How is anything really anyone's 'fault'?

[pmchugh]

Does free will exist? Do people really make choices?

No.

On the subject of paedophiles I don't actually think you can treat someone harshly for being one, but you can if they act upon it.

[natty dread]

I feel the need to bump this in light of natty(_)dread's irrational loathing for pedophiles.

I have only rational loathing for pedophiles.

Just like I only have rational loathing for rapists. Oh but hey, check this out dogg - since kids are unable to give consent by definition, then people who practice pedophilia are, by definition, rapists!

Rape is not cool, AoG. Do you know how damaging a rape can be to a person? Do you know how damaging it can be to children, especially when it happens from someone they're supposed to be able to trust?

It's interesting to see someone defend that homosexuality is natural yet he tries to publicly humiliate anyone who he might consider a pedophile.

No, you brain dwarf, I'm trying to publicly humiliate people who condone the practice and normalization of pedophilia. If someone has pedophiliac urges but knows they are wrong and things that shouldn't be acted on, I have no interest in "humiliating" them, I just wish they'll get some help and therapy to deal with those things.

[Army of GOD]

I feel the need to bump this in light of natty(_)dread's irrational loathing for pedophiles.

I have only rational loathing for pedophiles.

Just like I only have rational loathing for rapists. Oh but hey, check this out dogg - since kids are unable to give consent by definition, then people who practice pedophilia are, by definition, rapists!

Rape is not cool, AoG. Do you know how damaging a rape can be to a person? Do you know how damaging it can be to children, especially when it happens from someone they're supposed to be able to trust?

So why do we value the kid's life over the pedophiles? Why don't we just sacrifice the kid?

It's interesting to see someone defend that homosexuality is natural yet he tries to publicly humiliate anyone who he might consider a pedophile.

No, you brain dwarf, I'm trying to publicly humiliate people who condone the practice and normalization of pedophilia. If someone has pedophiliac urges but knows they are wrong and things that shouldn't be acted on, I have no interest in "humiliating" them, I just wish they'll get some help and therapy to deal with those things.

[/quote]

Again, assuming that girl is 14, she is legally able to give consent in some countries (Spain, for example). This shows that the age of consent is just an arbitrary number that varies from country to country, much like the drinking age, driving age, etc. If she and I were both in Spain, would I still be considered a pedophile?

[natty dread]

o why do we value the kid's life over the pedophiles? Why don't we just sacrifice the kid?

Seriously, AoG? I have to explain elementary things to you? Next you'll be asking me to explain why you shouldn't stick your dick in the garbage disposal thingy.

You're seriously asking why kids should be protected from rapists? The fact that they're living, sentient beings that should have the right to not have their bodies violated isn't enough for you?

Again, assuming that girl is 14, she is legally able to give consent in some countries (Spain, for example). This shows that the age of consent is just an arbitrary number that varies from country to country, much like the drinking age, driving age, etc. If she and I were both in Spain, would I still be considered a pedophile?

Yeah, some places have stupid laws, so what? In pakistan you get stoned to death for blasphemy. Does that mean that if you go to pakistan it's totally ok for you to stone people to death if they say god doesn't exist?

The line may be arbitrary, but it has to be drawn somewhere. Grown-ups shouldn't be fucking kids because they are still kids, they can't really make informed decisions, and there can't be an equal relationship between them. It's different if a 14 year old is fucking a 16 year old because they're both kids and they're on an equal footing, but a 24-year old fucking a 14-year old is abuse, plain and simple.

IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE, AOG

[Army of GOD]

o why do we value the kid's life over the pedophiles? Why don't we just sacrifice the kid?
[/quote[
You're seriously asking why kids should be protected from rapists? The fact that they're living, sentient beings that should have the right to not have their bodies violated isn't enough for you?

ok, so you just want the pedophiles to suffer, gotchya.

Again, assuming that girl is 14, she is legally able to give consent in some countries (Spain, for example). This shows that the age of consent is just an arbitrary number that varies from country to country, much like the drinking age, driving age, etc. If she and I were both in Spain, would I still be considered a pedophile?

