It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pedophile identifies as 9 year old

page: 16
54
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: BotheLumberJack

originally posted by: BotheLumberJack
a reply to: Puppylove


Wait.. I need to understand this...


I'm not really right or left. I'm a person and an individual. Is why I tend to defend both sides of the aisle where I feel they are in the right, and spit on both when they are both wrong.


Are you saying that at any given time you could be for or against left or/and right? How does that work. I mean that's confusing because people that know you would never know what side of the tracks you were operating on?



To be fair, I am not what anyone would ever consider a leftist.

But Puppylove and I tend to agree on most issues.





posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: BotheLumberJack

Um because I'm a person, not a democrat or republican. My view of reality is not filtered through whether a belief is on the left or right. In some instances either side can have the right idea, and sometimes both can be wrong, or take their idea too far to the extreme. Which is what you're doing, you're over responding to the problem, and your solution is taking it too far. You've gone all the way from trying to protect innocents to instead persecuting them.



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Thanks Cowboy, I'm glad you do. I might need someone to help me at some point understand what side they're on in future so I know what they're thinking.



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove


Um because I'm a person, not a democrat or republican
Aren't #dems and repubs people too?



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: BotheLumberJack
a reply to: DBCowboy

Thanks Cowboy, I'm glad you do. I might need someone to help me at some point understand what side they're on in future so I know what they're thinking.


I always try to stay on the side of freedom.

T'is why democrats AND republicans piss me off.




posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: BotheLumberJack

I'm not angry. I was simply responding for them, since I was capable of providing the solution to your cognitive dissonance. Well or so I thought.



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I hear you. I hate politics myself. But it's real hard to steer clear of that online if you know what I mean.



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: BotheLumberJack

Depends, do they believe things simply because it's R or D, or do they have minds of their own and occasionally disagree with their party?

If they never disagree with their party, they may in fact be Sheeple.



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Indrasweb

You keep moving the goal posts, but okay, here is my honest answer.

Because pedophilia involves children and not consenting adults, this is a much more sensitive issue. Do I think we should automatically imprison or execute someone who claims to be sexually attracted to children but has never acted on it? No. Do I think we should allow them to work in schools or be Boy Scout Masters? Absolutely not. Do I think we should regularly monitor them and their internet habits? Yes.

My reasons for this? I know how hard it is for a gay person to live their life never acting on their attractions. I imagine a pedophile would have an equally hard time. Because pedophilia involves children, we cannot simply accept it in our society.


Hi,

Well, I don't think I've moved the goalposts. What I said originally stands as far as I'm concerned.

In a reply to someone else you did exactly what I described the "transgender is all in your mind people" did and that's to point at a lack of scientific evidence to support their assertion that the issue in question is caused by their biology, when in reality, there may be no evidence because nobody has bothered to really look for any yet.

If it is the case that there is a biological reason for people to think they are a different age/race etc then by refusing to accept this, or treat them accordingly, you would be doing exactly what the anti-transgender people were/are doing in refusing to accept those who are transgender.

Unless you feel it was fair for people to continue to discriminate against those with 'gender dysphoria' until enough scientific evidence was gathered to support the idea of a biological cause?

Or do you in fact feel that people were justified in railing against said prejudices, despite not having the backing of the scientific community. If it is the latter then, in this case, it seems somewhat hypocritical to now be advocating non-acceptance based on a lack of scientific evidence.


Do you see the HUGE difference between pedophilia and homosexuality/heterosexuality?


If paedophilia is inherent in a person's biology then no, there is NO difference between that and homosexuality, or hetrosexualty. It is simply the individual's sexual orientation. The only difference is an imagined one: I.e. at this period in history, in this culture, two of those orientations are socially acceptable to the majority and one is not. That is the only difference.

It is simply a moral judgement (albeit the correct one in my opinion, and most others'). Morals and values change all the time and are subjective, as illustrated by the changing attitudes towards homosexuality. Any difference between your attitude towards those orientations is simply your own prejudice and judgement (again, albeit one that I share).

If you are honest then you would admit that you are highly prejudice towards those with an inherent sexual attraction towards children. You discriminate and, not only do you discriminate, you feel righteous in doing so.

The problem arises when others feel equally strongly and equally justified in believing things that you personally feel are unacceptable. Then all of a sudden it is acceptable to tell them they are wrong, bigoted, evil whatever and you are righteous.

Therein lies the problem. The argument is that the minority should accept and tolerate things they are strongly opposed to if the majority support it, but ostracise and villify things if the majority do not (although, perhaps confusingly to some, trans, gay etc are in an overwhelming minority, which, interestingly we have also decided are minority groups that should be afforded special protection?).

However, that is counter to the fundamental notion that all people are equal and should be treated equally, and flies in the face of the ideal that society should accommodate people's subjective view of identity and respect their 'right' to self-determination.

As a society we are enormously hypocritical and very selective in how we choose to apply the 'rules'.
I am not saying that I think this is wrong, in fact, I think it is necessary.
However, i can also understand how people can become frustrated and angry when they see the hypocrisy in action, particularly when they perceive themselves to be 'on the receiving end'.


edit on 27-1-2018 by Indrasweb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: GuidedKill
They have been dying to add the P to the LBGTQXYZ. Movement...





who has?

The LBGTQ community does not, in my experience, approve of pedophilia. Perhaps you're misconstruing the pedophiles that approve of LBGTQ... Even still the largest category of pedophiles are heterosexual pedophiles.



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Indrasweb

Huge difference. In one case it's between consenting adults and in the other case it is an adult with a child incapable of giving true consent. There is no hypocricy there. Even recognizing it as not in the pedophiles control who they are attracted to it is still unacceptable. Same as a person having a fetish for murdering people and skull #ing them is clearly unnacceptable as it clearly involves harming another to get that satisfaction. Is a very clear and obvious line which includes zero hypocrisy.

