Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A devil's advocate argument for pedophilia

zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 3:29:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm not sure what topic to put this in, but here goes. I will play devil's advocate and present an argument for pedophilia.

Please note: I do not support pedophilia

Also, this is not meant to be a slippery slope type argument against gay marriage.

My argument shall run thus:

P1: All mutually beneficial relationships which don't harm other people ought to be allowed
P2: Some pedophilia relationships are mutually beneficial and don't harm other people
C: Some pedophilia relationships ought to be allowed.

This is a logically valid CAMESTRES categorical syllogism. Look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about.

P1 seems obvious to me. Mutually beneficial relationships shouldn't be prohibited, provided they don't harm anyone.

P2 is where I shall argue.

Now a man with attractions towards young boys desires comradeship. However, it's absurd to say that he should marry another man or a woman, since he's not attracted to them.

Thus, the relationship would be beneficial to the man.

What about the boy?

Well, young boys need guidance and are easily impressionable. They need a strong male in their life to set a good example for them. As long as the man sincerely loves the boy, and cares for him in a loving manner, the boy will be well taken care of. The man will teach him and care for him.

Now you might say: But child abuse is scarring to the child!

However, this is in a completely different context. I'm not promoting that men should be allowed to grab a young boy, rape him, and then discard him like a piece of trash. Rather, I'm promoting a mutually beneficial relationship in which both parties benefit. Children are clearly capable of loving and making choices to a certain degree. I am not promoting "using" children as sex objects, just as I would not promote using and beating your wife. However, it seems that in the correct circumstances, pedophilia relationships could be mutually beneficial and morally acceptable.

Thus, in certain cases, where the boy looks up to the man and learns from him, and the man sincerely loves the boy, pedophilia can be beneficial to both.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 3:31:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Note that in the above argument I draw a distinction between (i) child abuse and (ii) mutually beneficial pedophilia relationships.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 3:50:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 3:29:39 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I'm not sure what topic to put this in, but here goes. I will play devil's advocate and present an argument for pedophilia.

Please note: I do not support pedophilia

Also, this is not meant to be a slippery slope type argument against gay marriage.

My argument shall run thus:

P1: All mutually beneficial relationships which don't harm other people ought to be allowed
P2: Some pedophilia relationships are mutually beneficial and don't harm other people
C: Some pedophilia relationships ought to be allowed.

This is a logically valid CAMESTRES categorical syllogism. Look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about.

P1 seems obvious to me. Mutually beneficial relationships shouldn't be prohibited, provided they don't harm anyone.

P2 is where I shall argue.

Now a man with attractions towards young boys desires comradeship. However, it's absurd to say that he should marry another man or a woman, since he's not attracted to them.

Thus, the relationship would be beneficial to the man.

What about the boy?

Well, young boys need guidance and are easily impressionable. They need a strong male in their life to set a good example for them. As long as the man sincerely loves the boy, and cares for him in a loving manner, the boy will be well taken care of. The man will teach him and care for him.

Now you might say: But child abuse is scarring to the child!

However, this is in a completely different context. I'm not promoting that men should be allowed to grab a young boy, rape him, and then discard him like a piece of trash. Rather, I'm promoting a mutually beneficial relationship in which both parties benefit. Children are clearly capable of loving and making choices to a certain degree. I am not promoting "using" children as sex objects, just as I would not promote using and beating your wife. However, it seems that in the correct circumstances, pedophilia relationships could be mutually beneficial and morally acceptable.

Thus, in certain cases, where the boy looks up to the man and learns from him, and the man sincerely loves the boy, pedophilia can be beneficial to both.

Logic is brilliant. Reality...not so much.

Try to enforce this; I dare you! Wouldn't work as it gives far too much opportunity for malicious intent and would be impossible to enforce effectively.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 3:53:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 3:50:04 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:29:39 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I'm not sure what topic to put this in, but here goes. I will play devil's advocate and present an argument for pedophilia.

Please note: I do not support pedophilia

Also, this is not meant to be a slippery slope type argument against gay marriage.

My argument shall run thus:

P1: All mutually beneficial relationships which don't harm other people ought to be allowed
P2: Some pedophilia relationships are mutually beneficial and don't harm other people
C: Some pedophilia relationships ought to be allowed.

This is a logically valid CAMESTRES categorical syllogism. Look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about.

P1 seems obvious to me. Mutually beneficial relationships shouldn't be prohibited, provided they don't harm anyone.

P2 is where I shall argue.

Now a man with attractions towards young boys desires comradeship. However, it's absurd to say that he should marry another man or a woman, since he's not attracted to them.

Thus, the relationship would be beneficial to the man.

What about the boy?

Well, young boys need guidance and are easily impressionable. They need a strong male in their life to set a good example for them. As long as the man sincerely loves the boy, and cares for him in a loving manner, the boy will be well taken care of. The man will teach him and care for him.

Now you might say: But child abuse is scarring to the child!

