Freedom for Sinners

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Consider the harm in your reaction being taken too far; I defend Paedophiles and the dregs of humanity, the trash that nobody else is willing to stick up for. A person with enough anger and resentment at this position might implicate me as a Pedophile.

i said before. i agree with your opinion about manga man.

but i abhorrently disagree with you when you say "I demand freedom for sinners. I demand they be allowed to sin," in respects to sin that harms others.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Let's be real here, anybody who abuses ad child or anybody who forces themselves upon any person is a problem and should be kept away from the people they may hurt.

But if given a constructive outlet, that again, hurts nobody, should that not be something that is somewhat encouraged for these people?

ok but then there are 2 trains of thought. 1 is that stuff like pornography enflames the desire and moves people to act, and 2 that it doesnt

now that is a BIG difference in opinion. and one that has far reaching consequences.

wouldnt one want to make absolutely sure that drawn pornography (especially of a child nature) wont be a motivating factor BEFORE advocating it?

reply to post by miriam0566


Ofcourse there needs to be a support system in place before you can move to such things.

That's the problem, we shun these people and don't HELP them try to come to terms with their problems.

It is unhealthy to want to have sex with a child, I'll give you that. But if we don't try and help these people, and not by degrading them or shunning them in society, then ofcourse we can expect them them to act on their desires.

We have AA, why not PA?

~Keeper

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
It is unhealthy to want to have sex with a child, I'll give you that. But if we don't try and help these people, and not by degrading them or shunning them in society, then ofcourse we can expect them them to act on their desires.

We have AA, why not PA?

because pedophilia is not alcoholism. people dont have "problems" with pedophilia.

they dont sit there wondering how many days they can go without raping or seducing a child.

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
It is unhealthy to want to have sex with a child, I'll give you that. But if we don't try and help these people, and not by degrading them or shunning them in society, then ofcourse we can expect them them to act on their desires.

We have AA, why not PA?

because pedophilia is not alcoholism. people dont have "problems" with pedophilia.

they dont sit there wondering how many days they can go without raping or seducing a child.

I agree with you, but I dislike the use of the word "sin". I think we should consider legalities, etc, but not "sins" based on religious contexts, because it depends what religion you are.

Is it wrong to eat beef? You'll make a sinful Hindu if you think it isn't. Drink alcohol and eat pork? You'll be a terrible Muslim.

However, I find no sin attached to either of these things.

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
I agree with you, but I dislike the use of the word "sin". I think we should consider legalities, etc, but not "sins" based on religious contexts, because it depends what religion you are.

Is it wrong to eat beef? You'll make a sinful Hindu if you think it isn't. Drink alcohol and eat pork? You'll be a terrible Muslim.

However, I find no sin attached to either of these things.

sin, even in the context of a religious sense is "not loving". whether "not loving" god, or "not loving" your fellow man.

but you want to call it something else, thats cool. how about just plain "wrong"

reply to post by jackflap


Apparently, we DON'T All know it's wrong... because I've seen enough disagreement in this thread alone, much less every other thread that these topics crop up in, to prove DEMONSTRABLY that you are incorrect; everyone doesn't "KNOW" it's wrong to allow such things.

And so, your moral absolutism is false; people are not born with a wrong or right sense, and it is entirely cultural.

reply to post by miriam0566


Yes, I am saying that the Paedophiles desires are okay. Everything is okay, if it doesn't harm someone else. If you want to harm yourself, go right ahead, it's your right to do so.

Paedophiles have a right to be attracted to children. They don't have a right to molest or violate children.

Freedom of Speech exists for Paedophiles, it was created to exist for such hatred groups of people... because of morally righteous people who see nothing wrong with creating a category of people that is subhuman and deserving of less rights than you have.

So yes, Paedophiles and their attractions are okay.

Now go and learn the difference between child rape and Paedophilia.

reply to post by miriam0566


Because there *IS* no wrong. There *IS* no sin. You cannot convince the entire world that ANYTHING is wrong, there will always be cultures and societies that will burn you for trying to show them they're going to hell.

