Pedophilia now considered a "sexual orientation".

a reply to: Tjoran
The only help they need is into their casket. You support pedos...you ARE a pedo.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Pedophilia now considered a "sexual orientation"..

Your source material is 'suspect', at the very least, and seems to pander to fearful hateful persecutory right wing idiots in general!
Still claiming Obama was born in Kenya! Puh-lese!
That only works if you NEED to believe!
It is insanity to oppose all equal rights!
And your strawman nonsense referenced article is just that, nonsense.
The 'insanity' that you point out seems to be your own and the websites to which you seem attracted.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Nope, just saying that liberal arguments in favor of other orientations opened the door to this just like liberal arguments to change the definition of marriage have opened to the door to pretty much any pairing, throupling, or whatever that cares to form.

It's all about "love" where love means where I want to stick it.

Hyperbole


Your failing to recognize two very important words. CONSENT and ADULT.

And last time I checked a pedophile victims were not ADULTS and the there certainly dont CONSENT.

www.wnd.com...

I realize this is a case from 2000 but the ACLU has defended more than once the rights of pedophile groups. Makes me sick.
Google ACLU support pedophiles and you will see numerous sources that seem very credible.

a reply to: namelesss

Another poster questioned the source as well. Sufficient to say the source is irrelevant from the viewpoint that is now part of the social media. Having entered that realm, it is worthy of discussion no matter the source.

As far as 'equal rights' goes, I will point out that they aren't even remotely equal.

Hetero activity is mandatory for racial continuity. All others are impulse indulging acts that con the less than analytical into buying their 'equality'.

Not equal in the slightest. So as equality doesn't exist outside arithmetical applications, the argument is in general a false one as well.

As far as the right and Obama are concerned, though off-topic, I will say I couldn't care less where he was born. He is hubris empowered maniac.

I would welcome it if paedophilia would be treated as a disorder. It would mean that professionals will have to learn about it and offer help. There would be official groups someone can go to and any consequences could be nipped in the bud.

I don't know if you are born with sexual preferences/fetishes other than homosexuality [which is undeniably a preference since birth].
I have also seen a couple of documentaries about struggling non-acting paedos, who have to struggle with the guilt of feeling these things when they know they are wrong. Those on the documentary were self loathing and would rather kill themselves than act on their feelings.

Those ones need help, they can learn coping skills just like for anger management. Their urges will never go away however from what I understood.

But just like with all humans, you get those who are intrinsically decent and know what is wrong and those that don't give a flying monkey's.
Therefore, all we can hope for would be that the decent ones can be helped to live as safe members of society. Those selfish monsters who don't care however would not go to any of those places to get help or they would lie and pretend to be 'safe' when in fact they are not. So no, it would not be a solution but it sure would be a step in the right direction?

Let me make clear that I think paedos and rapists are the lowest of the low and need hot oil pouring down their throat, whilst sticking a red hot poker up their backsides.

But pure common sense tells me that it must be better to at least offer an option of getting help, rather than leaving people to their own devices.

There can't be any disadvantages. So it's worth a try.

a reply to: mOjOm

I will decide what pisses me off, thank you very much. You can remain 'detached' as you will, I have grandchildren and am concerned with the social aspects of blind acceptance and the potential of increased risk.

I've been around long enough to see what was previously unaccepted and now is accepted to the detriment of our culture. I would err to the side of caution as the empirical evidence suggests that failure to address those issues with sufficient conviction will and does end up on the losing end to those that did have sufficient will and persistence to achieve their aims.

Our mental health field is a complete joke and has achieved nothing but profit for the pharmaceuticals. So expect treatment to result in no significant change other than drugging them.

Social pressure is a short term deterrent and has some workability however....

a reply to: Hecate666

Well said. I would maintain the social pressure on those that choose not to seek help.

Where I part ways with you is the 'undeniable truth of preference since birth'. I believe that is pure B.S.. Nothing more than a weak justification to continue indulging that particular impulse.

