How can you support pedophilia?

[Watch your mouth]

We in the loosest sense of society in general, arriving to general consensus by way of osmosis.

I don't get the impression that means anything at all.

[GeneralHaNor]

We in the loosest sense of society in general, arriving to general consensus by way of osmosis.

I don't get the impression that means anything at all.

it doesn't for most people
but "Social Movements" happen
IE civil rights
Sexual liberation
Suffrage
Abolition

These things happen.

Concordia is advocating sexual liberation of children
I don't see it happening
even if I could
I wouldn't support it
Because "Risk" is unacceptable here.

[Watch your mouth]

We in the loosest sense of society in general, arriving to general consensus by way of osmosis.

I don't get the impression that means anything at all.

it doesn't for most people

I see, so really, it doesn't mean society in the loosest sense.

[GeneralHaNor]

We in the loosest sense of society in general, arriving to general consensus by way of osmosis.

I don't get the impression that means anything at all.

it doesn't for most people

I see, so really, it doesn't mean society in the loosest sense.

Minorities have a tendency to grow
and their views have a tendency to become "Mainstream"
It happens

[Watch your mouth]

Minorities have a tendency to grow
and their views have a tendency to become "Mainstream"
It happens

A lot of things happen.

[GeneralHaNor]

Minorities have a tendency to grow
and their views have a tendency to become "Mainstream"
It happens

A lot of things happen.

Sometimes bad things happen

[Watch your mouth]

Sometimes bad things happen

No, I don't believe it. It's not possible.

[GeneralHaNor]

Sometimes bad things happen

No, I don't believe it. It's not possible.

Reject Reality
Substitute Own

[Watch your mouth]

Reject Reality
Substitute Own

How many fingers am I holding up?
You may see four, but actually it's five.

[Eireann Fae]

How many fingers am I holding up?
You may see four, but actually it's five.

THERE ARE... FOUR... LIGHTS!!

...sorry, I'm not the only Trekkie, am I? ...guys?

[Quelesh]

I want you to understand that I mean no offense towards you here. But this conception that some people have of children as "incomplete" I find to be terribly insulting to them. It is viewing them as something less than human. People change over time. Everyone does, both children and adults. A child is no more incomplete than you are, as you will change drastically over the remainder of your life, just as they will.

And why can't they tell you now? Do their thoughts and feelings now have no significance?

I didn't mean the word 'incomplete' to be sounded as demeaning. But children are not fully formed yet in order to change as an adult does. We as an 'older' generation have the responsibility to guide them and protect them to an extend from serious mistakes. Not the kind that can teach but the ones that can potentially devastate them.

And yes they can tell me about what they're thinking or what they want. However being children they don't always agree, and I'm not talking about simple stuff like color of clothes or choice of dinner. For example it is more important that I teach them manners and not to play with fire than their choice to continue playing with it.

We should prevent them from getting killed, sure. If they're stepping out in front of a bus, we pull them back. I just don't like this societally- (and parentally-) enforced innocence that is imposed on children. Someone I know once said "Innocence is just ignorance in a frilly pink dress" and I agree. We as a society not only perceive children as innocent, but we actively strive to make them innocent, to prevent them from having any contact with anything that could, in our eyes, "stain" their innocence. We keep this artificially induced innocence/ignorance going for as long as we can, until we finally have no choice but to release them into the greater world, a world for which they are not prepared because they have been kept in the dark about so many things for so long. I think we do great harm to them when we try to protect them from the real world.

And circular logic works, because circular logic works

I don't agree with your post, but here's a lovely image macro for your use:

Indeed. And imagine that we not only allow kids to eat it, but let them decide which flavour they like best ! The horror !
Surely we, with our years of life experience, are far better able to tell the child what it likes than the child itself.

And it does not like icecream.

Sarcasm aside, pedophilia and ice-cream are NOT the same thing. Unless we permit kids to have driver licences or carry guns too of course!

If they can pass the driving test and if they demonstrate sufficient knowledge of how to safely handle firearms, I have no problem at all with either of those.