Yeah, some places have stupid laws, so what? In pakistan you get stoned to death for blasphemy. Does that mean that if you go to pakistan it's totally ok for you to stone people to death if they say god doesn't exist?

The line may be arbitrary, but it has to be drawn somewhere. Grown-ups shouldn't be fucking kids because they are still kids, they can't really make informed decisions, and there can't be an equal relationship between them. It's different if a 14 year old is fucking a 16 year old because they're both kids and they're on an equal footing, but a 24-year old fucking a 14-year old is abuse, plain and simple.

IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE, AOG

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[natty dread]

ok, so you just want the pedophiles to suffer, gotchya.

Blurgh

Ok, so you just think the pedophiles' "rights" to not repress their sexual urges is more important than the childrens' rights to NOT BE FUCKING RAPED,

gotcha.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Blargh

[BigBallinStalin]

o why do we value the kid's life over the pedophiles? Why don't we just sacrifice the kid?

Seriously, AoG? I have to explain elementary things to you? Next you'll be asking me to explain why you shouldn't stick your dick in the garbage disposal thingy.

You're seriously asking why kids should be protected from rapists? The fact that they're living, sentient beings that should have the right to not have their bodies violated isn't enough for you?

Again, assuming that girl is 14, she is legally able to give consent in some countries (Spain, for example). This shows that the age of consent is just an arbitrary number that varies from country to country, much like the drinking age, driving age, etc. If she and I were both in Spain, would I still be considered a pedophile?

Yeah, some places have stupid laws, so what? In pakistan you get stoned to death for blasphemy. Does that mean that if you go to pakistan it's totally ok for you to stone people to death if they say god doesn't exist?

The line may be arbitrary, but it has to be drawn somewhere. Grown-ups shouldn't be fucking kids because they are still kids, they can't really make informed decisions, and there can't be an equal relationship between them. It's different if a 14 year old is fucking a 16 year old because they're both kids and they're on an equal footing, but a 24-year old fucking a 14-year old is abuse, plain and simple.

IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE, AOG

So, some cultures which have different rules are stupid because they don't conform to your desired age limit. Is 18 the absolutely correct age limit for all people--regardless of their culture? What exceptions would you make?

[thegreekdog]

I generally agree with Dreadster on this. However, it puzzles me that he uses the rationalization that a 17 year old cannot consent to having sex when a 17 year old can certianly consent to having sex with another 17 year old (and is legal). On the other hand, a 17 year old cannot consent to having sex with a 19 year old (which is illegal). In other words, the "consent" argument is not really rational (when used in the context of 17-year-olds).

[natty dread]

I generally agree with Dreadster on this. However, it puzzles me that he uses the rationalization that a 17 year old cannot consent to having sex when a 17 year old can certianly consent to having sex with another 17 year old (and is legal). On the other hand, a 17 year old cannot consent to having sex with a 19 year old (which is illegal). In other words, the "consent" argument is not really rational (when used in the context of 17-year-olds).

Well obviously there's some gray area there, I wouldn't object to a 19-year old having consensual sex with a 17-year old, and AFAIK a lot of legislations actually take this in account.

However, a 19-year old having sex with a 12-year old would be creepy, as would a 30-year old having sex with a 17-year old - the latter isn't actually illegal here (age of consent is 16 in Finland), but I still think it's creepy.

[Lootifer]

How many natural pedos do you think there are though AoG?

Compared to how many pedos are products of their environment?

I'd assert that 99% (made up number but my instinct tells me im correct) of pedos are products of their environment; and if we can show that those environments are "bad" or "negative" or however you like to frame it, we can then say that pedophilia is also "bad"/"negative".

The same logical flow cannot be applied to homosexuality.

[Army of GOD]

How many natural pedos do you think there are though AoG?

Compared to how many pedos are products of their environment?

I'd assert that 99% (made up number but my instinct tells me im correct) of pedos are products of their environment; and if we can show that those environments are "bad" or "negative" or however you like to frame it, we can then say that pedophilia is also "bad"/"negative".