Speaking of sinners and sin and letting sinners sin.... There was an article in my local paper today about how the anti-smoking lobbyists are up in arms over the Electronic Cigarette's. These don't contain any tobacco tar, harmful carcinogens or anything that is a byproduct of the cigarette manufacturing industry; It provides flavored nicotine supplement through inhalant and generates water-vapor to simulate smoke... All in all, practically harmless.

I am not a smoker... but what I do find interesting is that the anti-tobacco alliance is against something that doesn't involve tobacco and can be smoked anywhere with only the result of water vapor.

Just like THIS conversation about paedophilia, when you skin the vineer of false arguments off of why people are against it, it comes down to mere hate and fear of "Other" kinds of people and has nothing to do with protecting ANYONE.

Originally posted by miriam0566
but i abhorrently disagree with you when you say "I demand freedom for sinners. I demand they be allowed to sin," in respects to sin that harms others.

You are inferring something that was never said during the course of this conversation.

This is not one line.

Originally posted by miriam0566
sin, even in the context of a religious sense is "not loving". whether "not loving" god, or "not loving" your fellow man.

but you want to call it something else, thats cool. how about just plain "wrong"

It isn't, though.

A sin is the transgression of a divinely-ordained law. That's it. Thus, if you have a divinely-ordained law that says "thou shalt not work on Sundays", you have to ask yourself exactly why this is wrong.

The answer? It isn't, really. It's an arbitrary law given by whatever "prophet" defined the religion according to his own mores. Just because Muhammad didn't like a beer, doesn't mean it is fundamentally wrong, but a billion people will judge you as a sinner for it.

What I'm saying is, sin is a loaded word, which in itself is very bad. Even "wrong" is a bad word, because again, this implies definitions that are entirely valid or nonvalid, depending on the perspective of the user.

"Amoral" would be a better word for what you're asking, but it in itself is subject to the same problems, but I like to think that there are certain moral constants that pervade all human society (such as paedophilia being negative) that we can use as a basis to define what is moral and what is not. Ultimately, I think we can simply look at it from the "would you consider it an evil if it was done to yourself?" angle, if we had to take a hard stance on morality.

Some of these posts are coming way to close to justifying even the thought process.

Don't even go there people.

These guys, or girls(some female teachers) have zero self-control over their twisted sex drive, and some how they think societal rules don't apply to them.

I mean even atheists know this is wrong.

It is a form of sin for sure, that is universally condemned by any progressive society that has some form of code of ethics.

Trying to justify it is just crazy. Do these people need help, yes of coarse, but some just have to be locked up to protect our young.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Some of these posts are coming way to close to justifying even the thought process.

Paedophilia doesn't need to be justified, it IS justified. Child rape is something different.

Don't even go there people.

Oh, I went there. I went there and stayed there, I bought the t-shirt and collectible snow globe.

These guys, or girls(some female teachers) have zero self-control over their twisted sex drive, and some how they think societal rules don't apply to them.

You say that as if you somehow know these people. Sorry, I don't have confidence that you even understand yourself, much less any other human being on the face of this planet.

Thousands of people state the same sort of things about Paedophiles, and I still haven't seen studies and proofs provided to support such statements.

I mean even atheists know this is wrong.

There you go making statements about other people again, as if you could know what other people think/feel/know. You also paired it with that succulent little gem of moral absolutism, "WRONG". I don't believe in wrong, I believe in harm.

It is a form of sin for sure, that is universally condemned by any progressive society that has some form of code of ethics.

You mean "Civilized" society, because you'd mark people who don't share this opinion as "Uncivilized" I'm sure. Perhaps even "EVIL". I could cite examples of south African tribes where Pederasty is not only common, it is required for rituals of maturity.

Trying to justify it is just crazy. Do these people need help, yes of coarse, but some just have to be locked up to protect our young.

It isn't about protecting your children from people who have done you no wrong. It is about your moral sense of good and evil, and how the world must reflect your understanding of it.

There is no way for you to justify punishment for pornography that hurts nobody without resorting to the false statement that it is a slippery slope and that it would incite further instances of crime; which is not bourne out by the studies I have read.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
reply to post by jackflap

 

Apparently, we DON'T All know it's wrong... because I've seen enough disagreement in this thread alone, much less every other thread that these topics crop up in, to prove DEMONSTRABLY that you are incorrect; everyone doesn't "KNOW" it's wrong to allow such things.

