I'm probably going to alienate a lot of people but...

[The Parkus Empire]

No, they don't want to have sex with you the child physically cannot consent.

I repeat *GONG*: I have wanted to have sex with persons whose consent was absolutely unobtainable. This has happened throughout all my life, and probably will happen until my death, but I don't see myself committing rape because of it.

[Izistan]

There are plenty of times when people drop logic and reason to save those they love.

That is, however, an incorrect action on their part.

Are you huffing gasoline out of a plastic bag by any chance?

[The Imperial Navy]

No, they don't want to have sex with you the child physically cannot consent.

I repeat *GONG*: I have wanted to have sex with persons whose consent was absolutely unobtainable. This has happened throughout all my life, and probably will happen until my death, but I don't see myself committing rape because of it.

But of course, by Des-Bal's rulebook, this makes you a child molester. *Sigh*

[Des-Bal]

Don't have sex with children gets first billing.

It does not. Humans don't matter. Children are humans. Ergo, children don't really matter. Look at this universe. Do you really think humanity is significant? No, it is not, not in the slightest. All life on Earth could cease tomorrow and the universe would be almost completely unaffected.

Arguments for pedophilia:
1. Children don't matter

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Yes it is thats why theres no room for discussion.

How is it an answer? You've not explained why you've abandoned logic. You've simply asserted that it's because I want to have sex with children. Not only is that untrue, it is also irrelevant. It is both an ad hominem and a red herring and thus is not a legitimate answer to my question.

[My 3rd Floor Flat]

And someone can have a mental illness caused by a chemical imbalance. I have already stated more times than I care to count that not all cases of homosexuality are caused purely by a chemical imbalance. So it shouldn't be too hard for you to grasp that when I say "someone has a chemical imbalance in this context is is equal to an illness" that you must surely be able to reason that I do not mean all homosexual cases are caused by chemical imbalances.

You are dodging my questions and my conclusions rather than debating them, instead you are using the way I am putting forward my points and making it out so that I am saying things which I am not saying.

"Chemical imbalances are the cause of many diagnosed illnesses. In some cases homosexuality is caused by a a chemical imbalance in the same way that some cases of schizophrenia are caused by chemical imbalances. In such cases, could the chemical imbalance, and the resultant behaviour, be considered and illness?"

.

Only if you don't understand what an equality relation actually entails. For somebody claiming scientific support, you sure as hell can't use terminology properly.

+

The way you put forward your points affects what they mean. That's kinda why I care. Your talking to a mathematician and physicist in training here. I don't know what your profession is, but around here, throwing terminology around haphazardly is not acceptable. Every statement must be carefully phrased.

I am a Secondary Science teacher in training. Whilst I have to have an up to date understanding of all scientific concepts my specialism is Biology, my next interest is Chemisty, and Physics and Mathmatics I will conceed are certainly not my strong points.

Interestingly this explains why most of our discussion has centered around terminology, because contrary to what you have accused me of I am using terminology correctly but to me it means something different because it has a different meaning in my primary discipline. I will also conceed that science is built upon maths, then physics, then chemistry, the biology and thus when it comes to accuracy in making statements I am less accurate. After all, 2+1=3, but to explain a biological issue requires a more linguistic approach.

With regard to "equality" and "chemical imbalance". Would it be clearer to you, or rather, more preferable, if I said, "A chemical imbalance caused when a set of relevant chemicals in the brain exceed their expected ratios to levels which would cause unexpected behaviour not of the norm."?

Recall our argument over the definition of the word "average". It had multiple definitions.

1) Stop calling it an imbalance.

See above, in my context and terminology it is an imbalance.

2) As there's not much scientific consensus on the cause of homosexuality, I'm not going to presume that it is necessarily chemical in nature. I like to make statements that I can actually support.

Fair enough.

3) In no case could the chemical setup itself be considered the illness. The cause and the effect are separate entities.

Really? I would consider the symptoms of skitzophrenia (spelling of it has escaped my mind) to me a result of the "chemical set up", or as I put it, "imbalance". I would equate the same to homosexuality in the cases which I propose would be caused by chemical imbalances.

