Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

They Will Eventually Legalize Child Pornography

page: 8
13
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Well said IR. PET and fMRI have been great in exhibiting that homosexuality is not a choice. Not quite proven yet but it isn't easy to prove something a bit intangible like that

people are genetically different so things like pedophilia and homosexuality can occur in an otherwise normal upbringing

-Kyo




posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by KyoZero
 


Another test is done where they place a mans penis in a tube which senses, for lack of a better word, erm engorgement. Show men who are gay images of women and nothing happens but show them images of men and their penises receive increased blood flow.

I just get tired of people saying that being gay is a choice when all of the evidence says otherwise. There reasons for them saying that are either because they are utterly ignorant of the science or they know the science and simply refuse it because of their preconceived ideas.

It's odd though that the people who are really anti-gay often turn out to be cruising mens bathrooms with the intent of being the filling in a man sandwich.



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I admit I never heard that one...well done IR

but I guess we're just part of the agenda :-p

-Kyo



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   
This will never happen and that is that. Domestically Stateside it is a Class B Felony to posses child porn and carries a sentence of at least 6 months per image and a year plus per tape found on someone's hard drive.

Hence why Disney and Nickelodeon are strictly banned from selling any talent on any of it's entertainment items on sex that are younger then age 18.

Remember JoJo and Lil' Mama? No longer doing videos until they turn 18. Miley Cyrus falls under this same ruling. Lil Wayne and Bow Wow also had their carrers put on hold until they turned 18.



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


That creates a serious problem then. You see, a "test" used to see if pedophiles are "reformed" is to test erectile response to stimuli (i.e.: they show suggestive kiddie pics and see if the perpetrator gets an erection). Fail this test, risk being revoked and sent to prison again.

If you allege that this response is ingrained, and natural, implying that it makes it "ok" to be gay, what does this do for the consideration of pedophilia?

It implies that they are both the same thing, homosexuality and pedophilia. So would that make homosexuality a abberant behavior, or would it make pedophilia an acceptable behavior?

I mean, if you assert that erectile response denotes how you are "made" or wired, and therefore incapable of changing it....do you see how that complicates the philosophical debate that this very thread is based on?

A whole new can of worms. And i am taking my 10 foot pole, and getting the hell out of here.


BTW, as it should be evident, i have no issue with homosexuality. This isn't about bashing gays, it is about reconciling an issue presented in the logic.
Deny ignorance, right?



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
That creates a serious problem then. You see, a "test" used to see if pedophiles are "reformed" is to test erectile response to stimuli (i.e.: they show suggestive kiddie pics and see if the perpetrator gets an erection). Fail this test, risk being revoked and sent to prison again.


Having a response to such things doesn't mean you will act upon them. There are people who are celebate after all and anyway you are comparing a criminal activity to a legal one. I don't mean the arousal is illegal but anyone acting upon their attraction to children would of course be committing a crime.


Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
If you allege that this response is ingrained, and natural, implying that it makes it "ok" to be gay, what does this do for the consideration of pedophilia?


I'm struggling to see your point i'm afraid. A gay person has sex with another, of age, consenting gay person and so no one is harmed. A paedophile has sex with a child, by force or manipulation and the act can/does have long term, psychologically and often physically damaging effects.


Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
It implies that they are both the same thing, homosexuality and pedophilia. So would that make homosexuality a abberant behavior, or would it make pedophilia an acceptable behavior?


Really strange twisting of the situation because you don't mention the other possible alternatives. Like homosexuality is an acceptable behavior and paedophilia is neither acceptable nor healthy. Paedophilia leads to direct harm of a human child. Homosexuality leads to no harm, other than the persecution an ignorant society lumps upon the homosexual.


Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I mean, if you assert that erectile response denotes how you are "made" or wired, and therefore incapable of changing it....do you see how that complicates the philosophical debate that this very thread is based on?


No i don't really unless you twist it as you have. Just because someone has an erectile response does not mean they will act upon their desires. A gay person can act upon there desires because it is not illegal to do so.

Many paedophiles do not act upon their desires. From the research i have read there are a number of reasons for that, the fear of prosecution is a minor one, not wanting to cause harm seems to be a larger one.

How about we put it another way. Serial killers are said to be a mix of genetics and environment. The genetic factor is key. So should we let them off? Of course not, they commit a crime and we imprison them.

Seriously your whole argument here is deeply flawed.


Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
BTW, as it should be evident, i have no issue with homosexuality. This isn't about bashing gays, it is about reconciling an issue presented in the logic.
Deny ignorance, right?


