|
United States24615 Posts
On December 22 2010 06:23 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 06:18 micronesia wrote:On December 22 2010 06:16 Haemonculus wrote:On December 22 2010 06:04 danl9rm wrote:
I find it hard to believe so many people on this site think this is wrong.
If this guy believes he's a pedophile from birth and is only getting hated on because society hasn't "caught up" culturally in their understanding, then what's so different between his odd sexual preferences and a homosexual's?
If homosexuality is ok, why isn't pedophilia? Children can't consent. Yes that is the weakness in his post however I think he just means it isn't the pedophiles fault to have the preference they do (similar to a homosexual not having control over his/her preference). If he's actually saying child rape is ok then that's obviously another matter. Oh, I agree. If someone is just born that way and seriously only gets off to little kids... that fucking sucks, lol. What a shitty life they would have then t.t;
I have no statistics but I think there is a lot of overlap between pedophilia and other types of (more socially acceptable) sexuality. I would be interested to see what estimated percentage of pedophiles are sexually disinterested in virtually all adults.
|
On December 22 2010 06:18 distant_voice wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 06:04 danl9rm wrote:
I find it hard to believe so many people on this site think this is wrong.
If this guy believes he's a pedophile from birth and is only getting hated on because society hasn't "caught up" culturally in their understanding, then what's so different between his odd sexual preferences and a homosexual's?
If homosexuality is ok, why isn't pedophilia? because in homosexual relationships two people agree to do something with each other because they love each other or at least both agree on having sex with each other. pedophiles on the other hand abuse an innocent child who doesn't grasp what it is forced to do nor what will come of the acts that it is forced to do. it also has lot to do with exploiting somebody who can't defend himself because of being younger, weaker, less experienced and innocent. in sex (and everything else I guess) everything is okay as long as both parties agree on doing it and as long as both parties are capable of deciding what's best for them, i.e. they're not drunk, mentally handicapped, coaxed or forced into something etc.
Who gets to decide what that is? Everyone thinks they're capable at the time, no one thinks they were after they make a mistake.
|
On December 22 2010 06:24 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 06:18 distant_voice wrote:On December 22 2010 06:04 danl9rm wrote:
I find it hard to believe so many people on this site think this is wrong.
If this guy believes he's a pedophile from birth and is only getting hated on because society hasn't "caught up" culturally in their understanding, then what's so different between his odd sexual preferences and a homosexual's?
If homosexuality is ok, why isn't pedophilia? because in homosexual relationships two people agree to do something with each other because they love each other or at least both agree on having sex with each other. pedophiles on the other hand abuse an innocent child who doesn't grasp what it is forced to do nor what will come of the acts that it is forced to do. it also has lot to do with exploiting somebody who can't defend himself because of being younger, weaker, less experienced and innocent. in sex (and everything else I guess) everything is okay as long as both parties agree on doing it and as long as both parties are capable of deciding what's best for them, i.e. they're not drunk, mentally handicapped, coaxed or forced into something etc. Who gets to decide what that is? Everyone thinks they're capable at the time, no one thinks they were after they make a mistake.
Well we certainly shouldn't be deciding that for each other.
|
what are you trying to do? we're not debating this questions here unless you think that children will think that being raped was a good idea afterwards.
|
Pedophilia and child rape are not the same thing, I don't know why every post on this thread is predicating that they are.
|
On December 22 2010 06:22 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 06:21 ckw wrote:Theres a HUGE difference between ripping off a rich casino and raping or taking advantage of a child fyi. You can't compare apples and oranges, just like the guy who tried using a book talking about weed as an equal to writing about how to be a better pedophile. Not even close. The law has to compare apples and oranges though. How do you draw the line between instruction guides for crimes that are ok, and those that should be dealt with legally? I don't think the fleeting emotional beliefs of ckw are a sufficient system for this.
Well the law does take in to account that different crimes are worse than others, hence bail amounts for theft are low and bail amounts for people who commit murder or rape are in the millions. Sure, my feelings don't mean jack crap when it comes to LAW but my point remains that theres a huge difference between the crimes people use to justify this creeps ideals and right to promote them. Of course no one here has kids of their own so it's ok.