How many fingers am I holding up?
You may see four, but actually it's five.

THERE ARE... FOUR... LIGHTS!!

...sorry, I'm not the only Trekkie, am I? ...guys?

No you're not. I like that episode, though I like 1984 more.

[Nobel Hobos]

I didn't mean the word 'incomplete' to be sounded as demeaning. But children are not fully formed yet in order to change as an adult does. We as an 'older' generation have the responsibility to guide them and protect them to an extend from serious mistakes. Not the kind that can teach but the ones that can potentially devastate them.

And yes they can tell me about what they're thinking or what they want. However being children they don't always agree, and I'm not talking about simple stuff like color of clothes or choice of dinner. For example it is more important that I teach them manners and not to play with fire than their choice to continue playing with it.

We should prevent them from getting killed, sure. If they're stepping out in front of a bus, we pull them back. I just don't like this societally- (and parentally-) enforced innocence that is imposed on children. Someone I know once said "Innocence is just ignorance in a frilly pink dress" and I agree. We as a society not only perceive children as innocent, but we actively strive to make them innocent, to prevent them from having any contact with anything that could, in our eyes, "stain" their innocence. We keep this artificially induced innocence/ignorance going for as long as we can, until we finally have no choice but to release them into the greater world, a world for which they are not prepared because they have been kept in the dark about so many things for so long. I think we do great harm to them when we try to protect them from the real world.

We must protect them, at least sometimes, from the consequences of their own actions. Surely you agree, that an adult who is standing nearby should try to stop a child who is running heedlessly into traffic to chase a ball? That the adult, if a competent swimmer, should jump in to save a child who is drowning?

I'd apply the same to adults, in fact. Sometimes we should intervene, and to hell with freedom or personal responsibility. If we know something they don't, and can see a consequence of their action which they can't see, and it's urgent: intervene, tackle them to the ground if necessary (gross violation of their personal sovereignty!) and hope we can explain later to avoid the lawsuit. Sometimes it is very plain to us that other adults are not acting in their own best interests, and we do more good by intervening on their behalf than we do harm by interrupting their intentions.

As an adult, I feel more obligation to intervene on behalf of a child than I do on behalf of an adult. And it's worth noting that I'm not a parent. I've helped children with their homework, and played with them. I've given children baths and put them to bed, and told stories until they fell asleep. Always under the supervision of their parents. That's what a friend of the family does, when the kid prefers it so and the parents consent. I did those parental things as well as I could, and I think I did it no differently for being a paedophile. I'll admit that I haven't ever had to face the bigger choices which parents have to face: choosing between time with the kids and work to earn money for the kids; choosing a house to live in so the kid can go to a good school; deciding what they can or cannot watch on TV or the internet; negotiating with other parents about what the kids are doing with their friends. But I've seen enough to know that parenthood is hard when done properly. It's impossible to do perfectly.

The child's life must always include some experiences which are beyond the parent's control. This is inescapable. Even if the parent locked the child in a room, and the only education the child was permitted was one-on-one instruction from the mouth of the parent, that child would strike up a friendship with the mouse which nosed up from a hole it had gnawed in the carpet. In such extreme circumstances, they'd probably invent a new language to communicate with the mouse.

And most children have far more extra-parental influences than that little mouse. There is television, or school. Even the strictest school, reading only one book, introduces influences the parent has no control over or knowledge of. Children learn, from whatever 'teacher' is available, and we should be more concerned about their sources being too shallow than that those sources be too deep. Trying to stop them learning certain things (as you put it: to make them innocent) is understandable ... to protect their minds from what we fear to think about ourselves ... but when it stands opposed to their curiosity it is wrong to tell them lies. We must confront our own fears and our own ignorance, and be advocates for their curiosity, and use our more mature methods of thought (intelligence) to enquire on their behalf, and then to answer their questions. Never, never, tell them not to ask that question. At the very least, we should confess "I don't know".

And this is also what, when not aggrieved by adult conflicts of interest, we should do for each other as adults. We should respect each other's curiosity, because we're never fully grown up. Never finished. Always learning.

