't pick it apart beyond appealing to a rough sense of intuition, with non-violence (ahimsa), that is, respect for life as a foundation. With this in mind, pedophilia is unethical because it causes harm to children for the sake of selfish pleasure. We should not condemn pedophiles or torture them, but we should reform them if possible and, if not possible, keep children safe.


Speaking of illogical.... Come on. You say that "morality" is a social construct, the somehow say that non-violence, that is, respect for life, is a foundation for it. If that is your foundation, then it's probable that you don't believe morality to be a social construct. If it was a social construct, what makes that foundation better than my foundation, which has nothing to do with non-violence or respect for life.

Second, prove that Paedophilia causes harm to children for the sake of selfish pleasure. Not that it *could* but that it *does*.

I think its to do with how a person feels. For example, when I look at a little girl, say she's 12- she just doesn't look sexually attractive, I would prefer a girl that had a figure, something that I personally prefer.

So, that opens the question- would I fuck a girl of 12- if she had a lovely figure? No. Why not? Because I know she is immature, she would probably want to play marbles or play with dolls: this would not be attractive to an adult - generally speaking.


So what if she wasn't immature? What if she had a lovely figure and had no interest in marbles or dolls, but perhaps philosophy and biology, and had a keen mind, and a good sense of humor.


So, why would a person ( a man) be attracted to a small child? It has to be an illness, a mental illness; but how do you deal rationally with this?


How do you rattionally come to that conclusion? That's like saying how you wouldn't have sex with a man because you like girlish figures, and if a man had a girlish figure you wouldn't screw him because he has a penis and not a vagina. Then you ask why a man would be attracted to another man, and say it HAS TO BE an illness, a mental illness.

Riiiight. Heaven forbid it's just a preference.

We tend to deal with this emotively. "string the fucker up and kill him!" If we can prove this is a mental illness what does one do? I think castration might be the way forward- an illness is an illness, but this can cause serious harm to people, to young people.


Automobiles can cause serious harm to children. Should we not use cars anymore?

Apparently that thought has not occured to you because you seem quite sure thatI am wrong and you are not. Yes, there *must* be some reason, other than individual or cultural bias, that makes this and other kinds of behavior wrong. Interesting that you ignored what I wrote in support of that conclusion, choosing instead to portray my remarks as "assuming something and then trying to prove yourself right". All I'm doing is asking what makes it wrong. Is it wrong because we hate it or do we hate it becasue it's wrong. Whether you or I think it's wrong or not, is not the issue. Whether on thinks it's good, bad or indifferent, I'll have a similar question to ask: what makes it so? I thought I might be fairly safe ground to assume that pedophelia is wrong, such that if anything is wrong it is. But if you want to quibble about that it's OK. I'm guessing that if you or your little brother or sister was the victim of such an act, you might FEEL differently.


I was listening up until that last sentence. How about you go, and learn what paedophilia is, and realise it's not the same thing as rape? Is that too hard for you? Is it too difficult? Is a blurb in a medical dictionary too difficult to read? Even though it's been posted here already? You're not going to get diagnosed with paedophilia just because you're a child molester. You're not that likely to, considering it seems not very many child molesters are paedophiles.

If my hypothetical littler brother or sister was in a relationship with a high age disparity, you know what I'd do? Treat it like any other relationship. Because that's what it is. And if my little brother or sister was raped by an older person, know what I'd do? Treat it like any other rape that might befall them. There's a difference between a consensual relationship and rape. Nobody is defending rape.

And finally, you didn't have any evidence. I didn't ignore anything. It just wasn't there. Your very first sentence was "Is paedophilia wrong because we hate it, or do we hate it because it's wrong?" automatically excluding the possibility that it is not wrong. Especially when you went on to say in the second sentence that there was "no doubt" that it was a detestable thing.



But the question of what makes it wrong still remains. I was hoping for some discussion of that but you decided to seize on one word I wrote... "must"... and pretty much ignore everything else I said in support of the statement. And, apparently, you felt so sure about your position that it was OK to be sarcastic with me. And I suppose that decision on your part has no absolute moral implications?


