|
| Thread: Provoking a pedophile!! Not a good idea |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Setitetart
Known Hero
Reality check....
|
posted May 14, 2008 06:37 PM |
|
|
Corribus...you are brilliant.
Quote:
@Setitetart
Let me just respond to one select thing:
Quote:
I see the dilemma, I really do, but having been on that side of the fence it's hard for me to care about [the rights of pedophiles], especially once they've already committed crimes against kids.
Presuming no crimes have been committed yet, that's a knee jerk emotional response. It's one I happen to share, of course. But the problem with basing laws and policy on knee-jerk emotional responses is that it means the consequences haven't been thought out properly.
Very true.
Consider: A vast majority of Americans feel that pedophilia is wrong and probably would not be against enacting laws against pedophilia - even preemptive ones that curtail the rights of pedophiles BEFORE any actual crimes have been committed.
Now, similarly, a majority of Americans feel that homosexuality is wrong and probably would not be against enacting laws against homosexuality - even preemptive ones that curtail the rights of homosexuals. The religious right in this country is itching for any excuse to enace legislation that curtails the rights of homosexuality, based ONLY on an emotional response. If we start enacting laws based purely on emotional responses that pre-emptively restrict something we find morally reprehensible, what is to say that the same logic won't be hijacked to pass legislation against OTHER forms of sexual "deviancy".? (Please note, to forestall the misinterpretation that is obviously coming - I do *not* under any circumstances equate pedophilia to homosexuality, not even close and not even a little bit. No comparison at all between the two!) Just a thought about why the rights of people are important to protect, even if we don't like them or what they believe on principle.
I hear what you are saying, and no, I didn't think you thought homosexuality was the same as pedophilia...
In any event, I am well aware that many would seek to rip rights, any and all, out from under the gay community simply because...
And presuming, sure, that a pedophile hadn't yet committed a crime I can completely see the problem.
People should have their rights until otherwise noted because of felonies or other such deeds that would strip them of those rights.
I agree.
However, I agree that once a crime has been committed, that argument goes out the window. I'm a total believer in Megan's Law. If you commit a felony, you no longer deserve to have all the rights of law-abiding citizens. That doesn't mean you have NO rights. But you certainly don't deserve the rights (such as privacy) that facilitate any repetition of your behavior.
Absolutely. I am with you on all of that. Well spoken Corribus.
____________
"Do you think we should drive a stake through his heart, just in case?"
~ Peter Lorre to Vincent Price at Bela Lugosi's funeral
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted May 14, 2008 06:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now, similarly, a majority of Americans feel that homosexuality is wrong and probably would not be against enacting laws against homosexuality - even preemptive ones that curtail the rights of homosexuals. The religious right in this country is itching for any excuse to enace legislation that curtails the rights of homosexuality, based ONLY on an emotional response. If we start enacting laws based purely on emotional responses that pre-emptively restrict something we find morally reprehensible, what is to say that the same logic won't be hijacked to pass legislation against OTHER forms of sexual "deviancy".? (Please note, to forestall the misinterpretation that is obviously coming - I do *not* under any circumstances equate pedophilia to homosexuality, not even close and not even a little bit. No comparison at all between the two!) Just a thought about why the rights of people are important to protect, even if we don't like them or what they believe on principle.
The problem with this is that these are children we are talking about. Not adults playing hide the carrot games. Children. Period. You cross the line you pay for the crime.
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 14, 2008 07:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The problem with this is that these are children we are talking about. Not adults playing hide the carrot games. Children. Period. You cross the line you pay for the crime.
Oh, I understand that. But what we are discussing is: what if you haven't crossed the line yet? Can you prosecute pedophiles preemptively? Is being sexually attracted to children a crime in and of itself, or only actions based on that attraction? While my emotional response is, as I mentioned, that the mere possession of sexual urges targeted at children is disgusting and wrong, arresting them or forcing them to seek help preemptively rings my human rights warning bell. You and I have absolutely no disagreement as far as going after pedophiles who have even looked at a child in the wrong way.
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted May 14, 2008 08:28 PM |
|
|
Well Cor, I guess in the eyes of some it is more a moral crime then lets say a against said law. It is so intolerable that if you set up meetings with a child to meet for sexual purposes you are arrested. If you are caught downloading material involving kiddie porn you’re arrested. So, no I guess just having the fantasy or thought could not be deemed illegal. However if one states to another that they have fantasies all the time about having sex with small innocent children and lets say they are going for a teachers position, then I feel they should be turned away from that line of work. It is infringing upon a person’s right, I don’t know as if I care. I want my children and other people children protected.
Now should we force them to go and get help? I don’t know, I mean if they are telling people out loud about such things it almost sounds like a call for help. If it is just a personal thought obviously then we would not even know about it. We force people to get help and into institutions when they threaten to hurt themselves or even talk about hurting themselves. So Cor, I would want to ponder on the thought that is just dripping with a well deserved response.
While I ponder that, can you give me your insight on this? This is really going to put a spin on things. Crimes against children whom are not able to make mature responsible decision for themselves; how do you then feel about abortion? I will tell you that I would prefer the alternative unless in extreme cases. How does this train of thought fall into what we are talking about? If you are pro-choice then should you then support pedophiles and what they do?
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted May 14, 2008 09:05 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 21:16, 14 May 2008.
|
Quote:
Hey VF...haven't we heard this before about you? God you sick monkey. For your own "mental health" do yourself a favor and back down from Moon will you? *laughing* Not the first and certainly not the last is it? Ummm....nope.