[Concordeia]

How many fingers am I holding up?
You may see four, but actually it's five.

THERE ARE... FOUR... LIGHTS!!

...sorry, I'm not the only Trekkie, am I? ...guys?

Lol, I remember that episode. I actually thought I had seen five lights as well (four big ones and a little one somewhere in the background).

[Concordeia]

Fine then. I still want to hear an alternative harm mechanism hypothesis, because neither you nor the studies you talk about provide one.

Listen, you used your logic to determine that it can't be anything other then cultural/social stigma. I however can't fathom that logic, but lets roll with that

The problem with your hypothesis is that it is untestable short of creating such a society, and letting it loose for 30 years to study the effects.

Seeing as how I can't imagine anyone consenting to let their children being used in such a way, I can't imagine your position ever being verified as true.

But let's say it happens, what if your right?, some children might be harmed by abuse, and some might actually grow up okay
But what if your wrong?, what if we end up with a whole generation of fucked up children, because you decided to "Gamble" with their innocence, and managed to convince parents to do the same.

This is one of those things were "Risk" far outweighs "Benefits" and thus it's simply not feasible to allow such a thing in the first place.

You are STILL avoiding the question!!

What is YOUR hypothesis for what causes harm in consensual cases?? What do the studies say about the cause of harm??

[GeneralHaNor]

You are STILL avoiding the question!!

What is YOUR hypothesis for what causes harm in consensual cases?? What do the studies say about the cause of harm??

seeing as how those studies don't delve to deeply into "Cause" I suppose anything I posit for cause would be just as vaild as culture/stigma

Therefore I posit the mental development of children (as being insufficient to properly process such data) as the likely cause of psychological harm

I'm not willing to bet money on it however

[Person012345]

You are STILL avoiding the question!!

What is YOUR hypothesis for what causes harm in consensual cases?? What do the studies say about the cause of harm??

seeing as how those studies don't delve to deeply into "Cause" I suppose anything I posit for cause would be just as vaild as culture/stigma

Therefore I posit the mental development of children (as being insufficient to properly process such data) as the likely cause of psychological harm

I'm not willing to bet money on it however

So humans are now robots who's biology deals in "data" and when a human is younger it's processors, having a slower clock speed, get overloaded? Yeah, no, we aren't.

Do you think it's just as harmful to attempt to teach them anything they don't understand? Is talking about quantum mechanics around a child as bad as getting your dick out and waving it in it's face?

[GeneralHaNor]

seeing as how those studies don't delve to deeply into "Cause" I suppose anything I posit for cause would be just as vaild as culture/stigma

Therefore I posit the mental development of children (as being insufficient to properly process such data) as the likely cause of psychological harm

I'm not willing to bet money on it however

So humans are now robots who's biology deals in "data" and when a human is younger it's processors, having a slower clock speed, get overloaded? Yeah, no, we aren't.

Do you think it's just as harmful to attempt to teach them anything they don't understand? Is talking about quantum mechanics around a child as bad as getting your dick out and waving it in it's face?

Ignore biology if you wish, it doesn't win you any points
Clearly there's a different between Academic Knowledge they can't understand at all, and Sexual Knowledge they aren't meant to process at this time

Don't be asinine

[Person012345]

So humans are now robots who's biology deals in "data" and when a human is younger it's processors, having a slower clock speed, get overloaded? Yeah, no, we aren't.

Do you think it's just as harmful to attempt to teach them anything they don't understand? Is talking about quantum mechanics around a child as bad as getting your dick out and waving it in it's face?

Ignore biology if you wish, it doesn't win you any points
Clearly there's a different between Academic Knowledge they can't understand at all, and Sexual Knowledge they aren't meant to process at this time

Don't be asinine

Again, you state that with absolutely no reasoning. It's not "clear". Why are we not "supposed" to know that knowlege? Did god tell you that's how he designed us? You talked about being "insufficient to properly process that data". That is not biology, it's ass-pulling.

