Discussion: Is pedophilia pseudoscience?

[Bells]

You're not getting it. Or you are deliberately twisting it to suit your own ideals and ideology.

The human form is beautiful. A 12 year old girl's no less so. What is perverse is an adult looking at this 12 year old form and thinking to themselves 'I got to get me some of that' and proceeding to get turned on at the 12 year old girl and doing what they can to have sex with said 12 year old girl.. that is perverse.

 

[ancientregime]

You're not getting it. Or you are deliberately twisting it to suit your own ideals and ideology.

The human form is beautiful. A 12 year old girl's no less so. What is perverse is an adult looking at this 12 year old form and thinking to themselves 'I got to get me some of that' and proceeding to get turned on at the 12 year old girl and doing what they can to have sex with said 12 year old girl.. that is perverse.

If she was masturbating, do you think it would be perverse for the scientifically proven natural mechanism of empathy to kick in and become aroused?

Bells, your morals are not natural laws.

 

[Randwolf]

Bells, your morals are not natural laws.

How did these morals arise, if not through natural processes?

 

[ancientregime]

You're not getting it. Or you are deliberately twisting it to suit your own ideals and ideology.

As far as twisting, I've noticed you employ this quite often. Instead of directly dealing with a post, you dodge it and whip up a rhetorical version that is much easier for you to argue. You pose questions that skew the ideas you are addressing. Some of your twisting of the direct line of thought is not so bad, because it offers the benefit of a wider context. Although, I find it cowardly to only respond in a twisting way without confronting head on the argument that you are responding to. Ditch and run if you must, it is a technique.

 

[phlogistician]

The difference here is you confuse the two, and I distinguish them. You make the claim that I am a pedophile, but you have no evidence supporting that claim.

Yes I do, the evidence that people soundly against paedophilia do not attempt to justify it. It's a slippery slope you are on, and you aren't convincing anyone that this is merely of academic interest.

Here's an idea, would you happily espouse these view of yours to friends who have children? To the Police?

 

[ancientregime]

How did these morals arise, if not through natural processes?

Emotion planting. See argument 3 in the debate. The subject here is where or the stimuli of a naked female 12 year old should cause the viewer to feel nastiness or a sense of beauty. Obviously, felling nastiness is caused by moral emotional tampering. Naturally, one would just flow with aesthetic feelings, and appreciate the beauty of a fellow human being. It is a mental disorder for one to look away from these light waves in a shameful spirit. There is nothing shameful about our beauty.

 

[Bells]

As far as twisting, I've noticed you employ this quite often. Instead of directly dealing with a post, you dodge it and whip up a rhetorical version that is much easier for you to argue. You pose questions that skew the ideas you are addressing. Some of your twisting of the direct line of thought is not so bad, because it offers the benefit of a wider context. Although, I find it cowardly to only respond in a twisting way without confronting head on the argument that you are responding to. Ditch and run if you must, it is a technique.

Read your response to him and you might just get it. I say might because it is clear you only see what you want to see..

 

[Stryder]

Normal from your culturally narrow point of view that her body emanates something shameful, nasty. It is normal in a universalist sense to look upon the flesh and enjoy it's beauty. It's a fellow human being, and there is nothing nasty about it's expression or appreciation of that expression. Stryder has been cultured to feel 12 year old nudity is perverse, and must stop this wonderful natural expression by covering the naked filthiness.

Hardly narrow, this is a viewpoint held by the majority and protected by the minority that serves law.

I guess your statement of "Universalist" pretty much identifies your stance, So I ask these questions to you since it tends to go well with the stereotype:

• Which cult do you belong to?
• Would it be the same religious group that a member to this forum once queried how they could get their Brother away from?
• Did you sell your house and posession's to give to your "Community" (I hope you paid your taxes)?
• Does your group marry under the state age because of your religion, or swap child wives?
• Are you plotting a mass suicide should the authorities "interlope" on your grand scheme of things?

Obviously I'll expect very little in regards to answers from yourself or those people that post here with you from the same group. In fact I will expect side stepping around the questions asked and no valid answers to be said. I guess it's really down to what you perceive right and wrong, after all if you are participating in any of those things and you know that people out there disagree with it, you'll likely keep tight lipped to protect yourself and those around you for fear of prosecution or just opinion.

Here we have clear case of emotional tampering--the sight of a beautiful 12 year old female human nauseates him. His quality of esteem for humans is nauseating. Hmmm...

I'd suggest you concentrate on either answering or avoiding the questions I've posted rather than concerning yourself with my moral ground.

 

[theobserver]

I am not talking about incest either.

Is it normal and natural for a grown man or woman, say at the beach, to become aroused at the sight of a small naked child (who he/she doesn't know) frolicking in the water?

What is normality here? with respect to human society or with respect to nature? Most species can be found humping young ones. Humans at some point in history have done it as well. So its the social factors which keep changing with time that decides what's normal what's not. Its all normal for nature.

This is hardly a decent experiment, any normal man would likely take off their own top and cloth the child, rather than harbour the discussion notions that you would otherwise support.

