How can you support pedophilia?

[Empire of Symphonia]

In the eyes of the Holy Empire of Symphonia, all known pedophiles are registered as sex offenders and are thus seperated from younger age groups until the stated person has shown they have "gotten over" their problem.

However, if the minor that was engaged or the target of pedophilia had consented, the State will not prosecute both people.

[Taffy 3]

So how many of you have I met before on my show? Why don't you take a seat?

[Conserative Morality]

No, I'm just honestly apathetic enough that I really don't care.

The problem being, if you didn't care, you wouldn't shout about how you didn't care.

Society is the beliefs and opinions of the majority. It is the very definition of a hive mind, specifically, collective consciousness.

A collection of minds somehow linked, possibly as if by telepathy; A single entity wherein a collection of minds somehow meet, possibly as if by telepathy; A group of people who give the false impression of being a hivemind (1), eg. by mindlessly following orders

Society is conformity at its purest form. Individuals conform to it, and it conforms to them.

Yes, and...?

Society believes that pedophilia is an abominable sin, and, thus, someone who doesn't conform to that ideology, someone who doesn't condemn pedophilia, is not a part of normal society, at least in that issue.

And yet, if a significant or loud minority does not condemn pedophilia, society changes to accept not condemning pedophilia. I also note that you refused to respond to most of my post, picking only small sentence fragments taken out of a larger context in an attempt to lend legitimacy to your rebuttal. I'd appreciate it if you responded to at least the majority of my post if you're going to reply to it.

[Person012345]

In the eyes of the Holy Empire of Symphonia, all known pedophiles are registered as sex offenders and are thus seperated from younger age groups until the stated person has shown they have "gotten over" their problem.

However, if the minor that was engaged or the target of pedophilia had consented, the State will not prosecute both people.

This is an OOC forum, btw.

[L3 Communications]

1. Orly?

2. Leviticus.

1. Yes, actually.

2. Did you read the sentence? Let me emphasize a bit in the hope that you might understand this time: one, even many, examples of radical interpretations of certain religions neither means that all religions nor all interpretations of some religions are intolerant. Try again.

1. Proof?

2. Leviticus is not radical, it's an accepted form of Judaism as it's part of the Old Testament, and the Torah.

[Syndicalistia]

So how many of you have I met before on my show? Why don't you take a seat?

I love those Dateline episodes, does they still do them?

[Tekania]

Your problem seems to be that you do not know what the word "pedophile" means. "the act of an adult engaging in sexual contact with a minor" is not the definition of a pedophile.... A pedophile is one who has a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. It does not matter if they actually engage in sexual contact with the pre-pubescent child or not.... And while pedophiles which act on their attractions would fall within your claimed definition, not all minors are pre-pubescent, and so therefore some people who "[engage] in sexual contact with a minor" would not be pedophiles if the minor in question has entered puberty.

Semantics don't justify what everybody knows and understands is actually being discussed regardless as to whether the technical term is being used or a colloquial simplification.

It matters in that the OP is classifying people as supporting pedophilia via redefining pedophilia to mean something other than what it actually does mean.

A 18 year old engaging in sexual activity with a 17 year old is, by definition "an adult engaging in sexual contact with a minor" but to call it pedophilia is past disingenuous, and enters into the realm of absolute fucking deceit.

[Taffy 3]

So how many of you have I met before on my show? Why don't you take a seat?

I love those Dateline episodes, does they still do them?

I think they stopped producing them after the guy committed suicide. South Park had a good parody of it.

[Conserative Morality]

1. Proof?

2. Leviticus is not radical, it's an accepted form of Judaism as it's part of the Old Testament, and the Torah.

1. My proof is that tangents on NSG without a catalyst relevant to the thread go by a synonym with a different connotation.

2. You're avoiding the point by nitpicking, my argument is that all religion is not made intolerant by any number of radical or non-radical examples of religions or interpretations. Furthermore, most modern adherents to Judaism or Christianity do not follow Leviticus to the letter.

[Person012345]

Semantics don't justify what everybody knows and understands is actually being discussed regardless as to whether the technical term is being used or a colloquial simplification.

It matters in that the OP is classifying people as supporting pedophilia via redefining pedophilia to mean something other than what it actually does mean.

A 18 year old engagine in sexual activity with a 17 year old is, by definition "an adult engaging in sexual contact with a minor" but to call it pedophilia is past disingenuous, and entered into the realm of absolute fucking fraud.

And? They are pretty clear on what they actually mean. Most people here get it.

[Olthar]

The problem being, if you didn't care, you wouldn't shout about how you didn't care.