[GeneralHaNor]

Ignore biology if you wish, it doesn't win you any points
Clearly there's a different between Academic Knowledge they can't understand at all, and Sexual Knowledge they aren't meant to process at this time

Don't be asinine

Again, you state that with absolutely no reasoning. It's not "clear". Why are we not "supposed" to know that knowlege? Did god tell you that's how he designed us? You talked about being "insufficient to properly process that data". That is not biology, it's ass-pulling.

so Children are tiny adults then? you know this?
Because they aren't, any conversation you have with child will reveal their incapacity

[Person012345]

Again, you state that with absolutely no reasoning. It's not "clear". Why are we not "supposed" to know that knowlege? Did god tell you that's how he designed us? You talked about being "insufficient to properly process that data". That is not biology, it's ass-pulling.

so Children are tiny adults then? you know this?
Because they aren't, any conversation you have with child will reveal their incapacity

Honestly, you've pounded this strawman into a bloody mess already. Leave it alone. @the other strawman (I never argued that they do have the "capacity", although go ahead and give some evidence that they don't, whenever you're ready), just because they don't understand the fullness of what is happening, just because they do not have "the capacity" does not make it harmful. Again I reference telling them about quantum physics, whilst they may not really understand what you are saying, it's not going to scar them.

[Ferrond]

I didn't mean the word 'incomplete' to be sounded as demeaning. But children are not fully formed yet in order to change as an adult does. We as an 'older' generation have the responsibility to guide them and protect them to an extend from serious mistakes. Not the kind that can teach but the ones that can potentially devastate them.

And yes they can tell me about what they're thinking or what they want. However being children they don't always agree, and I'm not talking about simple stuff like color of clothes or choice of dinner. For example it is more important that I teach them manners and not to play with fire than their choice to continue playing with it.

We should prevent them from getting killed, sure. If they're stepping out in front of a bus, we pull them back. I just don't like this societally- (and parentally-) enforced innocence that is imposed on children. Someone I know once said "Innocence is just ignorance in a frilly pink dress" and I agree. We as a society not only perceive children as innocent, but we actively strive to make them innocent, to prevent them from having any contact with anything that could, in our eyes, "stain" their innocence. We keep this artificially induced innocence/ignorance going for as long as we can, until we finally have no choice but to release them into the greater world, a world for which they are not prepared because they have been kept in the dark about so many things for so long. I think we do great harm to them when we try to protect them from the real world.

And circular logic works, because circular logic works

I don't agree with your post, but here's a lovely image macro for your use:

Sarcasm aside, pedophilia and ice-cream are NOT the same thing. Unless we permit kids to have driver licences or carry guns too of course!

If they can pass the driving test and if they demonstrate sufficient knowledge of how to safely handle firearms, I have no problem at all with either of those.

THERE ARE... FOUR... LIGHTS!!

...sorry, I'm not the only Trekkie, am I? ...guys?

No you're not. I like that episode, though I like 1984 more.

In a sense we are being a bit hypocritical, all of us. Unfortunately this is one of the pillars of any society since ancient times, hypocrisy and compromise. Perhaps unconsciously we teach our children this stuff too. Sorry, I know it's not the best thing to do but what are the alternatives? Are there any? I think not.

[Quelesh]

No you're not. I like that episode, though I like 1984 more.

the trek episode was a ripoff tbh

It was, but it was good nonetheless. Then again, the first time I saw that episode I had not yet read 1984.

We should prevent them from getting killed, sure. If they're stepping out in front of a bus, we pull them back. I just don't like this societally- (and parentally-) enforced innocence that is imposed on children. Someone I know once said "Innocence is just ignorance in a frilly pink dress" and I agree. We as a society not only perceive children as innocent, but we actively strive to make them innocent, to prevent them from having any contact with anything that could, in our eyes, "stain" their innocence. We keep this artificially induced innocence/ignorance going for as long as we can, until we finally have no choice but to release them into the greater world, a world for which they are not prepared because they have been kept in the dark about so many things for so long. I think we do great harm to them when we try to protect them from the real world.

We must protect them, at least sometimes, from the consequences of their own actions. Surely you agree, that an adult who is standing nearby should try to stop a child who is running heedlessly into traffic to chase a ball? That the adult, if a competent swimmer, should jump in to save a child who is drowning?