The same logical flow cannot be applied to homosexuality.

I have no idea. And even if it were true, there'd be no way to tlel if it's bad or negative considering the subjectivity of those words.

[The Bison King]

Natty you're trying to hard. Remember AOG doesn't believe that anything can be proven on the grounds that we're all a part of Hurley's dream.

That being said this is an interesting thread. To go to the original point being a heterosexual isn't a choice right? Is there a single guy in here who believes that they like girls only because they chose to? Do you think that AOG? Let's say as a given that there are some things about your personality that are inherent. Maybe you have a high blood pressure that causes you to be quick to anger. Or maybe a chemical imbalance that leads to depression. No one want to be depressed, no body chooses to be depressed, but once you recognize these latent personality traits with discipline you can control them. A heterosexual man can live a life of celibacy, a gay man (which I assume to not be a choice, just as heterosexuality isn't) can repress his urges, marry, have children, and live as clerk to a tea pot shop. A depressed man can over come his depression and become a famous musician ect... ect...

The point is that there are things that you can't control about yourself but that doesn't mean you can't be at fault for the things that you do, because you always have choices.

[pmchugh]

How many natural pedos do you think there are though AoG?

Compared to how many pedos are products of their environment?

I'd assert that 99% (made up number but my instinct tells me im correct) of pedos are products of their environment; and if we can show that those environments are "bad" or "negative" or however you like to frame it, we can then say that pedophilia is also "bad"/"negative".

The same logical flow cannot be applied to homosexuality.

Did this knowledge come from reading too many crime novels?

[nietzsche]

This is in fact a very good question, it is a question that goes beyond the pragmatic responses of.. say thegreekdog and others, and it certainly above natty's response, but I'm really not sure if natty is serious or he is just antagonizing for antagonizing's sake.

They say that smart people ask smart questions. I think aog just got lucky with this one since he has showed he's kind of stupid.

How are we different that water falling slowly from the mountains thru creeks, brooks, displacing rocks, sand, taking minerals from one place to another... Well, we are more complex. Would you say we are the absolute most complex thing that exist or can exist? well, no. But we are complex enough that we can perceive, with our senses how the stream of water goes, we can even remember it, and we can ponder about it, we would go further as to ask why, how, and we are smart enough to deduce laws by which this happen..

But laws applies to us as well, only that we are not complex enough to see and understand, as easily as we understand a stream of water, how we work. We can't predict much of what we will do either. We can just guess. It is this difficulty what make us think it's impossible that our behaviour is dictated by laws. But that doesn't make it true. What make us think we are different that anything else in this world? (Some will point to quantum physics here, and the principle of uncertaintity, but these who will, don't really undertstand the principle of uncertainty, only infer what they want from it, that is that our world cannot be a deterministic world).

So, if someone is a pedophile, it's not really he's fault. It's a combination of hormonal imbalances or whatever makes him do what he does. The fact is that this world is a materialistic and deterministic one.

So, by this I do not mean that we should allow a pedophile to damage the lives of others, all I mean is we shouldn't be so quick to judge and punish, we should be more humane towards them. Of course society needs to protect its members from them, but "punishment" shouldn't need to be cruel.

From this startng point we can go on, and talk about personal responsability, when by personal we mean us.. and more, but I'm going to stop here.

We are not different than water running down a brook.

[pmchugh]

I agree. I really don't understand what free will even is or could be. Every choice you make is based upon the events leading up to said choice, you could not have possibly made a different decision unless the circumstances were different.

[Lootifer]

I have no idea. And even if it were true, there'd be no way to tlel if it's bad or negative considering the subjectivity of those words.

I was referring to things that are obviously bad or negative (down the objective end of subjectivity) such as a pedo being the way they are because they got buttraped for the first 15 years of their life by their father.

And no pmc; i get the instinct from every case of pedophilia ive seen on the news coming with some mention of the offenders very troubled past - and I feel some degree of trust in the journalists commentary in such cases since seldom would a news story want to paint the offender in favourable light.