I'm sorry, do you agree with her sense of logic? I was referring to this statement of hers:
Quote:
Not to mention it backs up my theory that you defiantly have the potential to prey upon children.
Now maybe I am the retard, but I really don't see how she logically deducts I have the potential of becoming a pedophile. Are you seriously backing up THAT kind of logic?
Quote:
No my friend, that IS sick. Not subjective at all.
No, that is your opinion. "Sick" by definition is a subjective term. I repeat, even if 99,99% of the population says it is sick, that does mean it IS.
"Red" is a distinctive quality of "an apple". "Sick" however, is NOT a distinctive quality of various sexual perversions.
Quote:
The rules are clear and concise that there are just some things that are and always will be considered taboo and off limits.
Disagreed. Everything depends on human mentality. What is considered a taboo and off limits now could have been the norm in the past or might be the norm in the future. It is very arrogant to state we have now reached "the perfect morals".
Quote:
From the dawn of dirt it's never been okay to engage in relations with dead things, animals, family members, or kids.
And who deterimes that? You? Are you determining forthe whole world what is okay and not okay? You are adressing several topics that are quite different from one another. Frankly, the only quality they SHARE, is the fact you find them disgusting personally, no doubt.
And sure enough, relations with kids (alright admitted, adolescents) and adults HAS been okay at some point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece
I would comment on beastiality and incent, but that would stray from the topic.
Quote:
First off that is NOT a clear example as even you don't know what the guy did behind closed doors.
Well I don't know the details but I would assume he was snowing his wife (yes he has a wife).
Quote:
Our law enforcement agencies have made it our business to KNOW. We can do searches or go down to the police station to get lists of all the pedophiles/rapists/predators living in our neighborhoods.
I was talking about pedophiles that have never raped anyone or made any move whatsoever.
Quote:
Trust me, no kid is going to be "mentally scarred" that their parent(s) gave a damn about who they were talking to or what was being said.
What's more is if they are hiding it, it's probably not on the up and up anyhow and that's where I would need to step in and steer things back in the right direction.
I have done searches on the internet I would never want my parents to know about. I am not talking about things that are specificly bad, but things that are SO private to me, I would feel scarred for life if my parents knew. That's not a risk you should take, seriously.
You could compare it to coming home one day and finding your daughter nude and gangbanged by a group of boys in the living room. That kind of feeling.
Quote:
Pedophilia is a CHOICE, NOT a disease.
No, it is not. Raping a child, THAT is a choice. Being a pedophile is NOT a choice.
Quote:
Cope. I could have said far worse.
Which would have been even more immature.
Quote:
No. Laws are not subjective. If they were, anyone could wiggle out of crimes they'd committed, because after all the law breakers view is different than the law abiders...all depends on your lawyer I suppose 
The point was that you cannot use "because it is the law" as an argument to back up your opinion. I am not sure what the exact term is, but I am positive this is an informal fallacy.
Laws do NOT define morals. Just because something is forbidden that does NOT mean it is immoral. As such, you cannot say you are morally against pedophilia because it is illegal.
Quote:
Laws are set. And I said ALL of those things ARE ILLEGAL in THIS country. That is a PERIOD. That is a known fact. If go out and download kiddie porn, I WILL go to jail. If I fondle my neighbor kid...I WILL go to jail, if I have sex with a dead cat..I WILL go to jail...and probably undergo psychiatric testing as well. See what I am saying?
My issue with you is not so much a difference in opinion on the overal subject, but an issue with your form of reasoning.
Quote:
You don't know that, and can't speak for the entire student body. You have zero idea what that teacher does behind closed doors.
Sorry but it isn't like he is going to confess to YOU his doings...didn't YOU say a few comments back that this teacher had had explicit chats with you?
We had cybersex. And we were quite open to one another. Although I don't remember the details, he did say he had met up with a boy before. Nothing had happened.
Just to clear one thing up: he never did anything IRL. He only tried to hook up over chat.
Quote:
No one ever said all the laws fit every crime. Castration won't stop all of them and furthermore it doesn't stop the temptation much less the arousal. While it will in some cases, it hasn't in others...
As far as I know, castration means a person cannot grow sexually aroused anymore. I don't know the exact term.
Quote:
Absolutely. But didn't you say you'd be mentally scarred if your parents had ever disregarded your privacy like that? I was trying to tell you up there somewhere that part of being a good parent is being the bad guy sometimes. How can you blame the parents for not being careful enough when you'd be against the keylogger and other parental tools?
The intent might be good, but the consequence could have been far more disastrous than the risk of potentially getting into chats with a pedophile.
Quote:
Sure they are warned, but what kids do you know actually listen to sound advice? If you should happen to know, send them MY way because I don't think I've ever met a single kid that listened to everything they were told especially when it came to the Internet. This is why neither of my children are online and when the time comes that I feel they are responsible and mature enough to handle that priviledge...then that's what they make parental controls for, and that is why I am around to supervise them. Key word here is "SUPERVISE". I can only hope other parents would be so in tune with their kids. Many of these pedophile phishing nutters could and would be avoided if parents took the time to actually get up off their ***** to see what the heck their kids were doing and who they were talking to. Period.
This will sound very crude, but the only retort I have to this is: My parents trusted me. And I say it was good. Simple example: it meant I got to be open to my parents that I was experimenting with weed.