What do you mean by decent in this context? How can anyone determine if a scientific experiment can be decent or not? Does decency has something to do with nature and it laws? or just a human perception? And in the experiment, the adult is also naked and there is no way he can find any clothes in that room. Question is: Does adults gets turned on by the presence of a naked prepubescent child. If statistics can establish that they get aroused, then its nature. Just like homosexuality. Violence is a whole different section and should not be mixed with this.

Don't you think that your opinion that its an indecent experiment happened because of the social conditioning you were subjected to ever since your childhood?

Its up to each one of you to believe whatever you wish to believe based on the ideas of ethics and morality. But none of those belief's, ethics nor morality can change the way nature is.

 

[ancientregime]

Yes I do, the evidence that people soundly against paedophilia do not attempt to justify it. It's a slippery slope you are on, and you aren't convincing anyone that this is merely of academic interest.

Here's an idea, would you happily espouse these view of yours to friends who have children? To the Police?

You are the one that is using the slippery slope argument. You argue that all you need for evidence to prove that someone is a pedophile is: the fact they argue pedophilia is pseudo-science. Once they argue this, they fall way way down the Slippery Slope (SS) into the category pedophile. Not only are you the one arguing SS, but your so-called evidence hasn't even met the pseudo-scientific criteria for pedophilia.

My argument is not for pedophilia. I don't support pedophilia. It's pseudo-science. It's not a empirically based idea. Reread the topic's name.

 

[Randwolf]

Emotion planting.

Why do humans engage in "emotion planting"? Is this not a "natural" process?

There is nothing shameful about our beauty.

I absolutely agree with you here. I even agree that it is possible for your "average" person to become aroused by post-pubescent youngsters in certain situations.

What I will not concede is that this is an advisable or desirable course of action on the part of the adult involved. If there is contention here, why not err on the side of prudence, and refrain from fucking the child?

 

[ancientregime]

As far as twisting, I've noticed you employ this quite often. Instead of directly dealing with a post, you dodge it and whip up a rhetorical version that is much easier for you to argue. You pose questions that skew the ideas you are addressing. Some of your twisting of the direct line of thought is not so bad, because it offers the benefit of a wider context. Although, I find it cowardly to only respond in a twisting way without confronting head on the argument that you are responding to. Ditch and run if you must, it is a technique.

Read your response to him and you might just get it. I say might because it is clear you only see what you want to see..

You have have proven my point with your response. You didn't directly address my response and you are redirecting me to a response somewhere else. I will directly respond to you post: what are referring to? What response?

 

[phlogistician]

My argument is not for pedophilia. I don't support pedophilia. It's pseudo-science. It's not a empirically based idea. Reread the topic's name.

You seem to be confused over what the term 'paedophilia' is. It is not actively abusing children, but being attracted to them. When you say;

The subject here is where or the stimuli of a naked female 12 year old should cause the viewer to feel nastiness or a sense of beauty. Obviously, felling nastiness is caused by moral emotional tampering. Naturally, one would just flow with aesthetic feelings, and appreciate the beauty of a fellow human being. It is a mental disorder for one to look away from these light waves in a shameful spirit. There is nothing shameful about our beauty.

That says you find naked 12 year females 'stimulating'. Maybe you aren't actively abusing kids, but you are displaying sympathies for, and tendencies towards paedophilia.

The other baggage you have added onto the term is a straw man, but you are still wrong.

 

[phlogistician]

You didn't directly address my response and you are redirecting me to a response somewhere else.

You didn't answer my question if you would espouse these views to a friend who had children, or to the Police, either.

 

[ancientregime]

Hardly narrow, this is a viewpoint held by the majority and protected by the minority that serves law.

I guess your statement of "Universalist" pretty much identifies your stance, So I ask these questions to you since it tends to go well with the stereotype:

• Which cult do you belong to?
• Would it be the same religious group that a member to this forum once queried how they could get their Brother away from?
• Did you sell your house and posession's to give to your "Community" (I hope you paid your taxes)?
• Does your group marry under the state age because of your religion, or swap child wives?
• Are you plotting a mass suicide should the authorities "interlope" on your grand scheme of things?

Obviously I'll expect very little in regards to answers from yourself or those people that post here with you from the same group. In fact I will expect side stepping around the questions asked and no valid answers to be said. I guess it's really down to what you perceive right and wrong, after all if you are participating in any of those things and you know that people out there disagree with it, you'll likely keep tight lipped to protect yourself and those around you for fear of prosecution or just opinion.



I'd suggest you concentrate on either answering or avoiding the questions I've posted rather than concerning yourself with my moral ground.

You have done the can of worms response. Instead of directly taking on the issue, you dodged it, then opened up a can of worms as a distraction. Never mind the man behind the curtain, eh?

Okay, so instead of avoiding the issue with all these statements, why are you running from the comments about feeling nausea about the naked 12 year old. I think this needs to be addressed. Why do you feel everyone should share your nauseating feeling toward a naked 12 year old. How is it logical for us to tame our so-called evil natural emotion of appreciation and indoctrinate us instead with civilized emotion of nausea?