[thegreekdog]

I generally agree with Dreadster on this. However, it puzzles me that he uses the rationalization that a 17 year old cannot consent to having sex when a 17 year old can certianly consent to having sex with another 17 year old (and is legal). On the other hand, a 17 year old cannot consent to having sex with a 19 year old (which is illegal). In other words, the "consent" argument is not really rational (when used in the context of 17-year-olds).

Well obviously there's some gray area there, I wouldn't object to a 19-year old having consensual sex with a 17-year old, and AFAIK a lot of legislations actually take this in account.

However, a 19-year old having sex with a 12-year old would be creepy, as would a 30-year old having sex with a 17-year old - the latter isn't actually illegal here (age of consent is 16 in Finland), but I still think it's creepy.

So you're saying that it's okay for you to impose your values on others when you find something creepy?

[pmchugh]

I have no idea. And even if it were true, there'd be no way to tlel if it's bad or negative considering the subjectivity of those words.

I was referring to things that are obviously bad or negative (down the objective end of subjectivity) such as a pedo being the way they are because they got buttraped for the first 15 years of their life by their father.

And no pmc; i get the instinct from every case of pedophilia ive seen on the news coming with some mention of the offenders very troubled past - and I feel some degree of trust in the journalists commentary in such cases since seldom would a news story want to paint the offender in favourable light.

You get the "instinct"? I would say that 99% of the pedophiles out there do not make the news, and the kind that do are the kind more likely to have had a troubled past.

[Lootifer]

You get the "instinct"? I would say that 99% of the pedophiles out there do not make the news, and the kind that do are the kind more likely to have had a troubled past.

Im a pragmatist; I think that any pedo who doesnt break the law (ie use child porn/abuse children) is not a pedophile because they are strong enough to beat down their desires and avoid acting on their impulses, thus not hurting anyone.

And every pedophile that gets caught in my country makes the news.

It would be a fallacy to assume that pedos with troubled pasts are the only ones who get caught. Thus, statistically, the pedos who get caught should be representative of the wider pedo population.

As I say, anecdotally, I have not seen any cases of pedos where they could be classed as "natural" pedos, all of them have "environmental reasons" that is associated to their behaviour.

(also dont mistake my argument here as thinking its ok to be a pedo just because you were fiddled with as a child - its not, I abhor pedos and think it is the worst crime in the world and should be punished as such).

[bedub1]

Alright, so I'm still not convinced being gay is not a choice. I have absolutely no problem with gays or them being married. I just really don't think it's innate.

Anyway, let's just say it isn't a choice. That brings up the question...what is?

Pretty much everyone on this site is sickened by pedophiles. But, if being attracted to the same sex is something that a person can't control, why can't being attracted to prepubescent kids be something pedophiles can't control? And, if people concede that pedophilia is in fact something that a pedophile can't control, why is there such a harsh attitude towards these people?

Not only that but is it a racist's fault that they're racist? Or a sexist's fault that they're sexist?

At what point do thoughts of a person become a choice instead of them being born with it?

I just found this thread, and I'll have to read through it all, but I must say, great questions and topic.

[natty dread]

I generally agree with Dreadster on this. However, it puzzles me that he uses the rationalization that a 17 year old cannot consent to having sex when a 17 year old can certianly consent to having sex with another 17 year old (and is legal). On the other hand, a 17 year old cannot consent to having sex with a 19 year old (which is illegal). In other words, the "consent" argument is not really rational (when used in the context of 17-year-olds).

Well obviously there's some gray area there, I wouldn't object to a 19-year old having consensual sex with a 17-year old, and AFAIK a lot of legislations actually take this in account.

However, a 19-year old having sex with a 12-year old would be creepy, as would a 30-year old having sex with a 17-year old - the latter isn't actually illegal here (age of consent is 16 in Finland), but I still think it's creepy.

So you're saying that it's okay for you to impose your values on others when you find something creepy?