Quote:
You've made the mistake of thinking that I care if they hate me. As I said before I am their parent FIRST, and their buddy later...much later.
I'm talking about the risk of never EVER being their buddy.
Quote:
Also let me point out that there has been a jump in abductions here in the US and you don't have to be a kid to be taken. College girls specifically.
Absolutely, I am sure. But relatively?
Quote:
No. Again I say ask your local law enforcement. It doesn't matter what the laws were 50 million years ago kiddo. What matters is the here and now because we've learned through the ages that some things aren't right and needed to be amended. It has nothing to do with loose morals.
Again, you cannot base your stances and opinions on the law. It's like suddenly saying homosexuals are bad and immoral the moment the law changes and says homosexual acts are forbidden.
It is VERY arrogant to say we have reached the best possible collection of laws.
Quote:
Part of what you say there is right, about knowing the difference between realism and fantasy. And I have to disagree, an intelligent person with some fantasies could very well be MORE dangerous than your run of the mill "dumbass", because the intelligent person could put their ideas into reality more readily than a less than smart person.
I was talking about the intelligent type that can reason his actions could be harmfull to people, but shoot 
Quote:
But you can't sit there and tell me that there isn't something inherently WRONG about someone that wants to **** dead people or animals, live animals, little kids or their own mother. Come on now. This is why I say it sounds like you are defending the sickos.
What you must understand is that I personally find the things you list sick as well.
However, I will still restrain myself from concluding they ARE sick or wrong. I am in no position to judge such things, and neither are you.
The only instances in where I WILL say something is wrong, is when something is being done against someone's will. Because that violates a basic, fundamental right.
But you have no ground whatsoever to judge people who indulge in animalsex or incest. Necrophilia is an entirely different matter.
Quote:
There are other options okay.
Such as?
Quote:
Oh big freaking deal...poor them. Make them the martyr because they gave this big "sacrifice". No, I don't see how I should give them any sympathy whatso-freaking-ever. I DO really mean that I can NOT see why you have any sympathy for people that either have or could possibly do crimes against kids.
No offense but, then perhaps that says more about your own ignorance than mine?
Quote:
To answer your question, if things like that were normal and accepted, then sure, probably no "trauma". That's saying that the whole world was that way and it was accepted everywhere.
But let me tell you, we have already seen the disaster that IS a society that goes into incest and pedophila type behaviors and the outcome isn't so hot.
Case and point, the church compound that was recently raided here in the US.
Look it up.
Link me.
And that is exactly the point I try to make: If it were totally accepted and a daily practise, there would be no trauma. Part of, if not entirely, our moral objection to pedophilia, is the fact it causes trauma and severes a person for life.
So my question is, can you deem pedophilia to be immoral by definition? Or is it subjective to the type of society you live in?
@ Corribus: Nothing to comment, really. Nothing to argue against, either, it's pure logic. I hope one day to be more elaborate on my statements like you
Quote:
Assuming the majority of a group of people, with a skewed sexual preferences, would not perform sexual acts on a child, if given the opportunity, is a dangerous frame of thought. Is it not our job as citizens and as parents to try and protect those that cannot protect themselves? A village to raise a child, have you never heard of this ideology?
Trust me, I do not disagree with you on this. My point was still about you judging every pedophile as a rapist - which is simply false.
Quote:
Lets be honest moon; you have stated that you won’t have children and that is fine. However if this teacher (whom by your statements enjoys fantasies of having sex with children, possibly babies, I mean who really knows) lived next to you and you had a child, would you feel completely ok with letting him babysit him/her?
To be honest, not completely of course, but I have known this person for 8+ years, and 1+ in a sexual context, and I would trust him enough to babysit my kid.
Not every pedophile is a rapist that cannot control his urges.
@ VF:
Quote:
Has it also made you just completely disregard the obvious and trust people to that degree, not to mention it sounds almost like you are desensitized to the subject in general? Is that because of your constant espouser to porn or internet growing up that this is just one of those things that does not strike you as just awful and inexcusable?
I have a tendency of locking off my emotional side when responding in discussions; hence I appear insensitive I've heard that before.
But that aside, I might get diagnosed with Autism. It might be possible I lack some things But please understand my insensitive tone does not mean I intend to rile up people here.
Quote:
So you use this word “anything”, how about parents that fantasize about killing, raping, and maiming their own children? Or the man that thinks about having anal sex with a baby, they may never do it, but that thought is acceptable for you to have them floating around our society?
Well, I have met people who get turned on about doorknobs and raincoats, people who get aroused from the fantasy of tearing somebody's limb off, but so far, never someone who fantasizes about killing, raping, and maiming their own children
Point is, you CANNOT change what you have sexual fantasies about. To put it very blunt: I cannot change what my cock decides to grow rigid from.
You CAN change the way you deal with it. Obviously, if you have sexual fantasies about things that are harmfull to others, you don't put those into practise. And trust me, MANY people have strange fantasies they don't put into practise. Yes, fantasies of whatever kind are acceptable to me, simply because one does not have a choice BUT to accept them.
I believe it is more important to let people know it is okay to have such fantasies as long as they don't put it into practise, rather than to scold them for the very fantasies they have. This includes pedophilic fantasies.
Quote:
The fact is they get off on having control over something that is innocent and cannot defend itself. The entire mindset, whether we want to have pity for those that live this way or not, is unhealthy and unsafe, that they need to be instituted.
