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

[Sdaeriji]

Des-bal, no matter what you say, the end result is that your logic is fatally flawed.

Please explain which part of my logic is flawed.

A pedophile is sexually attracted to children. A pedophile will eventually have sex with children or die.
I am not sexually attracted to children. I am not a pedophile.

There you go.

There is no flaw there. I am not sexually attracted to children and a pedophile will eventually have sex with children or die.

Prove both statements.

I am not sexually attracted to children. This proves I am not sexually attracted to children.
A pedophile wants sex with children and is under constant pressure to do so. They wil eventually do so.

Not familiar with the word "prove", are you? You have not proven anything. I maintain that you are a pedophile. Prove me wrong.

[The Imperial Navy]

I am not sexually attracted to children. This proves I am not sexually attracted to children.
A pedophile wants sex with children and is under constant pressure to do so. They wil eventually do so.

That is not proof. That is a claim. Hence again, your logic is flawed. You cannot prove your own lusts, and also, you have no idea how a pedophiles mind works. Did you study Psychiatry? I don't think so.

[Des-Bal]

Des-bal, no matter what you say, the end result is that your logic is fatally flawed.

Please explain which part of my logic is flawed.

A pedophile is sexually attracted to children. A pedophile will eventually have sex with children or die.
I am not sexually attracted to children. I am not a pedophile.

There you go.

There is no flaw there. I am not sexually attracted to children and a pedophile will eventually have sex with children or die.

Prove both statements.

I am not sexually attracted to children. This proves I am not sexually attracted to children.
A pedophile wants sex with children and is under constant pressure to do so. They wil eventually do so.

Not familiar with the word "prove", are you? You have not proven anything. I maintain that you are a pedophile. Prove me wrong.

A pedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children.
I am not sexually attracted to children. This proves I am not a pedophile.
Reflexive logic.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I notice my point about how everyone will either eventually have sex with a child or will die never having had sex with a child is going completely ignored.

[Our L Lawliet]

Des-bal, no matter what you say, the end result is that your logic is fatally flawed.

A pedophile will eventually have sex with children or die.

I had to bite my knuckle to stop myself from laughing in the middle of the library.

By your own definition, you are a pedophile, since you're going to die like the rest of us. Unless you're suggesting that they'll die if they don't have sex with a child, in which case... I don't even know.

[Station 12]

Are there people who really want this thread stopped?

I'd rather punch him in the face at this point, but since I can't do that, yes, we're not getting anywhere.

EDIT: On second thoughts, keep it for now.

[NERVUN]

Are there people who really want this thread stopped?

The debate is still going. It hasn't (As far as I know) broken any of the rules as stated in the begining so...

[Sdaeriji]

A pedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children.
I am not sexually attracted to children. This proves I am not a pedophile.
Reflexive logic.

I say you are sexually attracted to children. Prove me wrong.

[The Imperial Navy]

A pedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children.
I am not sexually attracted to children. This proves I am not a pedophile.
Reflexive logic.

I would suggest you look up the term "Proof."

[Person012345]

I notice my point about how everyone will either eventually have sex with a child or will die never having had sex with a child is going completely ignored.

That's because he can't circular argument it.

[The Imperial Navy]

I notice my point about how everyone will either eventually have sex with a child or will die never having had sex with a child is going completely ignored.

I saw it.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

A pedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children.
I am not sexually attracted to children. This proves I am not a pedophile.
Reflexive logic.

What he wants you to prove is that you are not a pedophile. In order to do so, you have to prove that you aren't sexually attracted to children. Saying that you aren't is not a proof.

[Station 12]

I am not sexually attracted to children. This proves I am not a pedophile.
Reflexive logic.

That's a logical fallacy you dingbat.

[2nd PLT]

It is the best thread in the history of NSG.

Not everyone thinks so.

Yes. I want this man in a mental rehabilitation center, more like.

See?
All you have to do to get this thread closed is to start flaming.
I feel like I'm in a SSBN with both keys already turned, and I have my finger on the button.
Just waiting for the command.

[Des-Bal]

I am not sexually attracted to children. This proves I am not sexually attracted to children.
A pedophile wants sex with children and is under constant pressure to do so. They wil eventually do so.