 

[ancientregime]

Why do humans engage in "emotion planting"? Is this not a "natural" process?




I absolutely agree with you here. I even agree that it is possible for your "average" person to become aroused by post-pubescent youngsters in certain situations.

What I will not concede is that this is an advisable or desirable course of action on the part of the adult involved. If there is contention here, why not err on the side of prudence, and refrain from fucking the child?

I am not promoting a course of action to fuck a child. Thanks for emotionalizing the point. Remember, when you do that, it's appears as an act of desperation, because your reasoning itself may not be strong enough.

Anyway, the argument I'm sure you are referring to is the one where I claim sex can occur between an adult and a child where manipulation, threats and violence don't exist and therefore doesn't cause any harm. It is a argument, not a advisory or promotion of a course of action.

 

[Bells]

Again.. you're still not getting it.

It is not the naked 12 year old that is causing the revulsion. It is your, well, apparent lustful admiration that is stomach turning. Say you are locked in a room with a naked 12 year old. You'd sit there and bask in the glory of her nakedness? Or would you do the right thing and ask her if she wanted your shirt because she might feel uncomfortable with you drooling all over her or she might get cold?

That is what you are not getting. It is not the naked 12 year old girl.. what is perverse is the adult males (ie. those like you) who look at that 12 year old child and start salivating at the prospects.. It is people like you, who deem it natural for adults to salivate at the very notion of sex with a 12 year old or even a 5 year old, deeming it as being a pseudo-science because in your mind, no harm could ever come to a child having sex with an adult. That is what is nauseating.

Get it now?

 

[Stryder]

You have done the can of worms response. Instead of directly taking on the issue, you dodged it, then opened up a can of worms as a distraction. Never mind the man behind the curtain, eh?

Okay, so instead of avoiding the issue with all these statements, why are you running from the comments about feeling nausea about the naked 12 year old. I think this needs to be addressed. Why do you feel everyone should share your nauseating feeling toward a naked 12 year old. How is it logical for us to tame our so-called evil natural emotion of appreciation and indoctrinate us instead with civilized emotion of nausea?

No, no. This is your shining moment. So you are the one that should address the preset questions, after all I have nothing to address, nothing to substantiate, nothing to fear if I did a crime and was placed into General Populous.

Perhaps I should simplify it for you, since I already know that you've rounded up your wagon's into a circle from the impending danger you presume.

So simply:
Do you or do you not belong to a minority religious group?

 

[RobDegraves]

Well... I have been reading this with somewhat of a scholarly interest... but not for the reasons that you might think.

It's fascinating how sometimes the group you agree with has the worst arguments.

For example...

Phlogistician, Stryder, Bells.. etc.

Your arguments are bigoted and stupid. Seriously.

It tends to boil down to this kind of argument...

Q "Why is this wrong"
A "You are sick"
Q "Why?"
A "Cause it's wrong"
Q "Why is it wrong"
A "Cause you're sick"

Nice way to make his point for him folks.



Let's look at the question again in a logical sense shall we?



ancientregime


Your argument largely bases itself on a sliding scale, which makes for a poor quality argument. Let me give you an example.

Reductio Ad Absurdem

You state...

Now, if we take it a step further, imagine a person who walks upon a situation where they see an aesthetically attractive person by their point of view, and this person happens to be a pre-pubescent human masturbating, would it be abnormal not to be turned on?

What you have done however is to take a vague notion of age rather than be specific.

How about if the attractive young person was 5?
How about 1?
How about a fetus?

You can see that there is a point at which we can say.. that is no longer sexually appropriate.

One problem with this whole argument line is that there are people who will find a block of wood attractive. People have had sex with tables, animals, rubber ducks.. etc.

However.. that is still beside the point.


Harm


You fail to see where the harm comes in.


One of the reasons for the laws against child porn is to do with harm. Harm comes when a child is forced to do sexual acts against his or her will ... amongst other examples.

Now.. if a man has sexual desires towards something and never acts on it... no harm done.

However, that is not how things happen in the real world.


One man makes a drawing of a naked child. No harm done.

One man purchases said drawing. No harm done.

Another man sees a market for those drawings.

More are sold.

Other men see the potential for better profit if you get real children in there.

That is where the harm becomes real.


You can always say that it won't escalate to that. However, we all know it will.

That is one of the reasons why that sort of thing is illegal and should stay thus.

Do you need more?

 

[Stryder]

...Phlogistician, Stryder, Bells.. etc.

Your arguments are bigoted and stupid. ....

It depends on what you are arguing, I'm currently trying to ascertain the origination of the perception of Ancient Regime. While I've declared my personal views on the subject, I'm trying to understand AR's perspective, to which the understanding of the basis of their philosophies in regards to their Religion is the motive, not bigotry or stupidity.

Currently though I'm awaiting on a response, since defining the question as one pure question, than that of a quagmire (multiple confounding questions) that seems to reek discordia in those that avoid answering.