I'm not so sure wether it is about controlling something innocent and defenseless. I believe it is a more basic, simple sexual attraction simularly to how heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex.
You say the only possible solution is to have them be instituted. I really don't know if that's the only or best solution, because it still infringes on the rights and life of at least one person. And it still sounds to me like being punished for something you can't change, and a crime you haven't committed yet. It is a VERY difficult topic.
Quote:
Now can anyone lose it, yes? People snap all he time and do awful things.
I don't, ever, actually. But again, that might be more a problem with me than the human race.
Quote:
However if we know that a person is having very morbid or extreme desires and they are not getting any help, that thought just festers.
Untill they masturbate and relieve themselves, of course. And besides, not everyone is so obsessed with sex that it controls their thoughts every second, 24/7.
Quote:
He [the teacher] should have been instituted and received whatever help he needed and a very stern warning that thoughts are thoughts, but actually screwing with a little boys mind that way is not tolerated.
I believe he knows And I do believe he is very much aware of the dilemma he is in.
Quote:
If you would have told your parents would they have just continued to allow you to have this conversation? My guess is no, that your friendly teacher would have been shish kabob and ended up at the next hog roast as the main course.
Which is exactly why I didn't tell anyone.
Quote:
Understand what I said in my post. The statement from this inmate was and I will quote it again, “Cut off my penis and I will desecrate children with my feet, cut off my feet I will abuse them sexually with my hands, cut off my hands I will violate them with my tongue.” It is not always about intercourse sometimes the pedophile does not even get aroused sexually, sometimes it is that they get the child off and that gives them a sense of control.
If it is about control, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with pedophilia.
Quote:
Hence the reasons I say you have not done you research properly. Cutting of their penis does not take the mental illness away nor the thoughts and desires to control a child because they are so easily swayed and convinced, the child whom takes candy from the trusting stranger.
Speaking of research: Castration does NOT mean cutting off the penis. It is a medical surgery (whats the term?)... something, with the testicals, that prevents the person from getting aroused. It prevents hormones responsible for arousal from being distributed in the body.
Quote:
Again he was in a power position that has very specific boundaries and limitations. He should have never had sex with her to begin with. Believe me when I say that trauma is probably very real for her and has played a very specific role in her life. Set aside the fact that men mature slower than women but he understood, that while he may fantasies about her, he had not business ever having intercourse with her.
I fully agree with you the adult was very stupid to even get into that However, if a child really does push herself - keeps coming back for more - only to complain later she supposedly has a trauma, then I find that hard to believe. Moreover, I cannot feel pity for the girl in this example (neither for the guy, both were stupid).
Quote:
I conclude with allowing myself to become very vulnerable on an online forum. I have been molested on two separate occasions in my life. Once from the age of 6-8 and the other while I was 10 by gun point by my mother’s boyfriend. He was a grounds keeper at a school for years. Once this broke news several children in the neighborhood came forth including his own daughter that was well grown up by then. He was proven guilty on all accounts and did 6 months. He then had to do community service work which the county had him picking up trash around the adjoining schools in his neighborhood. The same neighborhood that he molested several children by luring them over to do yard work and eat cookies and milk with him. The first time was by my mothers husband and that went on for two years. I’ am a strong person but that time in my life was dark and has caused several issues with me sense I have become grown. In the first case his mother knew he had those types of urges as a young child. My life and those of several children were destroyed by the very mindset that states, thoughts are harmless. His mother should have had him committed and gotten him help. This is why your innocent teacher disgusts me.
I want you to know that I speak from a place that I have been and would never wish on anyone, ever. Tears………..
And I want you to know first off, I believe you are very brave - and moreover am convinced you are a very strong person - for telling this on a forum.
Second, I want you to know I absolutely do NOT support the snows that commit these acts. I did state, I disapprove of actions that infringe on the rights of others and go against the will of others.
I am very sorry to hear this, but at the same time, it does make me understand more why you react so strongly to this topic and to my statements.
I cannot say I would lower my tone, however, I do mean sincerely I do not intent to hurt you, and if my statements have hurt you and will hurt you, then I am very sorry, and offer you my deepest appologies.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 14, 2008 10:36 PM |
|
|
VF, I will consider your question.
Also, for those who are curious and just to get the scientific facts straight, castrastion is removing of the gonads (testes), not the penis. Insofar as hormones are responsible for sex drive, and gonads are responsible for sex hormones, castration almost totally eliminates sexual urges. Note that it does not have to be done with a knife; it can be done chemically. Chemical castration is an approved punishment (or has been an approved punishment) for sex crimes in several US states.
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted May 14, 2008 10:40 PM |
|
|
Thank you!!!
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
Setitetart
Known Hero
Reality check....
|
|
posted May 15, 2008 01:24 AM |
|
|
@ Moon I have a ton and a half of things I can and probaly will say in response to your comments...however, I can't get to all of it right now.
What I CAN do however, is link you to the Texas polygamist raid, I mistakenly said Utah...
Search for the "Texas Polygamist Raid" and you should get more than enough to read on the matter. I tried without much success to get to the initial news reports on it, but keep in mind this happened about a month or so ago.
____________
"Do you think we should drive a stake through his heart, just in case?"
~ Peter Lorre to Vincent Price at Bela Lugosi's funeral
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 15, 2008 05:22 AM |
|
|
@ VF
Quote:
While I ponder that, can you give me your insight on this? This is really going to put a spin on things. Crimes against children whom are not able to make mature responsible decision for themselves; how do you then feel about abortion? I will tell you that I would prefer the alternative unless in extreme cases. How does this train of thought fall into what we are talking about? If you are pro-choice then should you then support pedophiles and what they do?