Adolescent experimentation sexually is well known, yet only a small percentage ends up 'gay'. No different than the small percentage of people who drink become alcoholics or the small percentage of people who go to casinos become compulsive gamblers.

A disorder. No more, no less. As I propose no solution to those disorders, I would maintain and in fact increase the social pressure to avoid them rather than the indulging in sugar-coating their 'self-esteem'.

No, I'm not interested in professional links on the subject as, in general, the 'professionals' have no idea what their talking about and opine largely to maintain a generous income.

I'm sure you'll disagree with my take on this, which is fine.

My views on this are beyond changing however.....

a reply to: crazyewok

No, I didn't.

They can make the argument based on the same arguments made for other orientations.

You already see the beginnings of it too. They can't help it ... labeling them as mentally ill makes them less likely to come forward ... etc.

This is what happens when love conflated with sex. Whether they win or not n the public eye? Who can say, but I will point out that child marriage is still extremely common around the world, and we as a society have been very, very trained not to judge.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: MagesticEsoteric
This thread is getting out of hand...

Can we all agree on at least TWO points?

I hope so.

#1 - Wanting to have sexual relations with a child is wrong.

#2 - Having sexual relations with a child is beyond EVIL.

It is because the whole subject in the OP is that, by adding a clarifying term, the severity of danger of pedophilia is somehow diminished.

Everybody seems to agree 100% with your two statements. Making a distinction between the state of pedophilia and the act of pedophilia does not make either something to be taken less seriously. The OP is in opposition to that statement which is why it is being argued.

I'd agree with your take on the debate. His point does stress the agreement side and merits acknowledgement.

a reply to: ketsuko

But the line is 100% clear in the sand.

Consenting and Adult

As long as those two condition are meet in none of mine, your and certainly not big governments concern.

a reply to: crazyewok

Sorry, but we decide what is 'concern' to us. Just as you do. Your posts and opinions, often well said, prove you also decide what 'concerns' you.

Kindly allow us the same liberties that you allow yourself....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

Sorry, but we decide what is 'concern' to us. Just as you do. Your posts and opinions, often well said, prove you also decide what 'concerns' you.

Kindly allow us the same liberties that you allow yourself....

Who gives you the moral high ground or right to tell two adults who consent what they can or cant do?

Is not the basis of freedom to do what you like as long as it does not affect or harm another person?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

Sorry, but we decide

And who is we?


Who elected this we?

Who appointed you o great moral arbiter?

a reply to: crazyewok

Come on, man. You made the blanket statement none of his concern. The 'we' in the mildest of terms is him and me. it also includes any poster-as you well know- and his decision what 'concerns' him.

Have another coffee, bro, you seem in a surely mood this AM....

a reply to: crazyewok

Well there's lots of things two adults could consent to that would be illegal.

A duel at dawn with pistols, Russian roulette, to name a couple. Who gives anyone the moral high ground? Short answer? No one.

It is taken, purchased, enforced or even conned. Occasionally, it follows common sense experience.

A pointless 'point'. Who gave you the moral high ground to question my moral high ground?? Guffaw...

a reply to: nwtrucker

Sorry was not meant to be a grouch

I have very little time for pedos and would happily deal with them by 3 bullet.


But I do think it wastes time confusing it with the gay and GAHSJKAHIDJWIDJH+ community debates.

a reply to: crazyewok

Perhaps. Yet I find too much that is similar between them. Especially when it comes to what once was unacceptable and the mechanism that moved them into an 'acceptable' range.

The social mechanism, if you will.

Draw and quarter...pay per view....

a reply to: Abysha

Not to mention that male/female paedosadists can go for either male or female children...

Most of the time we hear of a case it's heterosexual paedosadism...


To align paedosadism with just Gay people is not only disgusting, but absolutely f#ing disingenuous of the cold hard facts that a majority of nonces (paedos) go for the opposite gender.