Yes deny ignorance so why are you comparing a criminal action with a non criminal action? Why are you comparing somethign which causes direct harm to a child (paedophilia) to something which causes no harm (consenting homosexuality)?

You're going to have to explain your logic a little better.



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Having a response to such things doesn't mean you will act upon them. There are people who are celebate after all and anyway you are comparing a criminal activity to a legal one. I don't mean the arousal is illegal but anyone acting upon their attraction to children would of course be committing a crime.


Yes, i understand this.

What i am saying is you presented this response as evidence that homosexuality is an ingrained, part of who those people are. You are implying that because they were "created" this way, that it makes their sexual deviancy acceptable.

I am asking that if such logic is used in the case of homosexuality, why would the same logic not be applied to other sexually deviant behavior?

Keep in mind, by "deviant" i only refer to the deviation from the "normal". As well, i only ask this because you brought it up, and it is something that struck me as worthy of discussion.



I'm struggling to see your point i'm afraid. A gay person has sex with another, of age, consenting gay person and so no one is harmed. A paedophile has sex with a child, by force or manipulation and the act can/does have long term, psychologically and often physically damaging effects.


A gay person has sex with another, yes. Lets put aside legality for the time being. As well, lets put aside morality. Each of these issues is what we are trying to determine, and thus our prejudices cannot predetermine without risk of falling victim to circular logic. In short, we are playing devils advocate here (something i am fond of).
Don't take this conversation personally.

Sex is a procreative tool. "Normal" use is in childbearing pursuits. Any sexual act that does not follow this would be classified as deviant. We are comparing these two things on the basis of this one aspect: deviation from "normal".

You have established that erectile response is a legitimate measurement of sexual predilection. You are asserting that this predilection is not a choice, but a part of how we are made. I am drawing a parellel between the legitimate measure that you assert legitimizees homosexuality, and asking if it then would not legitimize pedophelia.

No, i don't believe this to be true.

I have no point. I am only raising a question, based on the above.



Really strange twisting of the situation because you don't mention the other possible alternatives. Like homosexuality is an acceptable behavior and paedophilia is neither acceptable nor healthy. Paedophilia leads to direct harm of a human child. Homosexuality leads to no harm, other than the persecution an ignorant society lumps upon the homosexual.


From the viewpoint of devils advocate, it could be said that your lack of imagination regarding the possible damage done does little to validate the prior assertion that erectile response legitimizes homosexual behavior.



No i don't really unless you twist it as you have. Just because someone has an erectile response does not mean they will act upon their desires. A gay person can act upon there desires because it is not illegal to do so.


We are not discussing this as a legality. We are discussing your evidence used to legitimize homosexual behavior.

The erectile response is the crux of this argument. If we can present it as a "test" to show that someone is born gay, wired gay, and created gay, then we can assume that the same response would show that they are born pedophile, etc.

Now, obviously this has ramifications from a law enforcement and rehabilitation viewpoint.



Many paedophiles do not act upon their desires. From the research i have read there are a number of reasons for that, the fear of prosecution is a minor one, not wanting to cause harm seems to be a larger one.

How about we put it another way. Serial killers are said to be a mix of genetics and environment. The genetic factor is key. So should we let them off? Of course not, they commit a crime and we imprison them.

Seriously your whole argument here is deeply flawed.


No, it isn't flawed. I am applying your logic for one deviant sexual act to another deviant sexual act. If that logic fails then perhaps THAT is the logic that is flawed.

It brings up a whole 'nuther set of problems. Consider it. Really.

How do you "punish" someone for being the way they are made to be? What if homosexuality were currently illegal (which, technically, it is in some states)? Would you argument of "legality" really even matter?

At the bottom of it all, if finding children attractive were determined to be an ingrained, part of what they are....how do we handle this?

I know what i think. I think morality be damned, we still go after them with both barrels, but i live in an increasingly liberal society that waffles on such matters. I am only wanting to discuss this because i can see it as an issue in the future. It is already along the lines of the argument that NAMBLA uses to justify what they do.

I know that people can exert self control. I hope that lots of people use this control. Being of the buddhist faith, i find self control to be a valuable trait.
But if you do not act on your latent desires, you likely are not a "pedophile", and thus not what we are discussing. Lets not start to mix apples in with the oranges. it is a confusing enough topic.



Yes deny ignorance so why are you comparing a criminal action with a non criminal action? Why are you comparing somethign which causes direct harm to a child (paedophilia) to something which causes no harm (consenting homosexuality)?