I've been hanging out online and discussing serious topics for a long time now, and it's not often I'm thrown a curve-ball any more. But this is an angle of the abortion debate which I hadn't considered before. It's an interesting question to ask.
I believe I have expressed my opinion on abortion before somewhere here at HC. I'm not sure where. In any case, abortion is - and always will be - an unsolvable issue because of the degree of arbitrariness that is inherent to whatever solution is arrived at short of complete prohibition or "no holds barred abort-fest". Those are the two extremes to the pro-life and pro-choice sides and essentially depend on "life at all costs" or "choice at all costs" philosophies. My guess is that most people fall somewhere in the middle, allowing abortions in some cases but not in others. Most often, the line is drawn at what is thought to be the point at which the fetus becomes "alive", which is a somewhat arbitrary concept in itself. Of course, there's no magic blinking light that comes on at a particular point in a pregnancy signifying that life has begun which we can use as a convenient place to draw that line. Everybody's criteria are different; and everybody's criteria are arbitrary. A fetus is not dead one day and alive the next. And given that that line is always going to be completely arbitrary, it's unlikely the "middle-grounders" are ever going to agree, to say nothing of the hard-line pro-lifers and pro-choicers. This is, of course, why abortion is such a sticky issue.
With that in mind, I will say that I tend to fall slightly on the side of pro-choice; the reason is that my general political philosophy is that the government should have a minimal say on the goings on of peoples' lives, particularly when it comes to morality. The government does not have the right, in my opinion, to tell an individual what is moral and what is not, and as long as a person's actions do not impinge on the rights/property/welfare of OTHER citizens, the government has no legal justification to interfere with your life. [This is why laws prohibiting gay marriage are absolutely infuriating to me, not to bring in yet another hot issue. ] Of course, the obvious counterpoint to this argument is that if you believe that every fetus is alive, then every fetus is also a citizen, and the government is thus bound to protect those citizens' lives. So we're really left with the same unsolvable mess. Nevertheless, lacking an analytically and logically defensible position, I still tend to fall on the side of the parents. For a few reasons - first, to fall on the other side gives precedent for the government passing more invasive legislation in a general sense; and second, all things being equal and lacking any absolute sensible criteria, I prefer that a person be required to take responsibility for their own decisions, rather than the decisions of the government. I recognize that, like any other position associated with abortion, mine is not wholly defensible and is open to attack by a lot of very salient arguments and counterexamples. I can easily be swayed by more pro-life arguments; it's a very elastic issue for me and sometimes I wake up and say, "Actually, life at all costs!!" Actually reading over this I'm turning it around again and having doubts. Particularly now that I have my own child and know how precious they are - nothing makes you value a life more than having a little one of your own. Meh. But on the whole, I'm pro-choice.
[Note that I do believe there should be limitations on the practice - even if they ARE arbitrary. I don't have the answer to what those limitations should be. I think that's best determined by doctors, who understand the medical issues - both for the mother and the fetus. I also am *very* opposed to the usage of abortion as a form of birth control. And also while I believe that abortion should be an option in many circumstances, that doesn't mean I think it's a GOOD option, and women should be encouraged to NOT have abortions, and if they DO decide to abort, they should be educated in all the ramifications of such a decision before it's carried out. Finally, I also object to a commonly held viewpoint that abortion is an issue for women, and men should have no say. This is a position most often endorsed by men, and it's one that exonerates men from responsibility. Last time I checked, men caused 50% of the problem, so they shouldn't get a free pass out of a difficult conversation.]
Ok, that summarizes my abortion view. I hope that doesn't open a whole can of worms. It's not an issue I really like to debate because it's (a) volatile and (b) impossible to use any sort of logic to come to a resolution. I like logic, and hate anything that is immune to it.
So, all that said, I can see how you might then easily come to the conclusion that anybody who is pro-choice but also anti-pedophile is a hypocrite. After all, if you place such a high priority on protecting children, why would you want to kill them by having an abortion? That's an interesting angle but to be frank I don't think it has much merit. For one thing, we can (as mentioned above) argue over at what point a fetus is "alive". Most of us would agree a 12yo kid is alive. A 2 month fetus? Who knows? You run into the same sticky situation. For another thing, it's hard to become attached to a 2 month fetus (especially for a male). I was in a state of total denial until my daughter was about 3 months old. So, the instinct to protect your child really isn't developed (again, for a male; can't say for a female) to the same extent for a fetus as it is for a 12yo, in whom you have grown a little attached to. That's maybe not a GOOD explanation, but you can't discount it. Third, and more important, I would wager that most women who DO opt for an abortion do not do it with any real sense of pleasure. Most I suspect never get over it, and I'm sure that absolutely ZERO do it because they actively wish harm on their child/fetus. And most people who are pro-choice advocates probably don't really think abortion is a good thing - only that a woman's right to choose is a priority. So when you ask "If you are pro-choice then should you then support pedophiles and what they do?" the answer as far as I can see is a resounding "No, of course not!" If you were to actively support pedophiles and what they do, that would go beyond failing to protect your children from harm - it would be tantamount to wanting to harm them! If you are pro-choice, you do not actively WANT to harm fetuses/children, and so the logic that you would want to support pedophiles (and hence harm older children) doesn't really work. Finally, as I've mentioned, the abortion issue is characterized by a degree of arbitrariness that evades any sort of absolute logical analysis; pedophilia has no such ill-defined boundary between the two sides of the issue. What I mean is, the label "pro-choice" has no absolute, universal definition; so to categorically lump all pro-choice people together and make a generalized claim about how they should thus feel about pedophilia is fallacious. The issue of abortion is much more complex than that of pedophilia; I am pro-choice but my position really has nothing to do with my value for human life or protecting children - I am slightly pro-choice in spite of my value for human life and protecting children. Thus you can't really then conclude that I should support pedophilia as a result of my pro-choice-ness, because the common factor of "undervalues the welfare of children" is not necessary present in both cases. If that makes any sense (getting late, eyes are drooping....).
