Predators with Ph.D.s

Originally posted by DaveNorris
i think its good that they have these meetings, it meens they are all in one place at the same time, so we know were to plant the bombs

Well that's great, now there's talk of bombing. Do you see what you've done OP? You've taken something that could help people and turned into the very thing it's against, all because you refused to research and took the word of a blogger over your own ability to look at a site and judge for yourself. Completely irresponsible considering this is an issue people tend to get violent over.

I'll say again because apparently it needs to be posted on every page...this was never about condoning pedophilia it is about preventing it. R E A D!!!

Originally posted by Aim64Creply to post by Rekrul

Edit: i'm playing on the fact that heterosexuality and homosexuality are a way of life. these pedos believe that their fetish is the same.

Arguably, someone making the lifestyle choice to limit their sexual partners to children is no different than someone making the lifestyle choice to limit their sexual partners to asians or people of the same sex. The only difference is the somewhat humorous argument that children are not capable of making their own decisions.

And, yet - as people stand here and assert that their children are incapable of making decisions and understanding the consequences; they dole out various forms of punishment to their children based on the argument: "they know better!"

Just saying....

Well, the difference is that in a lot of cases where the kid did something wrong and got in trouble for it, it is something they were told not to do repeatedly, and are often told why, as well. In the case of pedophilia, there's an adult that is trying to persuade this kid into sexual activity, and we're expecting them to be able to give a reasonable argument. Really, it's a matter of "they know better!" is not detailed out to show the difference between the two. So the irony's mainly superficial.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Of course the entire concept of mental health is not factually based.
(..)
Also, I don't need to do any research, as all I need to do is to don my thinking cap. My argument is irrefutable, and perhaps it's you who needs to give this issue an extra thought or two.

The first sentence negates any effect of your last statement. If mental health is ENTIRELY subjective and a PSEUDOSCIENCE, it can't prove that pedophilia isn't a mental illness or aberration. Heck, even at partially fact and not, this could still be stated this way. All emotionally expressed sexuality could be a mental illness.

Really, the only rational approach is what is sex for? Pleasure, procreation, and domination. Only Dolphins and Humans are known to really derive pleasure from the act, so the vast majority of life that has sex for the other 2 reasons. But out of the 3, the only one that is really needed for the survival of the species is procreation--which leads us to the "Every Sperm is Sacred" moment.

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
The definition of what fits in to the healthy or not-so-healthy basket I will agree is subjective and based entirely on cultural norms; for example, in medieval times (and earlier) it was common place to marry girls as young as 13 whereas these days that would be considered morally reprehensible. That being said, I think that there are still certain deviations in the psyche of a person that would ubiquitously be considered as 'wrong' - the desire to have sexual relations with pre-pubescent children, for example.

Generally speaking, when people were married before more recent times, they didn't tend to marry the girls off until they had their first menstruation--so most girls married closewr to 15, although there were many who married younger. Only marriages that didn't at least abide by this were usually politically derived. Since a woman's worth was tied up in how many babies she could pump out before she died, there was no point in marrying a woman who couldn't at least start a cycle. When we learned more modern information, like the large change to the brain at 15 years of age, or that 16-19 is when the female's hips are at their widest, and they are more likely to succeed in bearing kids without killing themselves, that we started pushing for an older age for marriage.

Originally posted by hypervalentiodineThat reference is quoted from a catholic league organisation (the only reference in the whole article, in fact). It's quite obviously not true as you yourself pointed out that nothing of this nature could be found on the B4U_ACT site. Just another group pushing a bigoted and il-informed agenda, doing more harm than good.

Was hoping people would make a list of which ones were reprehensible if they were to be said at the conference, and cross-reference the links. I haven't read them in detail myself. It may be a couple of days before I do, anyway.

Originally posted by Shamatt
Of course what you say is true. But the thinking that "Some pedophiles are homosexuals therefore all gays are perverts" is wrong, insulting and the type of dark ages thinking we can all do without.

Wouldn't have even bothered to reply if you had put this in there somewhere. To automatically take an oppositional stance to a broadly painted slur on a group of people generally misleads folks into believing that you approve of all homosexuals and their behavior--some of which is pretty sick. Biggest source of arguments in this place.

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
Generally speaking, when people were married before more recent times, they didn't tend to marry the girls off until they had their first menstruation--so most girls married closewr to 15, although there were many who married younger. Only marriages that didn't at least abide by this were usually politically derived. Since a woman's worth was tied up in how many babies she could pump out before she died, there was no point in marrying a woman who couldn't at least start a cycle. When we learned more modern information, like the large change to the brain at 15 years of age, or that 16-19 is when the female's hips are at their widest, and they are more likely to succeed in bearing kids without killing themselves, that we started pushing for an older age for marriage.