I'd apply the same to adults, in fact. Sometimes we should intervene, and to hell with freedom or personal responsibility. If we know something they don't, and can see a consequence of their action which they can't see, and it's urgent: intervene, tackle them to the ground if necessary (gross violation of their personal sovereignty!) and hope we can explain later to avoid the lawsuit. Sometimes it is very plain to us that other adults are not acting in their own best interests, and we do more good by intervening on their behalf than we do harm by interrupting their intentions.

As an adult, I feel more obligation to intervene on behalf of a child than I do on behalf of an adult. And it's worth noting that I'm not a parent. I've helped children with their homework, and played with them. I've given children baths and put them to bed, and told stories until they fell asleep. Always under the supervision of their parents. That's what a friend of the family does, when the kid prefers it so and the parents consent. I did those parental things as well as I could, and I think I did it no differently for being a paedophile. I'll admit that I haven't ever had to face the bigger choices which parents have to face: choosing between time with the kids and work to earn money for the kids; choosing a house to live in so the kid can go to a good school; deciding what they can or cannot watch on TV or the internet; negotiating with other parents about what the kids are doing with their friends. But I've seen enough to know that parenthood is hard when done properly. It's impossible to do perfectly.

The child's life must always include some experiences which are beyond the parent's control. This is inescapable. Even if the parent locked the child in a room, and the only education the child was permitted was one-on-one instruction from the mouth of the parent, that child would strike up a friendship with the mouse which nosed up from a hole it had gnawed in the carpet. In such extreme circumstances, they'd probably invent a new language to communicate with the mouse.

And most children have far more extra-parental influences than that little mouse. There is television, or school. Even the strictest school, reading only one book, introduces influences the parent has no control over or knowledge of. Children learn, from whatever 'teacher' is available, and we should be more concerned about their sources being too shallow than that those sources be too deep. Trying to stop them learning certain things (as you put it: to make them innocent) is understandable ... to protect their minds from what we fear to think about ourselves ... but when it stands opposed to their curiosity it is wrong to tell them lies. We must confront our own fears and our own ignorance, and be advocates for their curiosity, and use our more mature methods of thought (intelligence) to enquire on their behalf, and then to answer their questions. Never, never, tell them not to ask that question. At the very least, we should confess "I don't know".

And this is also what, when not aggrieved by adult conflicts of interest, we should do for each other as adults. We should respect each other's curiosity, because we're never fully grown up. Never finished. Always learning.

This is one of the most intelligent posts in this thread. You're certainly right about the obligation to pull them back if they're running into traffic. It is right and proper to do so, just as it is right and proper to do the same for an adult who is about to get himself killed.

It is necessary that there be experiences in a child's life beyond the parent's control. Not only is it unavoidable, it is absolutely necessary for the proper development of a person. It seems sometimes that most parents feel that keeping a strict control over all of a child's experiences is the ideal to strive towards, but I believe that, at least up to a certain point, the opposite is true. Not that parents should have no influence, of course, but that children should have the opportunity to have a plethora of independent experiences. How else are they going to learn anything about the world around them?

In a sense we are being a bit hypocritical, all of us. Unfortunately this is one of the pillars of any society since ancient times, hypocrisy and compromise. Perhaps unconsciously we teach our children this stuff too. Sorry, I know it's not the best thing to do but what are the alternatives? Are there any? I think not.

How about honesty? Honesty and openness with children seems like a good alternative to hypocrisy to me.

[Ferrond]

the trek episode was a ripoff tbh

It was, but it was good nonetheless. Then again, the first time I saw that episode I had not yet read 1984.

We must protect them, at least sometimes, from the consequences of their own actions. Surely you agree, that an adult who is standing nearby should try to stop a child who is running heedlessly into traffic to chase a ball? That the adult, if a competent swimmer, should jump in to save a child who is drowning?