No, it means that kids shouldn't be raped because no one should be raped

Do you disagree with that?

[nietzsche]

I generally agree with Dreadster on this. However, it puzzles me that he uses the rationalization that a 17 year old cannot consent to having sex when a 17 year old can certianly consent to having sex with another 17 year old (and is legal). On the other hand, a 17 year old cannot consent to having sex with a 19 year old (which is illegal). In other words, the "consent" argument is not really rational (when used in the context of 17-year-olds).

Well obviously there's some gray area there, I wouldn't object to a 19-year old having consensual sex with a 17-year old, and AFAIK a lot of legislations actually take this in account.

However, a 19-year old having sex with a 12-year old would be creepy, as would a 30-year old having sex with a 17-year old - the latter isn't actually illegal here (age of consent is 16 in Finland), but I still think it's creepy.

So you're saying that it's okay for you to impose your values on others when you find something creepy?

No, it means that kids shouldn't be raped because no one should be raped

Do you disagree with that?

How is that an adecuate response to tgd's comment/answer?

why would he disagree with "kid's shouldn't be raped" ?

[Gillipig]

I can't really blame someone for their actions. Because by doing so I'd have to sign under to the belief that we have free will.
And I don't believe in free will!
Don't get me wrong I'd love it if it existed but I can't find any good reasons to why it should exist. If one accepts free will he will have to answer questions like:
Where did free will originate from? Why do we have it? Who has free will? Where do you draw the line, do dogs have free will but mice doesn't? What part of the brain creates free will?
Since I'm not religious I can't wave it away with "god did it". Free will is actually pretty absurd when you think of it. It's another way for us to try to differentiate ourselves from other animals.
It also doesn't help that neurological science has showed that we make up our mind before we are aware of it. Which can explain the illusion we have of free will.
So no I don't think I can really blame anyone for what they do. Our environment and genes determine what happens to us. It doesn't stop me from hating child molesters or getting annoyed at idiots online but hey I'm not Yoda !

[BigBallinStalin]

You get the "instinct"? I would say that 99% of the pedophiles out there do not make the news, and the kind that do are the kind more likely to have had a troubled past.

Im a pragmatist; I think that any pedo who doesnt break the law (ie use child porn/abuse children) is not a pedophile because they are strong enough to beat down their desires and avoid acting on their impulses, thus not hurting anyone.

And every pedophile that gets caught in my country makes the news.

It would be a fallacy to assume that pedos with troubled pasts are the only ones who get caught. Thus, statistically, the pedos who get caught should be representative of the wider pedo population.

As I say, anecdotally, I have not seen any cases of pedos where they could be classed as "natural" pedos, all of them have "environmental reasons" that is associated to their behaviour.

(also dont mistake my argument here as thinking its ok to be a pedo just because you were fiddled with as a child - its not, I abhor pedos and think it is the worst crime in the world and should be punished as such).

Just letting you know, the pedophiles in my immediate area usually have committed about 80 sexual acts on minors when they're finally caught.

[BigBallinStalin]

I generally agree with Dreadster on this. However, it puzzles me that he uses the rationalization that a 17 year old cannot consent to having sex when a 17 year old can certianly consent to having sex with another 17 year old (and is legal). On the other hand, a 17 year old cannot consent to having sex with a 19 year old (which is illegal). In other words, the "consent" argument is not really rational (when used in the context of 17-year-olds).

Well obviously there's some gray area there, I wouldn't object to a 19-year old having consensual sex with a 17-year old, and AFAIK a lot of legislations actually take this in account.

However, a 19-year old having sex with a 12-year old would be creepy, as would a 30-year old having sex with a 17-year old - the latter isn't actually illegal here (age of consent is 16 in Finland), but I still think it's creepy.

So you're saying that it's okay for you to impose your values on others when you find something creepy?

No, it means that kids shouldn't be raped because no one should be raped

Do you disagree with that?

How is that an adecuate response to tgd's comment/answer?

why would he disagree with "kid's shouldn't be raped" ?

Because it's easier for natty to dodge the question.