On December 22 2010 06:30 justle wrote:
Pedophilia and child rape are not the same thing, I don't know why every post on this thread is predicating that they are.
Well if I have sex with my girlfriend and she is under 18 and I am over 18 I got to jail for RAPE even if she consents... The law doesn't differentiate between the two as much as they should, you get put on the same list as the guy who rapes his 2 year old daughter...
|
I bought it, it's really helpful
|
|
|
Well the law does take in to account that different crimes are worse than others, hence bail amounts for theft are low and bail amounts for people who commit murder or rape are in the millions. Sure, my feelings don't mean jack crap when it comes to LAW but my point remains that theres a huge difference between the crimes people use to justify this creeps ideals and right to promote them. Of course no one here has kids of their own so it's ok.
The only "crime" that's been committed here is talking about doing something illegal. We are not talking about people who have actually committed these acts, we are talking about people who have simply written about them. They are commiting the same "crime", talking about something illegal. I guess you would like the anarchist's cookbook banned too - it just teaches people how to make bombs after all.
And having children doesn't make you an expert on constitutional law, so don't go waving it around like a badge of honor -_-.
|
On December 22 2010 06:33 ckw wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 06:30 justle wrote:
Pedophilia and child rape are not the same thing, I don't know why every post on this thread is predicating that they are. Well if I have sex with my girlfriend and she is under 18 and I am over 18 I got to jail for RAPE even if she consents... The law doesn't differentiate between the two as much as they should, you get put on the same list as the guy who rapes his 2 year old daughter...
That's not the point he was trying to make. He's saying just because you are attracted to little kids doesn't mean you are going to have sex with them, so you should stop using "being a pedophile" and "being a child rapist" interchangeably.
|
On December 22 2010 06:24 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 06:23 Haemonculus wrote:On December 22 2010 06:18 micronesia wrote:On December 22 2010 06:16 Haemonculus wrote:On December 22 2010 06:04 danl9rm wrote:
I find it hard to believe so many people on this site think this is wrong.
If this guy believes he's a pedophile from birth and is only getting hated on because society hasn't "caught up" culturally in their understanding, then what's so different between his odd sexual preferences and a homosexual's?
If homosexuality is ok, why isn't pedophilia? Children can't consent. Yes that is the weakness in his post however I think he just means it isn't the pedophiles fault to have the preference they do (similar to a homosexual not having control over his/her preference). If he's actually saying child rape is ok then that's obviously another matter. Oh, I agree. If someone is just born that way and seriously only gets off to little kids... that fucking sucks, lol. What a shitty life they would have then t.t; I have no statistics but I think there is a lot of overlap between pedophilia and other types of (more socially acceptable) sexuality. I would be interested to see what estimated percentage of pedophiles are sexually disinterested in virtually all adults.
Ya, I can't help you with any statistics, but it's been my experience as well. So, when people are born with these sexual preferences, why does our culture believe they are ok? I mean, I was born thinking I should have everything my way. I was a baby king of the world. My dad promptly rid me of that belief, however. Why are these other things excluded?
And why, if someone claims they believe homosexuality is wrong, do they get ridiculed for their narrow-mindedness? Perhaps your parents were being narrow-minded when they said you shouldn't do... anything?
Just wondering what you guys think.
|
On December 22 2010 06:37 sikyon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 06:21 ckw wrote:Theres a HUGE difference between ripping off a rich casino and raping or taking advantage of a child fyi. You can't compare apples and oranges, just like the guy who tried using a book talking about weed as an equal to writing about how to be a better pedophile. Not even close. Yes, actually, you can. It's called the law. And both of these actions are protected under the same law - ie freedom of speech. One impacts the other because our system has to be fair and just, and not based on personal whims.
I don't see anywhere that I wrote the law differentiates these things, I was speaking on a MORAL issue. If you think the two are equal on a moral note then I hope you get help for you'r issues or lack there of.