And so, your moral absolutism is false; people are not born with a wrong or right sense, and it is entirely cultural.

You are right. People do need to be told what is right and what is wrong. What we need is a field manual for our brains. Some way of looking into the matter and finding what the end result is of allowing this type of "entertainment".

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Paedophilia doesn't need to be justified, it IS justified. Child rape is something different.

so let me see if i understand this correctly.

fantasizing about raping a child is not only ok, its "justified"

but actually doing is not.

reply to post by miriam0566


Paraphilias and fetishes of all kinds do not require any justification whatsoever... it would be like asking Homosexuals to justify themselves for their sinful acts against god, or Atheists having to justify themselves. Nobody, at all, needs to justify themselves to someone else for their own thoughts, feelings or emotions if they don't feel that they need to.

So yes. Thinking of raping children is totally justified. Actually doing it is not.

See this is the problem with conversing with a group about anyhting that involves religion in the sense of what is a sin and what is not. You all need to understand that a sin is nothing more than ones ideology on what is wrong to them it is most likely derived from your family cultural and religious backgrounds. I dont believe any one has it in their power to judge people for what they believe is a sin.

And imo i think this is no sin. The thought is just that a thought. People make thoughts that you may consider wrong everyday it is the implementation of these thoughts that intrude on another persons rights which i dont approve of.

this subject is no diff. then homosexuality you cant judge or hate this man or woman because of the thoughts he has

these are simply urges and desires that one has no control over sure this man be perceived by you as a monster but that is just because society is not open to these thoughts and deems the same, and that is wrong


personally i like these mangas but im not some old dude so you dont perceive me as a monster as you do him, but why not, we have the same thoughts and likes about it but it is because society dosent care whether or not i like it but whether or not someone else does

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
So yes. Thinking of raping children is totally justified. Actually doing it is not.

wow... just wow..

reply to post by TheColdDragon

Paedophilia doesn't need to be justified, it IS justified. Child rape is something different.

So yes. Thinking of raping children is totally justified. Actually doing it is not.

From Wiki

The term pedophilia (or paedophilia) has a range of definitions as found in psychology, law enforcement, and the vernacular. As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), pedophilia is specified as a form of paraphilia in which a person either has acted on intense sexual urges towards children, or experiences recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children that cause distress or interpersonal difficulty. The disorder is common among people who commit child sexual abuse; however, some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia. In strictly behavioral contexts, the word "pedophilia" has been used to refer to child sexual abuse itself, also called "pedophilic behavior". In law enforcement, the term "pedophile" is generally used to describe those accused or convicted of the sexual abuse of a minor (including both prepubescent children and adolescent minors younger than the local age of consent). An example of this use can be seen in various forensic training manuals. Some researchers have described this usage as improper and suggested it can confound two separate types of offenders. In common usage, the term refers to any adult who is sexually attracted to children or who sexually abuses a child. The causes of pedophilia are not known; research is ongoing. Most pedophiles are men, though there are also women who are pedophiles. Due to the stereotype that pedophiles are always male, it has been difficult to determine the prevalence of females with pedophilia; however studies in the UK and USA suggest that a range of 5% to 20% of child sexual abuse offenses are perpetrated by women.

You are saying the above is justified, that is just crazy, your moral compass is massively messed up.

[edit on 4-6-2009 by Blue_Jay33]

reply to post by miriam0566


That is specifically what is referred to as "THOUGHT CRIME", the condemnation of society and the law in general merely based upon the thought of an act rather than the act itself.

I could just as easily shift the sentence and say that it is perfectly Justified to want to murder your boss with a machete. Actually doing it is not.

It is perfectly Justified to think about robbing a bank. Actually doing so is not.

There is NOTHING that makes Paedophilia different in this respect. There is no special status for Paedophilia that allows people to condemn them for thought crimes.

And as such, I will defend their rights for freedom of thought and speech, because so few people do and moral majorities picketing for witch hunts sicken me.