There's no discussion on something if the base is not agreed upon. Why would I bother discussing "what makes paedophilia wrong" if I see no reason why it should be wrong? Obviously I would have none, and would not even be able to discuss that with you. All I would say is "I don't know" at best, and "It's not wrong" at "worst".


Since this is a philosophy forum, I thought it would be interesting to discuss the topic as such, rather than just promoting one's own viewpoint about pedophelia.


Since when does philosophy exclude promoting one's own viewpoint?

One of the recurring problems in our contemporary global village is to understand morality in a way that transcends cultural bias, without simply endorsing one or another faith-based morality to the exclusion of all others.[quote]

Funny that you should be talking about this when you pretty much have given no reason to think paedophilia *must* be wrong.

[quote]Secular morality or "political correctness" pretend to to be unbiased in this way but the things we think are bad now were much more easily accepted in past generations and the reverse is also true. Slavery, child labor, arrangeds marriage, racial and gender-based inequities of job opportunity, education and access to public resources are all assumed to be wrong by "modern" moral standards but were well accepted in the past. Now we tend to look back at history and condem our predecessors for their practices. But what makes slavery wrong? Or denying voting rights to any but white men? Is diversity good and segregation bad? Personally, I share most of the modern values; but as a philosopher, I seek something beyond opinion or bias on which to based my beliefs. The problem is that we are a world of relativists and skeptics who, occasionally, get morally outraged about certain things but without any principled notion of morality that might explain rationally WHY we are so mad about this or that thing.


I agree. Thus, I'll say it again. You didn't give reasonings for why "Paedophilia" (not child rape) is wrong. You just assumed it was. I'd love to hear your reasoning.






klorius
Student
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 12, 2004
Location: Singapore
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 95
Posted 05/12/08 - 02:59 PM:
quote post
#147
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.


The question here seems to be what constitutes consent for you. You do, of course, know about the 'standard' position (that consent must be informed to be significant), and there we do have some parallel with legality, in that ignorance can play a part in voiding a contract.

As far as I can understand it, your objection to the standard interpretation seems to be that people do things without full knowledge of the consequences, and we still say that they consent to such. From that, though, it may not be the case that it applies to other actions that are reliant on ignorance (in the sense that the action would most probably not be performed with proper knowledge). For one, it could simply be the case that we take the other disjunct: that we are wrong in understanding those acts reliant on ignorance as involving legitimate consent.

There is also the issue of what the basis of the ignorance is. A child is, generally, considered constitutively ignorant, in that the capacity for understanding and/or knowledge is simply physically limited. Notwithstanding medical conditions, adults do not, so to speak, have such an excuse; we are inclined to say that ignorance on the part of the adult is largely his/her own responsibility (and where such is clearly not the case, then the consent is considered illegitimate).

To be surprised, to wonder, is to begin to understand.
- Jose Ortega y Gasset

Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom. Mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power.
- Lao Zi
Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173
Posted 05/12/08 - 03:05 PM:
quote post
#148
The difference in opinions is obvious:

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.

Your arguments have failed to show in any way that this is wrong, unless you believe in a completely Darwinist world where the strongest takes it all. That would be a fundamental chasm in reasoning. However, you will have to remember that if you do think that such a world is ideal, anybody who is stronger than you can easily come and slit your throat for no reason. That is why we choose to form a "social contract" rather than live in a "Jungle" type world.
HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51
Posted 05/12/08 - 03:36 PM:
quote post
#149
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.


Okay. To the counter-argument: Why should Children be protected, if it's true that their decisions do not represent the same free will manifested by an informed adult? And how is it true that their decisions do not represent FREE WILL of all things in the same manner as an adult? What is an informed adult? Are there uninformed adults? Should uninformed adults be protected? Why? Is it impossible to have an informed child? Do informed children still need Protection. Why?


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.


You can with me. Trust me, if I see you as logical, even if I saw you as previously dumb, I'd immediately change how I respond. Even in the same post


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.