On December 22 2010 06:39 huameng wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 06:33 ckw wrote:On December 22 2010 06:30 justle wrote:
Pedophilia and child rape are not the same thing, I don't know why every post on this thread is predicating that they are. Well if I have sex with my girlfriend and she is under 18 and I am over 18 I got to jail for RAPE even if she consents... The law doesn't differentiate between the two as much as they should, you get put on the same list as the guy who rapes his 2 year old daughter... That's not the point he was trying to make. He's saying just because you are attracted to little kids doesn't mean you are going to have sex with them, so you should stop using "being a pedophile" and "being a child rapist" interchangeably.
Ok, ok, but the point of this book is about how to GET AWAY WITH having a relationship with a child, so in that case this is about engaging in acts, not just having a mind that is attracted to young people.
On December 22 2010 06:37 sikyon wrote:
And having children doesn't make you an expert on constitutional law, so don't go waving it around like a badge of honor -_-.
Again, where did I lay claim to being some constitutional bookie or know-it-all? Can you please show me because as of right now you'r arguing against something that never happened... Btw, having a child IS MY BADGE OF HONOR. Thanks.
|
On December 22 2010 06:40 ckw wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 06:37 sikyon wrote:On December 22 2010 06:21 ckw wrote:Theres a HUGE difference between ripping off a rich casino and raping or taking advantage of a child fyi. You can't compare apples and oranges, just like the guy who tried using a book talking about weed as an equal to writing about how to be a better pedophile. Not even close. Yes, actually, you can. It's called the law. And both of these actions are protected under the same law - ie freedom of speech. One impacts the other because our system has to be fair and just, and not based on personal whims. I don't see anywhere that I wrote the law differentiates these things, I was speaking on a MORAL issue. If you think the two are equal on a moral note then I hope you get help for you'r issues or lack there of. Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 06:39 huameng wrote:On December 22 2010 06:33 ckw wrote:On December 22 2010 06:30 justle wrote:
Pedophilia and child rape are not the same thing, I don't know why every post on this thread is predicating that they are. Well if I have sex with my girlfriend and she is under 18 and I am over 18 I got to jail for RAPE even if she consents... The law doesn't differentiate between the two as much as they should, you get put on the same list as the guy who rapes his 2 year old daughter... That's not the point he was trying to make. He's saying just because you are attracted to little kids doesn't mean you are going to have sex with them, so you should stop using "being a pedophile" and "being a child rapist" interchangeably. Ok, ok, but the point of this book is about how to GET AWAY WITH having a relationship with a child, so in that case this is about engaging in acts, not just having a mind that is attracted to young people.
Sorry I edited my post because I missed the one where you replied to it already.
I will repost my new post below:
The only "crime" that's been committed here is talking about doing something illegal. We are not talking about people who have actually committed these acts, we are talking about people who have simply written about them. They are commiting the same "crime", talking about something illegal. I guess you would like the anarchist's cookbook banned too - it just teaches people how to make bombs after all.
And having children doesn't make you an expert on constitutional law, so don't go waving it around like a badge of honor -_-.
And on the topic of morals, I don't give a rats ass about morality. Morals are a subjective thing, and they change all the time. What I am more concerned about is the morality of selective enforcement of law by the government.
|
On December 22 2010 06:33 ckw wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 06:22 micronesia wrote:On December 22 2010 06:21 ckw wrote:Theres a HUGE difference between ripping off a rich casino and raping or taking advantage of a child fyi. You can't compare apples and oranges, just like the guy who tried using a book talking about weed as an equal to writing about how to be a better pedophile. Not even close. The law has to compare apples and oranges though. How do you draw the line between instruction guides for crimes that are ok, and those that should be dealt with legally? I don't think the fleeting emotional beliefs of ckw are a sufficient system for this. Well the law does take in to account that different crimes are worse than others, hence bail amounts for theft are low and bail amounts for people who commit murder or rape are in the millions. Sure, my feelings don't mean jack crap when it comes to LAW but my point remains that theres a huge difference between the crimes people use to justify this creeps ideals and right to promote them. Of course no one here has kids of their own so it's ok.