I'd apply the same to adults, in fact. Sometimes we should intervene, and to hell with freedom or personal responsibility. If we know something they don't, and can see a consequence of their action which they can't see, and it's urgent: intervene, tackle them to the ground if necessary (gross violation of their personal sovereignty!) and hope we can explain later to avoid the lawsuit. Sometimes it is very plain to us that other adults are not acting in their own best interests, and we do more good by intervening on their behalf than we do harm by interrupting their intentions.

As an adult, I feel more obligation to intervene on behalf of a child than I do on behalf of an adult. And it's worth noting that I'm not a parent. I've helped children with their homework, and played with them. I've given children baths and put them to bed, and told stories until they fell asleep. Always under the supervision of their parents. That's what a friend of the family does, when the kid prefers it so and the parents consent. I did those parental things as well as I could, and I think I did it no differently for being a paedophile. I'll admit that I haven't ever had to face the bigger choices which parents have to face: choosing between time with the kids and work to earn money for the kids; choosing a house to live in so the kid can go to a good school; deciding what they can or cannot watch on TV or the internet; negotiating with other parents about what the kids are doing with their friends. But I've seen enough to know that parenthood is hard when done properly. It's impossible to do perfectly.

The child's life must always include some experiences which are beyond the parent's control. This is inescapable. Even if the parent locked the child in a room, and the only education the child was permitted was one-on-one instruction from the mouth of the parent, that child would strike up a friendship with the mouse which nosed up from a hole it had gnawed in the carpet. In such extreme circumstances, they'd probably invent a new language to communicate with the mouse.

And most children have far more extra-parental influences than that little mouse. There is television, or school. Even the strictest school, reading only one book, introduces influences the parent has no control over or knowledge of. Children learn, from whatever 'teacher' is available, and we should be more concerned about their sources being too shallow than that those sources be too deep. Trying to stop them learning certain things (as you put it: to make them innocent) is understandable ... to protect their minds from what we fear to think about ourselves ... but when it stands opposed to their curiosity it is wrong to tell them lies. We must confront our own fears and our own ignorance, and be advocates for their curiosity, and use our more mature methods of thought (intelligence) to enquire on their behalf, and then to answer their questions. Never, never, tell them not to ask that question. At the very least, we should confess "I don't know".

And this is also what, when not aggrieved by adult conflicts of interest, we should do for each other as adults. We should respect each other's curiosity, because we're never fully grown up. Never finished. Always learning.

This is one of the most intelligent posts in this thread. You're certainly right about the obligation to pull them back if they're running into traffic. It is right and proper to do so, just as it is right and proper to do the same for an adult who is about to get himself killed.

It is necessary that there be experiences in a child's life beyond the parent's control. Not only is it unavoidable, it is absolutely necessary for the proper development of a person. It seems sometimes that most parents feel that keeping a strict control over all of a child's experiences is the ideal to strive towards, but I believe that, at least up to a certain point, the opposite is true. Not that parents should have no influence, of course, but that children should have the opportunity to have a plethora of independent experiences. How else are they going to learn anything about the world around them?

In a sense we are being a bit hypocritical, all of us. Unfortunately this is one of the pillars of any society since ancient times, hypocrisy and compromise. Perhaps unconsciously we teach our children this stuff too. Sorry, I know it's not the best thing to do but what are the alternatives? Are there any? I think not.

How about honesty? Honesty and openness with children seems like a good alternative to hypocrisy to me.

Not all the time and not about everything. There is a time and place for absolute honesty and that's not when children are still very young. Some things should be taught to them gradually.

[Person012345]

Not all the time and not about everything. There is a time and place for absolute honesty and that's not when children are still very young. Some things should be taught to them gradually.

Why? Children are people. If they're uninterested they'll go off and do something else. Certainly don't make them hear about it, but if they ask I see no reason not to just tell them.

[Ferrond]

Not all the time and not about everything. There is a time and place for absolute honesty and that's not when children are still very young. Some things should be taught to them gradually.

Why? Children are people. If they're uninterested they'll go off and do something else. Certainly don't make them hear about it, but if they ask I see no reason not to just tell them.

Oh tell them by all means, it's just not necessary to elaborate on the details.