Anyway, I'm not sure if that's what you were looking for or not. Or why you wanted to know. But, those are my feelings on the matter. I think the two issues are completely different.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 15, 2008 01:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I believe I have expressed my opinion on abortion before somewhere here at HC. I'm not sure where.
Here. And we had an interesting debate there.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 15, 2008 03:50 PM |
|
|
|
Ah, right. It appears you had annoyed me in that thread.
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted May 15, 2008 04:11 PM |
|
|
Thanks for the response. Sorry if responding caused you to miss some good sleep. My reason for asking was to provoke the minds of those that are quick to hold a pedophile down and welcome him with a double barrel shot gun but could support the right to suck a child from its mother’s womb.
Now I know and you know that yes the subject in itself is arbitrary. I do not want to debate whether abortion is right or wrong, that subject has been beat with a horse whip long enough. Just wanted that moral twist on it, to see people have to wipe off the webs from their moral compasses and think. Just a spin that I had never considered, I guess a pot of French press at three in the morning will do that to a person.
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 15, 2008 04:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Third, and more important, I would wager that most women who DO opt for an abortion do not do it with any real sense of pleasure. Most I suspect never get over it, and I'm sure that absolutely ZERO do it because they actively wish harm on their child/fetus.
You have to be responsible, and as I see, the fetus doesn't appear 'out-of-the-blue', if you know what I mean. So technically, it's still their fault, whether they recognize it later (when they decide abortion) or not, it's still their fault.
@everyone:
Btw (I'm talking in general), please let's just stop with the "I am a parent, therefore I know 100% what's good for a child". Let me tell you something. Bad parents exist. There are worse parents out there than a 19 year old would be (I've seen 16 yo more mature than 30 yo ). That does not mean that all parents are bad. But simply put, the phrase that you are a parent automatically makes you the 'best-one-to-decide' is stupid. It's like saying that ALL people with a certain age (let's say >50) are more mature than those with a lesser age (let's say 45). This is completely false, and as far as I can see, it's not even an argument. But I am sure that everyone had parents and thus, he knows a bit how a 'child' feels from first-person perspective. That is IMO much more important than a parent's view, because you see, a good parent is characterized by the child (whether the child says the parent is good), not by the parent himself/herself. You can't self-define yourself as good, that'll be biased, especially when the thing that makes you think you're good is the relationship with someone else (the kid). I think the kid should be the one who says whether you are good or not, because after all, it's about him/her.
Also let's cut the insults, I've seen someone do it to Moonlith and it's just completely immature (not to mention off-topic); it's the worst thing that you could do to back up your arguments, if I may even dare to say so. If you can't find anything to write, it's better if you don't reply at all. I think that alone explains me how much of good parents exist. Simply put, parents that reply to an argument with "Stop this mouth diarrhea" are too close-minded and I think that's a bad sign for their kids as well (do you think you are the perfect parent, just because you are a parent?? ). The kids will learn to respect the parents out of "power" or "supremacy", not out of love. And they will never learn to debate and have their own opinions, if they are replied to something like above (completely immature, go ahead just put your head under the sand). It's IMO the worst way to teach a child. He/she should respect you out of love (i.e because you deserve it, from their point of view), not out of fear. Just think how you were when you were a child, and put yourself in the kid's perspective, not in the parents perspective.
I repeat, I've seen worse parents than people that don't even have kids (of their own) yet.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 15, 2008 05:31 PM |
|
|
@TheDeath
While I'm of the mind that anyone has the right to an opinion on any matter, no matter who they are, and that some opinions are not intrinsically more valuable than others, I will say that being a parent *does* give you a new perspective on many matters. That does not invalidate the opinions of non-parents, but it does mean that non-parents are a little compromised in their ability to view the angle from a parent's perspective. My point being is that nonparents should stop for a second and consider the fact that, having no children themselves, they may not be seeing the problem from the same vantage point as the people with whom they are arguing.
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted May 15, 2008 05:46 PM |
|
|
Insult defenition:
To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness.
You see when my little Sweet tart stated that to Moon she was using her own words and saying to him that he was speaking from a place of not being experienced and ignorance. Now sweet tart stop me if I’ am wrong. You see since I know her personally I can attest to you that if she had in fact tried to insult Moon, there would have been a death threat and thoughts of taking her shoe off and sticking her heal in his eye, involving poop and relatives. However this was just not the case. So while you see it as an insult it is just her way of saying get educated with the subject then talk to me, because your diarrhea mouth is enough to make me want to speed choke you…
What we do appreciate however is the shear fact that you are attempting to give us a lesson on how to communicate with one another. Learn that some communicate through sarcasm (that’s me), some through shear disgust, and others just have a great way (like Cor) of just being logical and friendly.