What I care about is you painting me in a picture that I don't belong in.

Society is the beliefs and opinions of the majority. It is the very definition of a hive mind, specifically, collective consciousness.

A collection of minds somehow linked, possibly as if by telepathy; A single entity wherein a collection of minds somehow meet, possibly as if by telepathy; A group of people who give the false impression of being a hivemind (1), eg. by mindlessly following orders

You could at least look at the right definition, you know. link

Collective consciousness ... refer[s] to the shared beliefs and moral attitudes which operate as a unifying force within society.

And yet, if a significant or loud minority does not condemn pedophilia, society changes to accept not condemning pedophilia.

Society is conformity at its purest form. Individuals conform to it, and it conforms to them.

I know. However, hypotheticals aside, there is not a significant minority defending pedophilia.

I also note that you refused to respond to most of my post, picking only small sentence fragments taken out of a larger context in an attempt to lend legitimacy to your rebuttal. I'd appreciate it if you responded to at least the majority of my post if you're going to reply to it.

I pick out what I think is important. If I ignore what you don't want me to ignore, it's your fault for poor word choice hiding your true meaning.

[Tekania]

It matters in that the OP is classifying people as supporting pedophilia via redefining pedophilia to mean something other than what it actually does mean.

A 18 year old engagine in sexual activity with a 17 year old is, by definition "an adult engaging in sexual contact with a minor" but to call it pedophilia is past disingenuous, and entered into the realm of absolute fucking fraud.

And? They are pretty clear on what they actually mean. Most people here get it.

Yes, they are pretty clear that they are not meaning what they are saying they are. And idiots are letting them slide.

[Cazelia]

Well the pedophiles are free to act however they please, we are free to harass them afterwards as we please!

If that were the case, I'd be buying .30-30 in bulk every week.

Honestly though, anyone here who is even tolerant of pedophilia has clearly not had a relationship (or even a friendship) with someone who has been abused by pedophiles as children. Knowing someone before, and after the act, you realize how much it changes them; almost instantly. It causes serious emotional trauma that can remain with victims throughout their lives. To simply say 'oh they won't act on their fetish' is like telling a heroin addict to stop using the drug.

Personally I think pedophiles should be either castrated or shot. Here in Canada, I'm pretty sure the maximum sentence for child abuse is eight years; not much of a deterrent if you ask me.

[Syndicalistia]

It matters in that the OP is classifying people as supporting pedophilia via redefining pedophilia to mean something other than what it actually does mean.

A 18 year old engagine in sexual activity with a 17 year old is, by definition "an adult engaging in sexual contact with a minor" but to call it pedophilia is past disingenuous, and entered into the realm of absolute fucking fraud.

And? They are pretty clear on what they actually mean. Most people here get it.

That and

Semantics don't justify what everybody knows and understands is actually being discussed regardless as to whether the technical term is being used or a colloquial simplification.

It matters in that the OP is classifying people as supporting pedophilia via redefining pedophilia to mean something other than what it actually does mean.

Nah, it seems that you just want to excuse pedophilia in the colloquially accepted/ simplified definition by using the technical definition to demonstrate that there is something else that could be an issue. Don't worry about OP classifying you, you're doing that all by yourself.

[Conserative Morality]

The problem being, if you didn't care, you wouldn't shout about how you didn't care.

What I care about is you painting me in a picture that I don't belong in.

Yet if you didn't care about society, you wouldn't care what society thought of you, and whether or not society considers you a part of society. It's not that you don't care about society, because not caring is obviously edgy, but rather that you dislike society for one reason or another (Despite society enabling just about every part of human life, both in previous times and modern).

You could at least look at the right definition, you know. link

Collective consciousness ... refer[s] to the shared beliefs and moral attitudes which operate as a unifying force within society.

You could at least use the correct term, you know.

Collective consciousness /=/ Hive mind due to different connotation and usage.

I know. However, hypotheticals aside, there is not a significant minority defending pedophilia.

Really? I must ask for proof as this, as I know a good number of people who don't condemn the urge, only the act, as well as a good number of posters on NSG.

I pick out what I think is important. If I ignore what you don't want me to ignore, it's your fault for poor word choice hiding your true meaning.

My 'True meaning'? You used only a few words out of context, and it's my fault that you failed to respond to many points, some of them connected to the words in question? No, that's entirely on you, a choice made from an inability to refute those points.

[Person012345]

If that were the case, I'd be buying .30-30 in bulk every week.