That's not the point. The point is that the supposed "crime" this guy is committing, ie how to get away with child rape or whatever else you think it is when you presumably haven't actually read the book, is the same crime as this other guy - the crime of teaching people how to get away with a crime. What crime they're getting away with is irrelevant, they are both committing the same act - allegedly teaching others how to commit crimes and get away with it.
If you want to draw a line on which instruction manuals are okay and which should be illegal, how do you go about doing it? Do you honestly suggest we as a society make that distinction based on your personal moral beliefs on which crimes are worse? I don't think that's a good enough criterion.
That's a largely rhetorical question, by the way. We already have legal guidelines in place to determine which writings should be illegal and which shouldn't, and this book doesn't meet any of them so far as I know.
|
On December 22 2010 06:39 huameng wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 06:33 ckw wrote:On December 22 2010 06:30 justle wrote:
Pedophilia and child rape are not the same thing, I don't know why every post on this thread is predicating that they are. Well if I have sex with my girlfriend and she is under 18 and I am over 18 I got to jail for RAPE even if she consents... The law doesn't differentiate between the two as much as they should, you get put on the same list as the guy who rapes his 2 year old daughter... That's not the point he was trying to make. He's saying just because you are attracted to little kids doesn't mean you are going to have sex with them, so you should stop using "being a pedophile" and "being a child rapist" interchangeably.
Its funny to me that after 65 pages people are still using this argument as a defense for this book. No sane person says, "Don't worry Jimmy, I'll be back to pick you up at 5, and don't be silly, he's just a pedophile, not some sort of CHILD RAPIST!" Making the distinction hardly matters in any real life context.
|
I don't see any legal problem with the book, its author, or the people who choose to read it. Yes, it disturbs me, but so do lots of things. From the released segments, the books appears to rely on the assumption of a willing child participant. We can argue all day about the ethical dimensions of that assumption, but it does not appear to me that the author is advocating rape.
The fact is there is no clear ethical line between 'old enough to consent' and 'not old enough yet'. If we're going to use a bar like intelligence or maturity, then there are a lot of adults who don't qualify (should we be preventing the developmentally handicapped from having sex? Or is it ok because their bodies are old enough?). If we're going to use an arbitrary figure like age, then how are we to respond to other reasonable societies who choose a different age (15 is the age of consent in a lot of the world...)?
And lastly, there is some merit to the comparison with homosexuality (obviously there are differences too!). If pedophiles are making the argument that it is hardcoded in their DNA or whatever, then we as a society have no right to make their desire a moral issue. We CAN make acting on that desire a legal issue, aka laws against child molestation, obscene acts with a child, etc. But if someone wants to write a book about the joy of having sex with kids, I don't see any problem with it.
|
On December 22 2010 06:49 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 06:33 ckw wrote:On December 22 2010 06:22 micronesia wrote:On December 22 2010 06:21 ckw wrote:Theres a HUGE difference between ripping off a rich casino and raping or taking advantage of a child fyi. You can't compare apples and oranges, just like the guy who tried using a book talking about weed as an equal to writing about how to be a better pedophile. Not even close. The law has to compare apples and oranges though. How do you draw the line between instruction guides for crimes that are ok, and those that should be dealt with legally? I don't think the fleeting emotional beliefs of ckw are a sufficient system for this. Well the law does take in to account that different crimes are worse than others, hence bail amounts for theft are low and bail amounts for people who commit murder or rape are in the millions. Sure, my feelings don't mean jack crap when it comes to LAW but my point remains that theres a huge difference between the crimes people use to justify this creeps ideals and right to promote them. Of course no one here has kids of their own so it's ok. That's not the point. The point is that the supposed "crime" this guy is committing, ie how to get away with child rape or whatever else you think it is when you presumably haven't actually read the book, is the same crime as this other guy - the crime of teaching people how to get away with a crime. What crime they're getting away with is irrelevant, they are both committing the same act - allegedly teaching others how to commit crimes and get away with it. If you want to draw a line on which instruction manuals are okay and which should be illegal, how do you go about doing it? Do you honestly suggest we as a society make that distinction based on your personal moral beliefs on which crimes are worse? I don't think that's a good enough criterion. That's a largely rhetorical question, by the way. We already have legal guidelines in place to determine which writings should be illegal and which shouldn't, and this book doesn't meet any of them so far as I know.