I thought we were only going to argue that first thing for simplicity?

But if you insist.

It's obvious that children lack judgment huh? Sounds like an assumption to me. I've met children who do not lack judgment. If one exists, then your statement is false as it is all inclusive.

Second, the fact that they might stick their finger in a socket doesn't mean much. An adult might do the same thing. Heck, I've seen a flash of a guy sticking his tin-foil wrapped penis in a socket. He was an adult. Didn't stop him. He has free will. Why should a child be different? If you told the child, he obviously knows on some level what might happen. If he chose to ignore the advice, that is his decision. As a parent, I would think that you do have the ability to control what your child does in-so-much as the child wishes to be under your control. So if the child wished so much to stick his finger in a socket that he literally gave up your assistance and went on his own, you don't have the right to stop him. He is a sentient thing, he has rights, that's the end of it.

Third, since when is society right no matter what it says? If society said we should all contract aids, should we? If society says it's okay to have sex with 10 year olds, as many many societies have before us, is it okay then? If society says we should kill all the Poles, is that okay? If society says that the police can run into your house and rape your daughter because you were anti-patriotic, and patriotism is the most important thing, is that okay? If you say no to a single one of those, why the heck should I care that society says we should "defend those who can't defend themselves?"

Fourth, in what way can a child not defend himself? You mean mentally? What about adults who can't? Do they lose their rights too? Do you mean physically? I'm pretty weak, I can't lift 15 pounds in one arm easily at all. I could be overpowered by a frail stick-figure girl. Do I thus lose my ability to make decisions? What if I was just kind of slow? Do I lose them then? What sort of lack of defence justifies this loss of ability to give consent? Do tell.

Fifth, How do you tell a child has enough rationale? What if a child had enough at age 5? Can he fuck then? Where is this objective tape measure to tell if somebody is smart enough to have all their freedoms?

Do answer all these questions. I'd love to know. Since after all, all you did was repeat your position...again.








HalcyonGlaze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51
Posted 05/12/08 - 03:45 PM:
quote post
#150
The question here seems to be what constitutes consent for you. You do, of course, know about the 'standard' position (that consent must be informed to be significant), and there we do have some parallel with legality, in that ignorance can play a part in voiding a contract.


Indeed, I am aware of that position.


As far as I can understand it, your objection to the standard interpretation seems to be that people do things without full knowledge of the consequences, and we still say that they consent to such. From that, though, it may not be the case that it applies to other actions that are reliant on ignorance (in the sense that the action would most probably not be performed with proper knowledge). For one, it could simply be the case that we take the other disjunct: that we are wrong in understanding those acts reliant on ignorance as involving legitimate consent.


I accept, it's a possibility. I simply have never come across anybody who took that route.


There is also the issue of what the basis of the ignorance is. A child is, generally, considered constitutively ignorant, in that the capacity for understanding and/or knowledge is simply physically limited. Notwithstanding medical conditions, adults do not, so to speak, have such an excuse; we are inclined to say that ignorance on the part of the adult is largely his/her own responsibility (and where such is clearly not the case, then the consent is considered illegitimate).


Okay. Seems okay. But the fact remains, there do exist bright children, and physically impiared adults. So there is that.

But if you were to take the second route that was previously stated in your second paragraph, then I'm sure that wouldn't really matter that exceptions exist since you'd be consistent anyway. At that point, I'd go down further and question the basic assumption that those who are ignorant can not consent. I would simply ask why that is, instead of demonstrating inconsistencies with the logic. I would ask why we must take measures to reduce ignorant consent at all. I would have to put forth the idea that it is only consent that matters, and not informed consent, as consent shows willingness, and willingness is the important part. That information and appreciation of the possible consequences are unimportant, as concequences themselves are unimportant in relation to morals.




Download thread as

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9



You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.

41 total queries
This page was created in 9.65 seconds
Memory used: 8731612 bytes
Server Status: time since last reboot is 143 days, 5:13, load average: 0.81, 0.70, 0.94