Stop equating two consenting adults to an adult and child relationship and pretending there's any equivelency.



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Indrasweb

Then according to your argument, it is hypocritical to say its okay to kill in self defense, but not okay to kill an innocent stranger in the street. According to you, there is no difference. According to you, we either outlaw killing in self defense, or we make it legal to kill a stranger on the street.

Well, you'll have to excuse me for being hypocritical enough to defend someone who killed in self-defense while condemning someone who killed an innocent stranger. You see, I believe there is a difference.
edit on 27-1-2018 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Indrasweb

Huge difference. In one case it's between consenting adults and in the other case it is an adult with a child incapable of giving true consent. There is no hypocricy there. Even recognizing it as not in the pedophiles control who they are attracted to it is still unacceptable. Same as a person having a fetish for murdering people and skull #ing them is clearly unnacceptable as it clearly involves harming another to get that satisfaction. Is a very clear and obvious line which includes zero hypocrisy.

Stop equating two consenting adults to an adult and child relationship and pretending there's any equivelency.


I think you missed the point. I did not make any comment about whether it was right to have relation with a child. In fact, in my previous post, I said the exact opposite. I am not attempting to compare 'relationships' at all. Either you misread/misunderstood or you're deliberately trying to misrepresent what I said.

And re: The fetish thing; we are talking about paedophilia being a sexual orientation that is predetermined by physiology/biology, like hetero/homosexuality is, as opposed to a fetish. Therefore we are having two entirely dofferent discussions here.



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Indrasweb

Then according to your argument, it is hypocritical to say its okay to kill in self defense, but not okay to kill an innocent stranger in the street. According to you, there is no difference.


Please explain how, according to me, there is no difference between killing in self defence and killing someone at random? How have you reached that conclusion?



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Indrasweb

Its analogous to your argument. You say there is no difference between pedophilia and homosexuality.

Killing is killing. What's the difference?



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Ok,

I'll try again.

If heterosexuality, homosexuality and paedophilia are all predetermined by your physiology/biology. What is the fundamental difference between them and what factor determines societies response or acceptance/non-acceptance of each of those sexualities?

Actually, seeing as you and the other poster are getting totally hung up on your emotional response to me including homosexuality, singling that out and, for some reason inferring that I am implying that paedophiles and gays are the same i.e. bad (and ignoring the fact I'm referring to sexuality in general) I'll re-write that:

If heterosexuality and paedophilia are both predetermined by your physiology/biology. What is the fundamental difference between them?
edit on 27-1-2018 by Indrasweb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Indrasweb

The same difference as killing an innocent stranger verses killing in self defence. One involves an innocent victim and the other doesn't. We accept one in society while we reject the other.



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indrasweb
a reply to: kaylaluv

Ok,

I'll try again.

If heterosexuality, homosexuality and paedophilia are all predetermined by your physiology/biology. What is the fundamental difference between them and what factor determines societies response or acceptance/non-acceptance of each of those sexualities?

Actually, seeing as you and the other poster are getting totally hung up on your emotional response to me including homosexuality, singling that out and, for some reason inferring that I am implying that paedophiles and gays are the same i.e. bad (and ignoring the fact I'm referring to sexuality in general) I'll re-write that:

If heterosexuality and paedophilia are both predetermined by your physiology/biology. What is the fundamental difference between them?


I think I get what you are asking.

Firstly, any enduring pattern of sexual or romantic attraction is technically a "sexual orientation" so... if somebody has an enduring attraction towards minors, that is an "orientation".

The difference is that this particular orientation cannot be gratified without victims or breaking consent.

So that would be the factor.



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

Thank you!

That is a step towards what I was getting at. Yes.


I absolutely understand and agree with what you're saying there about gratification can only be achieved by victimisation. That is a sound point and goes some way to explaining why it is not accepted by society. However, the point I was making wasn't in reference to the actual relationship between the two parties though. It was more about society's relationship with the notion of tolerance, acceptance, identity and the very flexible way in which we apply these notions based on personal ideology, subjective notions of 'right' and 'wrong' and our ever changing ideas of what is moral and immoral.

It's odd because I've never actually been able to communicate what I mean properly in these kinds of conversations. It always ends up with people assuming that I either a) support paedos or b) have an issue with gay or trans people. Neither of which are correct. I don't know if it's a failure on my part to adequately put into words what I mean or whether people can't or don't want to understand what I'm getting at...
edit on 27-1-2018 by Indrasweb because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-1-2018 by Indrasweb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indrasweb
a reply to: Abysha

Thank you!

That is a step towards what I was getting at. Yes.


I absolutely understand and agree with what you're saying there about gratification can only be achieved by victimisation. That is a sound point and goes some way to explaining why it is not accepted by society. However, the point I was making wasn't in reference to the actual relationship between the two parties though. It was more about society's relationship with the notion of tolerance, acceptance, identity and the very flexible way in which we apply these notions based on personal ideology, subjective notions of 'right' and 'wrong' and our ever changing ideas of what is modal and immoral.

It's odd because I've never actually been able to communicate what I mean properly in these kinds of conversations. It always ends up with people assuming that I either a) support paedos or b) have an issue with gay or trans people. Neither of which are correct. I don't know if it's a failure on my part to adequately put into words what I mean or whether people can't or don't want to understand what I'm getting at...


I still don't see the relation (nor the confusion), though. A clear line is established that isn't crossed with any of the "accepted" orientations.

It's like marveling over how collecting Garbage Pail Kids cards is an acceptable hobby while being a serial killer is not. I don't find that to be subjective at all.



new topics




 
54
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join