But thats just it, whether anyone agrees here or not our American society DOES base the severity of a crime on moral standards. Look at any major crime commited and then ask yourself why it was such a big deal. If I shoot 10 people in the head it's terrible but if I torture ten kids and smear their blood on the walls thats going to effect my "fair" trail and sentence. Will it not?
On December 22 2010 06:51 CarlyZerg wrote:
I don't see any legal problem with the book, its author, or the people who choose to read it. Yes, it disturbs me, but so do lots of things. From the released segments, the books appears to rely on the assumption of a willing child participant. We can argue all day about the ethical dimensions of that assumption, but it does not appear to me that the author is advocating rape.
The fact is there is no clear ethical line between 'old enough to consent' and 'not old enough yet'. If we're going to use a bar like intelligence or maturity, then there are a lot of adults who don't qualify (should we be preventing the developmentally handicapped from having sex? Or is it ok because their bodies are old enough?). If we're going to use an arbitrary figure like age, then how are we to respond to other reasonable societies who choose a different age (15 is the age of consent in a lot of the world...)?
And lastly, there is some merit to the comparison with homosexuality (obviously there are differences too!). If pedophiles are making the argument that it is hardcoded in their DNA or whatever, then we as a society have no right to make their desire a moral issue. We CAN make acting on that desire a legal issue, aka laws against child molestation, obscene acts with a child, etc. But if someone wants to write a book about the joy of having sex with kids, I don't see any problem with it.
But there is a defined law that does take in to account age when it comes to these things. Under the age of 18 by law means you are less likely to make the same decision as someone over 18, especially if the other "consenting" partner is an adult. I don't say I agree with this but it is a law.
|
On December 22 2010 06:52 ckw wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 06:49 Krigwin wrote:On December 22 2010 06:33 ckw wrote:On December 22 2010 06:22 micronesia wrote:On December 22 2010 06:21 ckw wrote:Theres a HUGE difference between ripping off a rich casino and raping or taking advantage of a child fyi. You can't compare apples and oranges, just like the guy who tried using a book talking about weed as an equal to writing about how to be a better pedophile. Not even close. The law has to compare apples and oranges though. How do you draw the line between instruction guides for crimes that are ok, and those that should be dealt with legally? I don't think the fleeting emotional beliefs of ckw are a sufficient system for this. Well the law does take in to account that different crimes are worse than others, hence bail amounts for theft are low and bail amounts for people who commit murder or rape are in the millions. Sure, my feelings don't mean jack crap when it comes to LAW but my point remains that theres a huge difference between the crimes people use to justify this creeps ideals and right to promote them. Of course no one here has kids of their own so it's ok. That's not the point. The point is that the supposed "crime" this guy is committing, ie how to get away with child rape or whatever else you think it is when you presumably haven't actually read the book, is the same crime as this other guy - the crime of teaching people how to get away with a crime. What crime they're getting away with is irrelevant, they are both committing the same act - allegedly teaching others how to commit crimes and get away with it. If you want to draw a line on which instruction manuals are okay and which should be illegal, how do you go about doing it? Do you honestly suggest we as a society make that distinction based on your personal moral beliefs on which crimes are worse? I don't think that's a good enough criterion. That's a largely rhetorical question, by the way. We already have legal guidelines in place to determine which writings should be illegal and which shouldn't, and this book doesn't meet any of them so far as I know. But thats just it, whether anyone agrees here or not our American society DOES base the severity of a crime on moral standards. Look at any major crime commited and then ask yourself why it was such a big deal. If I shoot 10 people in the head it's terrible but if I torture ten kids and smear their blood on the walls thats going to effect my "fair" trail and sentence. Will it not? Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 06:51 CarlyZerg wrote:
I don't see any legal problem with the book, its author, or the people who choose to read it. Yes, it disturbs me, but so do lots of things. From the released segments, the books appears to rely on the assumption of a willing child participant. We can argue all day about the ethical dimensions of that assumption, but it does not appear to me that the author is advocating rape.