So, demonstrate that homosexuality IS chemically caused and I will accept it.

Fair enough.

I still won't call the chemical setup an imbalance, however

Using the terminology applicapble to me and as I set it out above would you?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Are you huffing gasoline out of a plastic bag by any chance?

Did you drink lead-based paint as a child?

See, I can make stupid and irrelevant commentary too.

[Des-Bal]

No, they don't want to have sex with you the child physically cannot consent.

I repeat *GONG*: I have wanted to have sex with persons whose consent was absolutely unobtainable. This has happened throughout all my life, and probably will happen until my death, but I don't see myself committing rape because of it.

They WONT consent the child CANT consent. There is a difference.

[Person012345]

I am a Secondary Science teacher in training. Whilst I have to have an up to date understanding of all scientific concepts my specialism is Biology, my next interest is Chemisty, and Physics and Mathmatics I will conceed are certainly not my strong points.

*posts on the internet defending pedophilia*
*school administration finds post*
*hilarity insues*

As long as hysterical joe public aren't informed, he should be fine, if he is defending paedophilia with logical arguments and not saying he's a pedo.

Also, it's ensues.

[The Imperial Navy]

No, they don't want to have sex with you the child physically cannot consent.

I repeat *GONG*: I have wanted to have sex with persons whose consent was absolutely unobtainable. This has happened throughout all my life, and probably will happen until my death, but I don't see myself committing rape because of it.

They WONT consent the child CANT consent. There is a difference.

So?

[Des-Bal]

No, they don't want to have sex with you the child physically cannot consent.

I repeat *GONG*: I have wanted to have sex with persons whose consent was absolutely unobtainable. This has happened throughout all my life, and probably will happen until my death, but I don't see myself committing rape because of it.

But of course, by Des-Bal's rulebook, this makes you a child molester. *Sigh*

No raping children makes you a child molester being a pedophile means you are either a child molester, will become a child molester or will die before becoming a child molester.

[Franberry]

we should preemptively rape all children so they will be submissive to my twsited fetish

[The Imperial Navy]

No raping children makes you a child molester being a pedophile means you are either a child molester, will become a child molester or will die before becoming a child molester.

There must be some reason you think this way. By that standard, everyone is a Paedophile until they die.

[Des-Bal]

No, they don't want to have sex with you the child physically cannot consent.

I repeat *GONG*: I have wanted to have sex with persons whose consent was absolutely unobtainable. This has happened throughout all my life, and probably will happen until my death, but I don't see myself committing rape because of it.

They WONT consent the child CANT consent. There is a difference.

So?

The only way a pedophile can have his desires is a felony. You see how things come full circle? If you pursue it it will go back and in a few pages will be here again.

[Des-Bal]

No raping children makes you a child molester being a pedophile means you are either a child molester, will become a child molester or will die before becoming a child molester.

There must be some reason you think this way. By that standard, everyone is a Paedophile until they die.

Are you arguing that
A Pedophilia is a choice or B The deceased have sexual preferences

[Dyakovo]

NSG: Lovingly Supporting Child Rape since 2010.

noone is talking about child rape (except des bal, go figure).

Yes how twisted of me to suggest that being sexually attracted to children and sex with children are somehow related.

Except you are not saying "that they are somehow related" you are saying that everyone who feels a sexual attraction towards children is going to act on that attraction. Huge difference.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

No raping children makes you a child molester being a pedophile means you are either a child molester, will become a child molester or will die before becoming a child molester.

Since being a child molester, eventually becoming one, and dying before you become one are mutually exclusive AND exhaustive options on the space of possibilities, EVERYONE fits this description, whether or not they are a pedophile.

It is true of YOU that you either have molested a child, will molest a child, or will die never having molested a child. This is true for every person on the planet.

[The Imperial Navy]

Are you arguing that
A Pedophilia is a choice or B The deceased have sexual preferences

I think a lot of people have thought about Sex with a minor in their life, but never acted on it. Does this make them Paedophiles?