You're going to have to explain your logic a little better.


because we were not discussing legality, we were discussing the evidence legitimizing homosexuality as a way that people are made, and not a choice.

If a measurement is used, one would expect some level of equality in the way that measurement is applied. If it doesn't hold up as a true measurement in all situations, then it is likely that it is a flawed measurement.

Without even realizing it, you backed into using the exact same argument that NAMBLA uses: that they can't help it, they are made that way.

I hope that you understand better where i am coming from.



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Yes, i understand this.

What i am saying is you presented this response as evidence that homosexuality is an ingrained, part of who those people are. You are implying that because they were "created" this way, that it makes their sexual deviancy acceptable.

I am asking that if such logic is used in the case of homosexuality, why would the same logic not be applied to other sexually deviant behavior?

Keep in mind, by "deviant" i only refer to the deviation from the "normal". As well, i only ask this because you brought it up, and it is something that struck me as worthy of discussion.


I'm still confused. You seem to suggest that because paedophilia is not a choice but an engrained behavior that they should be let off for their crimes. You are comparing an illegal, damaging crime (paedophilia) with a non damaging, non illegal act.

The entire comparison is flawed on that very basis.


Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
A gay person has sex with another, yes. Lets put aside legality for the time being. As well, lets put aside morality. Each of these issues is what we are trying to determine, and thus our prejudices cannot predetermine without risk of falling victim to circular logic. In short, we are playing devils advocate here (something i am fond of).
Don't take this conversation personally.


I wasn't taking anything personally and find it odd you think i was.


Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Sex is a procreative tool. "Normal" use is in childbearing pursuits. Any sexual act that does not follow this would be classified as deviant. We are comparing these two things on the basis of this one aspect: deviation from "normal".


Actually no it's not just a procreative tool as you put it. In primate species it is often used as a bonding tool and humans are no exception to this.


Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
You have established that erectile response is a legitimate measurement of sexual predilection. You are asserting that this predilection is not a choice, but a part of how we are made. I am drawing a parellel between the legitimate measure that you assert legitimizees homosexuality, and asking if it then would not legitimize pedophelia.

No, i don't believe this to be true.

I have no point. I am only raising a question, based on the above.


If you are raising a question then you have a point to make, otherwise the question is unimportant and can be disgarded. If you mean legitimize paedophilia as something you are born with then yes, many people are born with it. If you are talking morally then no we cannot legitimize it because it causes direct harm. Homosexuality on the other hand does not so once again your comparison is very poorly made and your failure to see that suggests you are not being logical, despite repeatedly saying you are.



Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
From the viewpoint of devils advocate, it could be said that your lack of imagination regarding the possible damage done does little to validate the prior assertion that erectile response legitimizes homosexual behavior.


Devils advocate is a logical position, but you haven't been logical. Homosexuality causes no harm in consenting adults.


Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
We are not discussing this as a legality. We are discussing your evidence used to legitimize homosexual behavior.

The erectile response is the crux of this argument. If we can present it as a "test" to show that someone is born gay, wired gay, and created gay, then we can assume that the same response would show that they are born pedophile, etc.

Now, obviously this has ramifications from a law enforcement and rehabilitation viewpoint.


No it does not have any remifications. If someone is born a paedophile but does not act upon their urges then they should not be imprisoned or persecuted. If someone acts upon it then they commit a crime and need to be dealt with. You are trying to argue a position which has a very clear flaw, that being paedophilia is illegal. You can say it doesn't matter because it is a moral argument, well morally it is wrong to most people because it causes real damage to a child.

So morally and legally it is wrong and therefore your entire premise is baseless.


Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
No, it isn't flawed. I am applying your logic for one deviant sexual act to another deviant sexual act. If that logic fails then perhaps THAT is the logic that is flawed.

It brings up a whole 'nuther set of problems. Consider it. Really.


No you are not applying my logic lol. This is getting tiresome. My logic pertains to a sexuality that is legal and causes no harm to anyone (as long as the parties are consenting). You are stretching that logic and applying it to an illegal and damaging act.


Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
How do you "punish" someone for being the way they are made to be?


We punish serial killers, would you excuse that as well?


Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
What if homosexuality were currently illegal (which, technically, it is in some states)? Would you argument of "legality" really even matter?


My argument goes beyond simple legality. Homosexuality causes no harm and therefore i would defend it under my basic argument of freedom of expression "you can do whatever you like as long as you don't hurt someone".


Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
At the bottom of it all, if finding children attractive were determined to be an ingrained, part of what they are....how do we handle this?