The great masturbators of the world, I mean debaters, have a way of insulting you without you even knowing. They get applauded when they do this, but you get a couple of just very blunt straight forwards in here and people are appalled. If I say to you,
“You have obviously spent so much time with your head wedged between your buttocks that your vision has been obscured by the reflection of your own putrid entrails.” that one is great. Are you feeling insulted or did the pretty words suck you in?
'You're a mangled spit-appraising harpy!'
'Velocer is a wanton fen-sucked rabbit-polisher!'
ZOMG, these are great.
Now I’ am not actually saying these things to you so before the old mods get there fecal throwing sticks out understand I’ am just making a point…
BTW..If you work at a post office and I tell you how to deliver mail and you say screw you, I have been doing this for 16 years, you have never done it. I would then surrender to you and accept the fact that you may know what you are doing.
So when I say that I have been a parent for 17 years then sit down, shut up, and take a lesson or two. Never said that just because your not a parent you have no clue about anything, just about most things when it comes to parenting.
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
Setitetart
Known Hero
Reality check....
|
|
posted May 15, 2008 09:10 PM |
|
|
Hahahaha...*catches breath*...HAHAHA....hee. *snorts*
People have heard me insult certain persons around here and me saying to stop the mouth diarrhea is far from an insult. Believe me, I've said worse and if I meant Moon harm I would have made it count and gladly taken the -QP.
Also let's cut the insults, I've seen someone do it to Moonlith
I am supposing that person would be me according to you...
and it's just completely immature (not to mention off-topic); it's the worst thing that you could do to back up your arguments, if I may even dare to say so. If you can't find anything to write, it's better if you don't reply at all. I think that alone explains me how much of good parents exist. Simply put, parents that reply to an argument with "Stop this mouth diarrhea" are too close-minded and I think that's a bad sign for their kids as well (do you think you are the perfect parent, just because you are a parent?? ).
First off, I've never said that I was the *perfect parent* in any way, shape or form. If you read it anywhere that I did, please go ahead and point that out to me.
I am NOT close-minded, quite far from it and in my 34 years I've been through a lot to back up what I say...because 9 times out of 10 I've lived through it or had someone close to me, VF for example, going through tough things. Like VF, I've been a parent for 17 years and I'd like to just put it out there that my children don't fear me. I am NOT overly strict, but I do have rules that must be followed. If that makes me a "bad" parent...oh ****ing well kiddo.
Life sucks, get a helmet...I am a parent to my kids FIRST, and their buddy later. My goal is to get them to adulthood, whole and intact with morals, values and standards in placce to become and continue to be after they are out of MY care...upstanding, law-abiding, open-minded, responsible adults. NOT like a lot of the wanna-be 20-somethings that THINK they are adults.
The kids will learn to respect the parents out of "power" or "supremacy", not out of love. And they will never learn to debate and have their own opinions, if they are replied to something like above (completely immature, go ahead just put your head under the sand). It's IMO the worst way to teach a child. He/she should respect you out of love (i.e because you deserve it, from their point of view), not out of fear. Just think how you were when you were a child, and put yourself in the kid's perspective, not in the parents perspective.
You know absolutely nothing about my parenting or how my children view me from what's above. That's your assumption and nothing more.
IMO, it's exactly what I call mouth diarrhea. The definition of mouth diarrhea is the vapid crap that flies out of a person's mouth when they don't really have any experience for the topic being dealt with.
You can think about it like this: The vegetarian that bashs meat when they've never personally eaten meat.
maybe that helps you to understand...or maybe not.
I repeat, I've seen worse parents than people that don't even have kids (of their own) yet.
Hahahahah...HAHA. Oh wow. Now I've read that over a few times and even to a friend that is standing by...the both of us are in agreement that the above statement makes ZERO sense. You can't be a "bad" parent if you don't have kids. however I suppose I could let you have that on grounds you could be a horrible baby-sitter or the like. even still...NOT a parent. Haha.
Quote:
Insult defenition:
To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness.
You see when my little Sweet tart stated that to Moon she was using her own words and saying to him that he was speaking from a place of not being experienced and ignorance. Now sweet tart stop me if I’ am wrong. You see since I know her personally I can attest to you that if she had in fact tried to insult Moon, there would have been a death threat and thoughts of taking her shoe off and sticking her heal in his eye, involving poop and relatives. However this was just not the case. So while you see it as an insult it is just her way of saying get educated with the subject then talk to me, because your diarrhea mouth is enough to make me want to speed choke you…
Absolutely VF, thank you for clarifying that for Death. Although I don't think I've ever had any kind of a poop fetish. LOL
What we do appreciate however is the shear fact that you are attempting to give us a lesson on how to communicate with one another. Learn that some communicate through sarcasm (that’s me), some through shear disgust, and others just have a great way (like Cor) of just being logical and friendly.
The great masturbators of the world, I mean debaters, have a way of insulting you without you even knowing. They get applauded when they do this, but you get a couple of just very blunt straight forwards in here and people are appalled. If I say to you,
“You have obviously spent so much time with your head wedged between your buttocks that your vision has been obscured by the reflection of your own putrid entrails.” that one is great. Are you feeling insulted or did the pretty words suck you in?
'You're a mangled spit-appraising harpy!'
'Velocer is a wanton fen-sucked rabbit-polisher!'
ZOMG, these are great.
I am crying over here...those are too funny...