Honestly though, anyone here who is even tolerant of pedophilia has clearly not had a relationship (or even a friendship) with someone who has been abused by pedophiles as children. Knowing someone before, and after the act, you realize how much it changes them; almost instantly. It causes serious emotional trauma that can remain with victims throughout their lives. To simply say 'oh they won't act on their fetish' is like telling a heroin addict to stop using the drug.

A heroin addict has proven themselves willing to use heroin. A pedo who has never acted has not proven themselves willing to hurt children. They have demonstrated a remarkable desire not to hurt children in forcing themselves to abstain to prevent it.

Personally I think pedophiles should be either castrated or shot. Here in Canada, I'm pretty sure the maximum sentence for child abuse is eight years; not much of a deterrent if you ask me.

Meh, I've been in situations where I'm pretty certain I could have gotten away with it. If you are, the law is no deterrent. What "deters" me is not being a rapist and not wanting to hurt them.

[Syndicalistia]

Well the pedophiles are free to act however they please, we are free to harass them afterwards as we please!

... Here in Canada, I'm pretty sure the maximum sentence for child abuse is eight years; not much of a deterrent if you ask me.

There was a case a few years back where a sex offender had 9 prior convictions and the parole board said that he was 100% likely to re-offend but apparently could no longer keep him locked up. The bastard took a couple of boys from Edmonton to somewhere in Saskatchewan, and I think you may know what happened... It's vile.

I don't really support vigilantism but honestly if that guy (and you somehow know 100% that it's him) is in your neighbourhood, does a person not have the responsibility to protect local children?

With that said, innocent until proven guilty there has to be a line drawn on where and when to act and I'm not convinced that attraction to kids is the same as a drug addiction... They may not act on it, but it must be strongly discouraged with strong consequences.

[Tekania]

Nah, it seems that you just want to excuse pedophilia in the colloquially accepted/ simplified definition by using the technical definition to demonstrate that there is something else that could be an issue. Don't worry about OP classifying you, you're doing that all by yourself.

Yes, the issue at hand is unlike you and the OP, I have the capacity of actual reason. As I pretty much already established the OP's definition is complete bollocks, and not even worth a vat of fetid dingos kidneys.... As I said, under his definition an 18 year old engaging in sex with a 17 year old would fall under his definition as an adult engaging in sexual contact with a minor.... And yet, under his definition a 17 year old engaging in sexual contact with a 2 year old would not be. Absolutely fucking absurd.

[Syndicalistia]

Nah, it seems that you just want to excuse pedophilia in the colloquially accepted/ simplified definition by using the technical definition to demonstrate that there is something else that could be an issue. Don't worry about OP classifying you, you're doing that all by yourself.

Yes, the issue at hand is unlike you and the OP, I have the capacity of actual reason. As I pretty much already established the OP's definition is complete bollocks, and not even worth a vat of fetid dingos kidneys.... As I said, under his definition an 18 year old engaging in sex with a 17 year old would fall under his definition as an adult engaging in sexual contact with a minor.... And yet, under his definition a 17 year old engaging in sexual contact with a 2 year old would not be. Absolutely fucking absurd.

Actually I already addressed that there was an issue with age spread, saying that if an 18 year old has sex with a 17 year old it's basically dating and can't be counted. The real problem is that you don't have the capacity to reason and are stuck on a wording problem that everyone else has, not necessarily let slide but moved on from.

So OK you're right, if you're not trying to argue semantics in order to dodge dealing with the issue at hand then what are you actually getting at that hasn't been addressed?

[Cazelia]

If that were the case, I'd be buying .30-30 in bulk every week.

Honestly though, anyone here who is even tolerant of pedophilia has clearly not had a relationship (or even a friendship) with someone who has been abused by pedophiles as children. Knowing someone before, and after the act, you realize how much it changes them; almost instantly. It causes serious emotional trauma that can remain with victims throughout their lives. To simply say 'oh they won't act on their fetish' is like telling a heroin addict to stop using the drug.

A heroin addict has proven themselves willing to use heroin. A pedo who has never acted has not proven themselves willing to hurt children. They have demonstrated a remarkable desire not to hurt children in forcing themselves to abstain to prevent it.

Personally I think pedophiles should be either castrated or shot. Here in Canada, I'm pretty sure the maximum sentence for child abuse is eight years; not much of a deterrent if you ask me.

Meh, I've been in situations where I'm pretty certain I could have gotten away with it. If you are, the law is no deterrent. What "deters" me is not being a rapist and not wanting to hurt them.