The fact is there is no clear ethical line between 'old enough to consent' and 'not old enough yet'. If we're going to use a bar like intelligence or maturity, then there are a lot of adults who don't qualify (should we be preventing the developmentally handicapped from having sex? Or is it ok because their bodies are old enough?). If we're going to use an arbitrary figure like age, then how are we to respond to other reasonable societies who choose a different age (15 is the age of consent in a lot of the world...)?
And lastly, there is some merit to the comparison with homosexuality (obviously there are differences too!). If pedophiles are making the argument that it is hardcoded in their DNA or whatever, then we as a society have no right to make their desire a moral issue. We CAN make acting on that desire a legal issue, aka laws against child molestation, obscene acts with a child, etc. But if someone wants to write a book about the joy of having sex with kids, I don't see any problem with it.
But there is a defined law that does take in to account age when it comes to these things. Under the age of 18 by law means you are less likely to make the same decision as someone over 18, especially if the other "consenting" partner is an adult. I don't say I agree with this but it is a law.
So when did writing a book about something become morally tantamount to committing the act itself? After all, people write books about murder which have not only realistic depictions but describe techniques that were used in successful murders - these books could easily be used as manuals. Isn't murder a more heinous crime than child molestation anyways?
|
On December 22 2010 06:57 sikyon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 06:52 ckw wrote:On December 22 2010 06:49 Krigwin wrote:On December 22 2010 06:33 ckw wrote:On December 22 2010 06:22 micronesia wrote:On December 22 2010 06:21 ckw wrote:Theres a HUGE difference between ripping off a rich casino and raping or taking advantage of a child fyi. You can't compare apples and oranges, just like the guy who tried using a book talking about weed as an equal to writing about how to be a better pedophile. Not even close. The law has to compare apples and oranges though. How do you draw the line between instruction guides for crimes that are ok, and those that should be dealt with legally? I don't think the fleeting emotional beliefs of ckw are a sufficient system for this. Well the law does take in to account that different crimes are worse than others, hence bail amounts for theft are low and bail amounts for people who commit murder or rape are in the millions. Sure, my feelings don't mean jack crap when it comes to LAW but my point remains that theres a huge difference between the crimes people use to justify this creeps ideals and right to promote them. Of course no one here has kids of their own so it's ok. That's not the point. The point is that the supposed "crime" this guy is committing, ie how to get away with child rape or whatever else you think it is when you presumably haven't actually read the book, is the same crime as this other guy - the crime of teaching people how to get away with a crime. What crime they're getting away with is irrelevant, they are both committing the same act - allegedly teaching others how to commit crimes and get away with it. If you want to draw a line on which instruction manuals are okay and which should be illegal, how do you go about doing it? Do you honestly suggest we as a society make that distinction based on your personal moral beliefs on which crimes are worse? I don't think that's a good enough criterion. That's a largely rhetorical question, by the way. We already have legal guidelines in place to determine which writings should be illegal and which shouldn't, and this book doesn't meet any of them so far as I know. But thats just it, whether anyone agrees here or not our American society DOES base the severity of a crime on moral standards. Look at any major crime commited and then ask yourself why it was such a big deal. If I shoot 10 people in the head it's terrible but if I torture ten kids and smear their blood on the walls thats going to effect my "fair" trail and sentence. Will it not? On December 22 2010 06:51 CarlyZerg wrote:
I don't see any legal problem with the book, its author, or the people who choose to read it. Yes, it disturbs me, but so do lots of things. From the released segments, the books appears to rely on the assumption of a willing child participant. We can argue all day about the ethical dimensions of that assumption, but it does not appear to me that the author is advocating rape.