That is not proof. That is a claim. Hence again, your logic is flawed. You cannot prove your own lusts, and also, you have no idea how a pedophiles mind works. Did you study Psychiatry? I don't think so.

Yes I can. The fact you won't accept that proof doesn't change the fact it is there.
I do study psychiatry.

[Des-Bal]

I am not sexually attracted to children. This proves I am not a pedophile.
Reflexive logic.

That's a logical fallacy you dingbat.

A=B
If C=/=A
C=/=B
Logic.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Yes I can. The fact you won't accept that proof doesn't change the fact it is there.
I do study psychiatry.

You sure as hell don't study mathematics or philosophy, that's for sure.

[The Imperial Navy]

Yes I can. The fact you won't accept that proof doesn't change the fact it is there.
I do study psychiatry.

Prove it.

You can never win. Your logic is fatally flawed.

[NERVUN]

It is the best thread in the history of NSG.

Not everyone thinks so.

Yes. I want this man in a mental rehabilitation center, more like.

See?
All you have to do to get this thread closed is to start flaming.
I feel like I'm in a SSBN with both keys already turned, and I have my finger on the button.
Just waiting for the command.

Don't. We are not going to play games with this.

[Grainne Ni Malley]

[spoiler]

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.[spoiler]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 pedophilia 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.

It is for people like you that I hold such strong belief for.
I never understood the Victim to abuser cycle, (I see such a thing as a weakness) and I can't understand why those who are victimized behave the way they do.
I had it explained to me as "child's logic" (Well if something like this could happen to me then I must deserve it)
I do however know what happens to those who are victimized and what happens to their children. (Yes when a child is victimized even their child has the scars, they just aren't as deep and they are a different shape)
To my point, (I just realized I have one) I don't understand a lot of the thought processes that have been presented here.
Most of the arguments seem to be semantics. At least this is the way it appears to be to me. People simply playing the devil's advocate, with only regard to keep this battle going. Why?

I don't claim to understand the victim-abuser cycle. I can't rewind time and change the past to tell you that, had I not been abused as a child, I would not be the way I am now. I am not playing devil's advocate. It was very hard for me to even consider posting a very personal issue for me, one that is extremely embarrassing.

I can't answer your "why".

Edit: Darn spoiler tiny text

[Des-Bal]

I notice my point about how everyone will either eventually have sex with a child or will die never having had sex with a child is going completely ignored.

Its actually because I'm firing six guns at once.

The fact someone will die having never had sex with a child doesn't mean they would have if they had kept on living. Unless they are a pedophile in which case thats exactly what it means.

[Our L Lawliet]

I am not sexually attracted to children. This proves I am not sexually attracted to children.
A pedophile wants sex with children and is under constant pressure to do so. They wil eventually do so.

That is not proof. That is a claim. Hence again, your logic is flawed. You cannot prove your own lusts, and also, you have no idea how a pedophiles mind works. Did you study Psychiatry? I don't think so.

Yes I can. The fact you won't accept that proof doesn't change the fact it is there.
I do study psychiatry.

SOURCE?!

Sorry, this thread has made me giddy.

[Sdaeriji]

I notice my point about how everyone will either eventually have sex with a child or will die never having had sex with a child is going completely ignored.

Its actually because I'm firing six guns at once.

The fact someone will die having never had sex with a child doesn't mean they would have if they had kept on living. Unless they are a pedophile in which case thats exactly what it means.

Prove it.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

A=B
If C=/=A
C=/=B
Logic.

Actually, for this argument to work, you have to show that C=/=A. In other words, demonstrate that you aren't sexually attracted to children.

The fact that this argument contains an if means that this is a contingent argument. It's validity depends on the truth value of C=/=A.

[The Imperial Navy]

I notice my point about how everyone will either eventually have sex with a child or will die never having had sex with a child is going completely ignored.

Its actually because I'm firing six guns at once.

The fact someone will die having never had sex with a child doesn't mean they would have if they had kept on living. Unless they are a pedophile in which case thats exactly what it means.

PROVE IT. All you are stating is opinion. There is no proof to collaborate your theory. And there likely never will be.