[Des-Bal]

NSG: Lovingly Supporting Child Rape since 2010.

noone is talking about child rape (except des bal, go figure).

Yes how twisted of me to suggest that being sexually attracted to children and sex with children are somehow related.

Except you are not saying "that they are somehow related" you are saying that everyone who feels a sexual attraction towards children is going to act on that attraction. Huge difference.

No I said they might die first.

[Izistan]

Are you huffing gasoline out of a plastic bag by any chance?

Did you drink lead-based paint as a child?

See, I can make stupid and irrelevant commentary too.

Stupid and irrelevant commentary or the only rational response to an aborted fetus of a thread, twitching on the dirty floor of walmartNSG?

[Farnhamia]

No, they don't want to have sex with you the child physically cannot consent.

I repeat *GONG*: I have wanted to have sex with persons whose consent was absolutely unobtainable. This has happened throughout all my life, and probably will happen until my death, but I don't see myself committing rape because of it.

But of course, by Des-Bal's rulebook, this makes you a child molester. *Sigh*

No raping children makes you a child molester being a pedophile means you are either a child molester, will become a child molester or will die before becoming a child molester.

So pedophile = child molester, it's just that some pedophiles never get the chance to act on their desires for one reason or another. Is that a correct statement of your position?

And again, how do you propose to benefit society and find the pedophiles - the closeted, hidden ones, who are only thinking thoughts, who haven't done anything yet - so you can rehabilitate them? I'm asking seriously, I want to know your thoughts.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Stupid and irrelevant commentary or the only rational response to an aborted fetus of a thread, twitching on the dirty floor of walmartNSG?

Definitely stupid and irrelevant.

[Farnhamia]

No, they don't want to have sex with you the child physically cannot consent.

I repeat *GONG*: I have wanted to have sex with persons whose consent was absolutely unobtainable. This has happened throughout all my life, and probably will happen until my death, but I don't see myself committing rape because of it.

They WONT consent the child CANT consent. There is a difference.

So?

The only way a pedophile can have his desires is a felony. You see how things come full circle? If you pursue it it will go back and in a few pages will be here again.

Aren't you arguing that the very desire itself should also be a felony?

[The Imperial Navy]

I gotta hand it to this guy, he don't back down, even when everyone else is debating against him.

[Grainne Ni Malley]

Jesus, you all need a goddamn crash course in mathematics and propositional logic. These arguments are embarrassingly bad.

*justifies child rape with mathematics*
*is beaten by crowd of rational people*

Paedophilia is not child rape, and I have yet to see anyone here attempt to justify child rape. I am sure you have your own personal reasons for reacting so vehemently to this topic, as would I were I not in a position to understand the difference.

I am sure to raise a few eyebrows with the following and am slightly loathe to come forward with this tidbit of insight:

1. I am female. For all of those who are prone to question what I mean by this, I was born with a vagina and still have said vagina.
2. I am a mother.
3. I am a pedophile.

Wow. Wait. What was that?

Let me clarify by saying that I have never desired to nor never will touch my son. I do find myself in rather uncomfortable moments of attraction to children other than my own, especially the female gender for some reason. This is not an ongoing constant in my life. I can be around a child and never once think about what that child looks like naked, or imagine an intimate exchange with that child for that matter. That is to say, it has happened but not frequently. Thankfully not at all for quite some time now. I am going to venture forth with the admittance that I was sexually abused for most of childhood. Not by a priest or nun. Amazing since I went to 12 years of Catholic school, right? I cannot say for sure if my attraction to children is a direct result of my sexual abuse, but I am inclined to think so and it has been evidenced that pedophilia occurs in people who were sexually abused.

A lengthy article, but quite informative:

http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/co ... 4/457.full

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child. This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle” or “abused-abusers phenomena

Since my initial post on the topic was drowned in all the cross-fire, I will reiterate. It is extremely important to distinguish the difference between paedophilia and the sexually abusive perpetrator. It is also equally important to recognize the possibility that one can lead to the other and to seek help if there is even the slightest hint of concern that these urges may be acted upon. Ignorance has the potential to be damaging in all directions.

I think I'll go hide now.