I am well aware of this. You'll notice I did in fact make a distinction between this analogy and the sexual attraction towards pre-pubescent children.

Was hoping people would make a list of which ones were reprehensible if they were to be said at the conference, and cross-reference the links. I haven't read them in detail myself. It may be a couple of days before I do, anyway.

I have't read any minutes of the conference either, just the overviews of them, the B4U_ACT site and the biography of the key note speaker.

reply to post by CynicalDrivel

Well, the difference is that in a lot of cases where the kid did something wrong and got in trouble for it, it is something they were told not to do repeatedly, and are often told why, as well.

This makes a difference... how? How does this 'difference' change a child's ability to make decisions and suddenly make their mindset valid?

I'm curious. I remember being a child - it wasn't all that long ago. What is different between now and then that suddenly makes my decisions and disposition valid? Or, perhaps it is easier to answer why a child's decisions are invalid.

Take your pick, any will amuse me.

In the case of pedophilia, there's an adult that is trying to persuade this kid into sexual activity, and we're expecting them to be able to give a reasonable argument.

What you are describing is a predatory relationship. Walking into a school and looking for a child to have sex with is no different than walking into a club, bar, or college and looking for a girl to have sex with.

This is like taking serial rapists - who often have a 'fetish' they use to define their target - and trying to make the argument that someone who is only attracted to, say, blondes is also a serial rapist.

What someone considers attractive does not hold much bearing on the nature of a relationship. It will certainly influence the dynamics (I don't have a foot-fetish, for example - thus, I really couldn't care less what's going on with the feet - I do, however, like long hair, and will personally wash and maintain a girl's hair if it is necessary to keep her from cutting it off) - but simply because someone finds children attractive does not make them or any relationship they may have predatory in nature.

This should not be confused, again, with being ill-advised. A child tends to idolize older members of society; something that rarely works out well for a relationship. There's also the fact that children age - which is rather unique among fetishes - a girl with large breasts isn't suddenly going to come home with a flat chest; a child will eventually come home an adult, which may damage the sense of attraction). Hence, it's just not a good idea to get involved with a child.

But since when has "it's not a good idea" kept anyone from taking on a relationship?

That said, unwise does not equal predatory.

Originally posted by Kali74

Originally posted by DaveNorris
i think its good that they have these meetings, it meens they are all in one place at the same time, so we know were to plant the bombs

Well that's great, now there's talk of bombing. Do you see what you've done OP? You've taken something that could help people and turned into the very thing it's against, all because you refused to research and took the word of a blogger over your own ability to look at a site and judge for yourself. Completely irresponsible considering this is an issue people tend to get violent over.

I'll say again because apparently it needs to be posted on every page...this was never about condoning pedophilia it is about preventing it. R E A D!!!

Pedophiles are the new withches, and the West is on a grand quest to hunt them.

It is such an emotive subject that the concept of intelligent peopple sitting down to talk about the it will cause this knee jerk reaction. Always will. Crazy realy.

there are multiple modern day witch hunts happening all around us...drug addicts, cigarette smokers, people that drive too fast, people that dont pay their taxes, people that dont support the war machine, those that dont fit the mold and dare to make waves,ect ect,ect...

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
I am well aware of this. You'll notice I did in fact make a distinction between this analogy and the sexual attraction towards pre-pubescent children.

My bad. Didn't catch that. I guess the "in depth" (not even remotely, folks) may help those who did not know, though.

By CD: Was hoping people would make a list of which. ones were reprehensible if they were to be said at the conference, and cross-reference the links. I haven't read them in detail myself. It may be a couple of days before I do, anyway.

I have't read any minutes of the conference either, just the overviews of them, the B4U_ACT site and the biography of the key note speaker.

See, this is what I fear most about something like this. There's not really anyone who is doing anything more than just a superficial look at this stuff. I linked the crud, and all I've been dealing with is responding to people's reactions.

The thing is that both groups have an agenda, and we're assuming that the agenda that they allow the general public to see is their main agenda because this is not a subject any of us really want to be masters of.

If I was pro-anything not currently in-vogue that does not have a lot of power backing it, I'd hide my agenda.

Most moralistic people believe they have the weight of a being (beings, whatever) that can crush everyone. Although plenty of them will lie, they don't really have the need to. To top that off, most of them think that lying, even for their own agendas, is likely to get the full weight of that Creator God(s, karma, whatever) on their backs. I'm not saying that lying doesn't happen, just that their mental deck of cards is stacked in such a manner as to make it a seemigly dangerous proposition. So, I expect the article's agenda is right on the surface, to villify pedophilia, preferably through B4U ACT's own words.