We say to leave them alone until they harm a child. Some people are born with a violent bent and they control their aggression. Once again your argument is flawed.


Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I know that people can exert self control. I hope that lots of people use this control. Being of the buddhist faith, i find self control to be a valuable trait.
But if you do not act on your latent desires, you likely are not a "pedophile", and thus not what we are discussing. Lets not start to mix apples in with the oranges. it is a confusing enough topic.


Err a paedophile is one attracted to underage children and many exist who do not act upon their urges. All you have to do is spend 20 minutes of research on google and you will discover that (i'm talking research papers here). Or go and talk to a community counsellor, i knew one and many times they would listen to people crying about their attraction to children and they hated themselves for it.

I hate to be rude but the fact you could say " But if you do not act on your latent desires, you likely are not a "pedophile", and thus not what we are discussing. " shows a real ignorance on the topic at hand.


Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Without even realizing it, you backed into using the exact same argument that NAMBLA uses: that they can't help it, they are made that way.

I hope that you understand better where i am coming from.


I understand where you are coming from, but where you are coming from is a building with no foundation. Once again it is not simply the legality it is the morality and direct harm that is done by paedophiles.

I was justifying homosexuality because someone said it was a choice, i provided evidence showing it was not a choice. Now paedophilia is not a choice either however many homosexuals control their urges, either out of fear of society or their religion or they just want to be celebate. If they can do it then a paedophile can as well



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 12:31 AM
link   
This whole line of conversation stems from your use of the erectile response as an example of how it is "ok" to be homosexual. I only ask why it doesn't make it ok to like having sex with children, and should we then be using it as a measure on whether we will revoke a persons probation or parole.

If you are saying that them being consenting partners is the qualifier, then i ask simply would it make it ok to have sex with a 13 year old child in a tribal land where this was not unlawful? Would you have a different opinion of it in that instance?

In the example of the "beardless boys", if this is not unlawful in that nation, and these boys consent to this agreement, do you see it as wrong? Considering that the erectile response shows that this is a normal behavior?

I brought this up because your "erectile response" example just might do nothing to make homosexuality seem "ok", as you are use the very same test used to determine if a child molester is fit to live among the public.

The reason i keep saying "i am playing devils advocate" is because i think that the use of "erectile response" is ludicrous as a way to make homosexuality seem normal. I think if you use that in the future you are going to raise serious questions, especially for pro-NAMBLA types.



[edit on 25-2-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   
It is hard to believe you aren't getting it, but i think i figured out how to break it down:

This discussion was about pedophilia. Somehow, homosexuality got thrown into this. So then it was discussed for awhile, and you were defending it as a lifestyle option quite well.

then, all of a sudden, you took a left turn and provided fodder for the very argument you were trying to discredit: that pedophilia and homosexuality are somehow related. You used a measurement of how depraved and perverted a child molester is to justify homosexuality.

do you not see how badly compiled and self defeating the argument is?

Yes, i agree with you up until that point. Now do you understand?



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Emerald The Paradigm
 


People seem to have forgotten where we came from as a species, people apparently think these morals and laws just popped out of nowhere. Just a few centuries ago most of what we call children were considered adults. You see lifespan wasn't very high and so the age of adulthood was usually the age of sexual maturity. Back then there was nothing abnormal about people marrying people half their age. For instance Edgar Allan Poe married his 13 year old cousin when he was 26, most people today when they hear this GASP IN HORROR and yet it is historically agreed upon that they had a healthy marriage. In fact there love was so strong that after she died Poe wrote works mourning her and pining for lost love...

Now I'm not saying child porn should be legal, what I am saying is that we as a society have, just in the last century and a half, become extremely shocked at our own sexuality (at least in public). We put arbitrary ages on when someone can consent to sex when really the age is different for everyone and is more dependent upon biology than society. If people understood the history of sex better it would help eliminate this irrational shock factor.

I think it would be a step backwards to legalize child pornography however I still find the idea of a blanket age of legality (in the states its usually 18) to be silly, especially when statistics, surveys and studies constantly tell us age of consent laws do nothing to deter sexual activity in young adults.

In my mind consent and biological maturity are the only determining factors in whether someone should be allowed to have sex, this whole age of consent thing just doesn't work.

I do find it weird though that people can now be jailed for cartoons depicting minors engaged in sexual acts (at least here in the States) and yet in the UK we have people making mention of decriminalizing child pornography, two apparently different cultures I guess?






top topics



 
13
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join