1. Many pedophiles have proven themselves willing to either coerce children into sex or force them into it. The choice is, would you rather protect children by creating laws that may harm pedophiles; or would you create laws that would allow pedophiles to think that they can either get away with rape or coerced sex, or at least become more accepted and sympathized with. However, I think the sympathy has sunk it, thanks to a number of posts in this thread.

2. And a number of pedophiles lack the moral restraint that you or I have. Many people do, it's a simple fact. Laws are what help dissuade criminals from acting upon their urges to do harm by creating negative counteraffects to their actions.

[Alidar]

itt new Karsol

also all pedos should be lined up against a partyvan and shot like the statist stooges they are

Try it, bitch.

Attraction doesn't necessarily lead to action.

Child molestation is disgusting. If the child is willing I would have less qualms about it, but I would never engage in the act myself.

This.

Also, I Prefer Lolicon art to the real thing. *Cue crazy otaku jokes about prefering underage 2D girls*

[Cazelia]

... Here in Canada, I'm pretty sure the maximum sentence for child abuse is eight years; not much of a deterrent if you ask me.

There was a case a few years back where a sex offender had 9 prior convictions and the parole board said that he was 100% likely to re-offend but apparently could no longer keep him locked up. The bastard took a couple of boys from Edmonton to somewhere in Saskatchewan, and I think you may know what happened... It's vile.

I don't really support vigilantism but honestly if that guy (and you somehow know 100% that it's him) is in your neighbourhood, does a person not have the responsibility to protect local children?

With that said, innocent until proven guilty there has to be a line drawn on where and when to act and I'm not convinced that attraction to kids is the same as a drug addiction... They may not act on it, but it must be strongly discouraged with strong consequences.

Double poast, sorry.

If I knew someone in my neighborhood was a person like you spoke of, I would make an attempt to force him out of the neighborhood for the good of the children living there. If he refused to leave, I'd be a tad bit more 'forceful'.

[Person012345]

1. Many pedophiles have proven themselves willing to either coerce children into sex or force them into it. The choice is, would you rather protect children by creating laws that may harm pedophiles; or would you create laws that would allow pedophiles to think that they can either get away with rape or coerced sex, or at least become more accepted and sympathized with. However, I think the sympathy has sunk it, thanks to a number of posts in this thread.

Many. Not all. IT's not like "telling a heroin addict etc". I would personally be for greater acceptance. As I've said, I support AoC laws. I think more acceptance of the attraction would give pedos an outlet, that would greatly relieve the pressure and would decrease the amount of child abuse. They'd also be more likely to come forward, so they could be kept an eye on around kids.

2. And a number of pedophiles lack the moral restraint that you or I have. Many people do, it's a simple fact. Laws are what help dissuade criminals from acting upon their urges to do harm by creating negative counteraffects to their actions.

As I said, I support AoC laws. I was specifically in opposition to your claim that it was inevitible. You can't demonise an entire group simply because some people from it do bad things.

[Person012345]

Double poast, sorry.

If I knew someone in my neighborhood was a person like you spoke of, I would make an attempt to force him out of the neighborhood for the good of the children living there. If he refused to leave, I'd be a tad bit more 'forceful'.

Which is why we won't come out and you will never know. Living in secrecy can also be very stressful, gays don't come out in adverse conditions for fun, they do it because it's hard to deny yourself. And such things will only make people more likely to not seek help and to stay quiet, and their resentment against society will grow until they (possibly) lash out. Rather than being open, where they can not hate society, won't feel the same way and are less likely to offend.

Edit: Ignore that, I only got half the post, sorry.

[Olthar]

Yet if you didn't care about society, you wouldn't care what society thought of you, and whether or not society considers you a part of society. It's not that you don't care about society, because not caring is obviously edgy, but rather that you dislike society for one reason or another (Despite society enabling just about every part of human life, both in previous times and modern).

My bullshit senses are tingling. There's so many fallacies in there that I'm not even going to bother trying.

You could at least use the correct term, you know.

Collective consciousness /=/ Hive mind due to different connotation and usage.

link

Hive mind can mean:

In psychology:

• Collective consciousness

Really? I must ask for proof as this, as I know a good number of people who don't condemn the urge, only the act, as well as a good number of posters on NSG.

Fallacy: Sampling bias. Your friends and relatives don't count as an adequate representation of society. If you truly want to see how society thinks of pedophiles, go out into the street wearing a sandwich board saying, "I am a pedophile," and see how people react as you walk by. If you don't want to do something potentially life-threatening, you can always put together a survey ans ask several hundred people whether or not they condemn pedophilia. (It's probably more scientifically accurate, anyways, though the first one is more fun.)