B4U ACT, on the other hand, may or may not be a group of people who are moraliy oriented (As in, if 1 thing I feel to be right is wrong as a STANDARD, why bother with standards?), the agenda outlined that they present to society might be face not seen at the actual symposium. It might not be the same face that they show online if we dig far enough. They certainly don't have the weight of majority acceptance or much power yet to be blatant with all intents. They have to play nice. I'm just wondering how deep "nice" goes--which is a rational reaction for a conspiracy site.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by CynicalDrivel

 

Well, the difference is that in a lot of cases where the kid did something wrong and got in trouble for it, it is something they were told not to do repeatedly, and are often told why, as well.

This makes a difference... how? How does this 'difference' change a child's ability to make decisions and suddenly make their mindset valid?

I'm curious. I remember being a child - it wasn't all that long ago. What is different between now and then that suddenly makes my decisions and disposition valid? Or, perhaps it is easier to answer why a child's decisions are invalid.

Take your pick, any will amuse me.

1. Don't touch that Iron otherwise mama will smack your hand. Age 1-2, roughly. 2. Don't touch that Iron because it's hot and hot things burn. First experience, or when you can understand your parent's explanation, until roughly 10 years of age. 3. You can touch that Iron, because you're strong enough to move it without dropping it on yourself, but only with adult supervision. As early as they are strong enough to, and lasts until parents trust them to use the bloody Iron apropriately. 3 All the previous and you understand the concept of tapping the iron to check if it's hot enough without burning yourself, oh, and you're old enough to not horseplay with the dang thing--which would result in either burning you or your siblings. So you can do it on your own, as long as you don't leave it unattended. Roughly depends on the age of the kid, but I'd guess mid-teens on, for most kids.

The point is that things change as you age--or learn as you grow. It is a gradual change, not something that happens immediately. It is variable, depending on how well the parent teaches the kid to be independant, how natrually responsible the kid tends to be, and how willing everyone involved is to allow the ultimate consequences (burning down the house and potentially killing everyone) of failure. In fact this is scientifically sound enough that the reason that they teach upper math around and after kids turn 15 is because there is a change in the brain that accomodates learning upper math better than they would have before that time.

If you did not mentally grow from an infant to an adult, your dispositon towards this would be valid. Now, does this mean that some magical age automatically makes certain things acceptable? Yes and no. There's no magic date, but there are ages where the majority of the growing should reach a specific milestone. By 18, most of the consequences of sex should be understood by the majority of the population. (Never 100%. Some of that mess does require education and a support system.) If you were ready at 14, you were given a legal 4 year buffer of protection from predators (or at least you should) that have far more experience at getting what they want.

In the case of pedophilia, there's an adult that is trying to persuade this kid into sexual activity, and we're expecting them to be able to give a reasonable argument.

What you are describing is a predatory relationship. Walking into a school and looking for a child to have sex with is no different than walking into a club, bar, or college and looking for a girl to have sex with.

This is like taking serial rapists - who often have a 'fetish' they use to define their target - and trying to make the argument that someone who is only attracted to, say, blondes is also a serial rapist.

What someone considers attractive does not hold much bearing on the nature of a relationship. It will certainly influence the dynamics (I don't have a foot-fetish, for example - thus, I really couldn't care less what's going on with the feet - I do, however, like long hair, and will personally wash and maintain a girl's hair if it is necessary to keep her from cutting it off) - but simply because someone finds children attractive does not make them or any relationship they may have predatory in nature.

This should not be confused, again, with being ill-advised. A child tends to idolize older members of society; something that rarely works out well for a relationship. There's also the fact that children age - which is rather unique among fetishes - a girl with large breasts isn't suddenly going to come home with a flat chest; a child will eventually come home an adult, which may damage the sense of attraction). Hence, it's just not a good idea to get involved with a child.

But since when has "it's not a good idea" kept anyone from taking on a relationship?

That said, unwise does not equal predatory.

I should have said actively predatory pedophilic relationship. Most people, when they say pedophile mean the relationship.

Originally posted by blocula
there are multiple modern day witch hunts happening all around us...drug addicts, cigarette smokers, people that drive too fast, people that dont pay their taxes, people that dont support the war machine, those that dont fit the mold and dare to make waves,ect ect,ect...

The witch hunters are bein hunted as witches, on all sides. This is a seething viper's nest of bs.

and its all swirling around the most cruel and unusual,controlling and oppressive thing ever invented...$$$...if everyone was rich,no one would be rich. if everyone was poor,no one would be poor and tptb will never allow that, because they would instantly lose their iron like grasp thats locked around our throats..."act and think the way we want you to act and think,if you dont,you will be left with three choices" > homeless,prison or death < and that ladies and gentlemen,is "the meaning of freedom" in the usa!!!...