The fact is there is no clear ethical line between 'old enough to consent' and 'not old enough yet'. If we're going to use a bar like intelligence or maturity, then there are a lot of adults who don't qualify (should we be preventing the developmentally handicapped from having sex? Or is it ok because their bodies are old enough?). If we're going to use an arbitrary figure like age, then how are we to respond to other reasonable societies who choose a different age (15 is the age of consent in a lot of the world...)?
And lastly, there is some merit to the comparison with homosexuality (obviously there are differences too!). If pedophiles are making the argument that it is hardcoded in their DNA or whatever, then we as a society have no right to make their desire a moral issue. We CAN make acting on that desire a legal issue, aka laws against child molestation, obscene acts with a child, etc. But if someone wants to write a book about the joy of having sex with kids, I don't see any problem with it.
But there is a defined law that does take in to account age when it comes to these things. Under the age of 18 by law means you are less likely to make the same decision as someone over 18, especially if the other "consenting" partner is an adult. I don't say I agree with this but it is a law. So when did writing a book about something become morally tantamount to committing the act itself? After all, people write books about murder which have not only realistic depictions but describe techniques that were used in successful murders - these books could easily be used as manuals. Isn't murder a more heinous crime than child molestation anyways?
Well, morally, it depends on who you kill and who you ask. In most of the murder cases in America it's some drug dealer or gangster getting popped that the world would be better off without anyway so actually I think child molestation is worse.
In the end no one can win this argument because I am arguing the point of morality and obviously your morals are a whole lot different than mine which is ok, but we still think each others morals are wrong. Also, I think those how to commit murder books shouldn't be sold either.
|
On December 22 2010 06:39 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 06:24 micronesia wrote:On December 22 2010 06:23 Haemonculus wrote:On December 22 2010 06:18 micronesia wrote:On December 22 2010 06:16 Haemonculus wrote:On December 22 2010 06:04 danl9rm wrote:
I find it hard to believe so many people on this site think this is wrong.
If this guy believes he's a pedophile from birth and is only getting hated on because society hasn't "caught up" culturally in their understanding, then what's so different between his odd sexual preferences and a homosexual's?
If homosexuality is ok, why isn't pedophilia? Children can't consent. Yes that is the weakness in his post however I think he just means it isn't the pedophiles fault to have the preference they do (similar to a homosexual not having control over his/her preference). If he's actually saying child rape is ok then that's obviously another matter. Oh, I agree. If someone is just born that way and seriously only gets off to little kids... that fucking sucks, lol. What a shitty life they would have then t.t; I have no statistics but I think there is a lot of overlap between pedophilia and other types of (more socially acceptable) sexuality. I would be interested to see what estimated percentage of pedophiles are sexually disinterested in virtually all adults. Ya, I can't help you with any statistics, but it's been my experience as well. So, when people are born with these sexual preferences, why does our culture believe they are ok? I mean, I was born thinking I should have everything my way. I was a baby king of the world. My dad promptly rid me of that belief, however. Why are these other things excluded? And why, if someone claims they believe homosexuality is wrong, do they get ridiculed for their narrow-mindedness? Perhaps your parents were being narrow-minded when they said you shouldn't do... anything? Just wondering what you guys think.
You're seriously missing an incredibly large chunk of the bigger picture of life if you hold that everything we restrict each other from doing, and everything we allow ourselves to be restricted from doing, is arbitrarilly chosen, that we have these restrictions "just because" and you shouldn't break them "just because" and that no argument can be made for lifting any of these restrictions which can't be applied equally to all of them. Here's something you seem amazingly to have forgotten or somehow failed to ever understand: when people speak of homosexuality as something which ought not be restricted, they're usually speaking of how there is no reason for it to be restricted because no harm is done; when people speak of pedophelia, they're usually speaking of how it is very harmful and threatens the livelihood of every child and the comfort of every parent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