Now I’ am not actually saying these things to you so before the old mods get there fecal throwing sticks out understand I’ am just making a point…
BTW..If you work at a post office and I tell you how to deliver mail and you say screw you, I have been doing this for 16 years, you have never done it. I would then surrender to you and accept the fact that you may know what you are doing.
So when I say that I have been a parent for 17 years then sit down, shut up, and take a lesson or two. Never said that just because your not a parent you have no clue about anything, just about most things when it comes to parenting.
That's exactly it...
____________
"Do you think we should drive a stake through his heart, just in case?"
~ Peter Lorre to Vincent Price at Bela Lugosi's funeral
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted May 15, 2008 09:38 PM |
|
|
HEHE!!! ***useing salt soaked shirt to fill salt shaker******
OMG, this is just too funny....
A worse parent than a parent without being a parent other then that one time when he was a parent and a better one then the one next to him who had no kids...
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 17, 2008 01:08 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 14:23, 17 May 2008.
|
Quote:
What we do appreciate however is the shear fact that you are attempting to give us a lesson on how to communicate with one another. Learn that some communicate through sarcasm (that’s me), some through shear disgust, and others just have a great way (like Cor) of just being logical and friendly.
Quote:
“You have obviously spent so much time with your head wedged between your buttocks that your vision has been obscured by the reflection of your own putrid entrails.” that one is great. Are you feeling insulted or did the pretty words suck you in?
You know something, maybe they are not insults (I'm not native english speaker), but simply opinions that are perhaps even useless to make a point. You can call my words 'diarrhea' and I call call yours 'snowbag' as well (it's not that I do call them that way btw, it was only an example). Where would that get us? That's not the way of discussion, that's the way of childish 'arguments' if I may even call them that way. You know, when two kids 'debate', they have something of the form:
1) You think like snow
2) No, you speak snow
3) Stop with that mouth diarrhea
4) etc...
These are not arguments, and not a mature discussion in any way. Contrary to Corribus' excellent posts (which have very good arguments), these 'that are all great' have absolutely no significance in this discussion. It's not like the one you're targeting can't reply them back, you know.. but most realize that would get us nowhere to a mature discussion, but to a childish discussion (if I may even call it a discussion), hence why most (including me) try to ignore them and not reply in the same fashion.
Quote:
BTW..If you work at a post office and I tell you how to deliver mail and you say screw you, I have been doing this for 16 years, you have never done it. I would then surrender to you and accept the fact that you may know what you are doing.
This is your opinion and it's where logic is more important than opinions. Yes of course, because I have been doing it for 16 years, it's a higher probability that I know what I'm doing, but that does not mean anything about you. This does not make you automatically 'worse' in this in any way, it actually speaks a lot about my ignorance (in this example of yours) -- I have too much of a pride in my '16-years of experience' that I refuse to listen to anyone else's advice, not even trying to understand their point. This is what I call immature, because it's what kids do.
This is no way of discussion. Everyone can make mistakes, we're all human. Excluding someone's point just because he 'has not experience' obviously makes you too proud. Rather than attacking the person in question, attack his points. And you do this by analyzing them, not by replying with 'you think like snow' sort of (this was my phrase, i don't think you ever said that).
What if I told you I was a parent? Would that make a difference? Why would such a thing make a difference, isn't this discussion about arguments instead? (rather than whether a person is a parent or not?).
Judging people by their status is not very wise IMO... Respecting them by their status is not what I'd call 'a need for respect'; respect them if they are worth that -- and that comes from their arguments, from their thinking and from what kind of person they are on the inside, not from their status (social or whatever).
Metaphorically, I'd say that I would never bow to a king because of his status, but if he deserves it (any other person could deserve it as well).
Another advice is not to force your opinions on your kids (i'm talking in general, not about you). They are not your robot servants. They have their own opinions, you should encourage that. Do not assume things about the kids as you would about yourself (i.e what's good for you is not necessarily for them; they could have different 'tastes').
Quote:
So when I say that I have been a parent for 17 years then sit down, shut up, and take a lesson or two. Never said that just because your not a parent you have no clue about anything, just about most things when it comes to parenting.
But you know, I do have a family, I was a kid once, and I pretty much know how the thing works, and how my parents treated me.
As an extreme case (read: extreme), this guy has been a parent as well.
Let's suppose I'm not a parent. I may not know much about parenting in this case, but I'm pretty sure he was not a good parent -- hell, how could I know that if I'm not a parent, anyway? If I told this guy he was bad (in this example), he would've replied something like I "have mouth diarrhea" no experience what-so-ever... Heh, how could I know anyway, no idea at all -- he must be a better parent due to his experience...
(of course I was being sarcastic and it was an extreme case, but I think you get the point).
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted May 18, 2008 09:24 AM |
|
|
You're missing the point TheDeath.
The real point is, women cheat when it comes to arguing. And the more these harpies group together, the more vicious they become. And when things don't go their way, they escalate.
And when you escalate right back, well, woe be unto you.
If you've had good parents and a good upbringing, chances are you've had a chance to model the right kind of behaviors. That you've never had to change a diapey at 3 in the morning or run to the emergency room in the middle of the night because your baby has an ear infection and won't shut up, doesn't make you retarded for having strong opinions about what it means to be a good parent.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 04:17 AM |
|
|
*BUMP*
Today the US Supreme Court ruled (barely) that child rapists cannot be executed.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/25/scotus.child.rape/index.html
Thoughts?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
| |
|
|