However, this is in a completely different context. I'm not promoting that men should be allowed to grab a young boy, rape him, and then discard him like a piece of trash. Rather, I'm promoting a mutually beneficial relationship in which both parties benefit. Children are clearly capable of loving and making choices to a certain degree. I am not promoting "using" children as sex objects, just as I would not promote using and beating your wife. However, it seems that in the correct circumstances, pedophilia relationships could be mutually beneficial and morally acceptable.

Thus, in certain cases, where the boy looks up to the man and learns from him, and the man sincerely loves the boy, pedophilia can be beneficial to both.

Logic is brilliant. Reality...not so much.

Try to enforce this; I dare you! Wouldn't work as it gives far too much opportunity for malicious intent and would be impossible to enforce effectively.

Couldn't we say that about marriage? Maybe the husband is abusing the wife. Maybe the husband is abusing his children. Since it's too difficult to enforce, marriage should be made illegal.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 3:55:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So your arguments don't refute the argument I presented. They just make an appeal to the unfounded assertion it would be difficult to put into practice. But we could really say that about a number of things. Why don't these reasons lead us to make those things illegal as well?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 3:58:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 3:53:48 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:50:04 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:29:39 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I'm not sure what topic to put this in, but here goes. I will play devil's advocate and present an argument for pedophilia.

Please note: I do not support pedophilia

Also, this is not meant to be a slippery slope type argument against gay marriage.

My argument shall run thus:

P1: All mutually beneficial relationships which don't harm other people ought to be allowed
P2: Some pedophilia relationships are mutually beneficial and don't harm other people
C: Some pedophilia relationships ought to be allowed.

This is a logically valid CAMESTRES categorical syllogism. Look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about.

P1 seems obvious to me. Mutually beneficial relationships shouldn't be prohibited, provided they don't harm anyone.

P2 is where I shall argue.

Now a man with attractions towards young boys desires comradeship. However, it's absurd to say that he should marry another man or a woman, since he's not attracted to them.

Thus, the relationship would be beneficial to the man.

What about the boy?

Well, young boys need guidance and are easily impressionable. They need a strong male in their life to set a good example for them. As long as the man sincerely loves the boy, and cares for him in a loving manner, the boy will be well taken care of. The man will teach him and care for him.

Now you might say: But child abuse is scarring to the child!

However, this is in a completely different context. I'm not promoting that men should be allowed to grab a young boy, rape him, and then discard him like a piece of trash. Rather, I'm promoting a mutually beneficial relationship in which both parties benefit. Children are clearly capable of loving and making choices to a certain degree. I am not promoting "using" children as sex objects, just as I would not promote using and beating your wife. However, it seems that in the correct circumstances, pedophilia relationships could be mutually beneficial and morally acceptable.

Thus, in certain cases, where the boy looks up to the man and learns from him, and the man sincerely loves the boy, pedophilia can be beneficial to both.

Logic is brilliant. Reality...not so much.

Try to enforce this; I dare you! Wouldn't work as it gives far too much opportunity for malicious intent and would be impossible to enforce effectively.

Couldn't we say that about marriage? Maybe the husband is abusing the wife. Maybe the husband is abusing his children. Since it's too difficult to enforce, marriage should be made illegal.

Define marriage. It's harder than you'd like to believe. :D
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 4:00:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 3:55:24 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
So your arguments don't refute the argument I presented. They just make an appeal to the unfounded assertion it would be difficult to put into practice. But we could really say that about a number of things. Why don't these reasons lead us to make those things illegal as well?

I didn't make an argument; I pointed out how unbelievably difficult it would be to enforce such a thing to people who are particularly vulnerable in society. It was an assertion, but not unfounded. I could present a total rebuttal, but not tonight. Give me a "thing" and I'll see what I can do.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 4:00:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 3:58:12 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:53:48 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:50:04 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:29:39 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I'm not sure what topic to put this in, but here goes. I will play devil's advocate and present an argument for pedophilia.

Please note: I do not support pedophilia

Also, this is not meant to be a slippery slope type argument against gay marriage.

My argument shall run thus:

P1: All mutually beneficial relationships which don't harm other people ought to be allowed
P2: Some pedophilia relationships are mutually beneficial and don't harm other people
C: Some pedophilia relationships ought to be allowed.

This is a logically valid CAMESTRES categorical syllogism. Look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about.

P1 seems obvious to me. Mutually beneficial relationships shouldn't be prohibited, provided they don't harm anyone.

P2 is where I shall argue.

Now a man with attractions towards young boys desires comradeship. However, it's absurd to say that he should marry another man or a woman, since he's not attracted to them.

Thus, the relationship would be beneficial to the man.

What about the boy?

Well, young boys need guidance and are easily impressionable. They need a strong male in their life to set a good example for them. As long as the man sincerely loves the boy, and cares for him in a loving manner, the boy will be well taken care of. The man will teach him and care for him.

Now you might say: But child abuse is scarring to the child!

However, this is in a completely different context. I'm not promoting that men should be allowed to grab a young boy, rape him, and then discard him like a piece of trash. Rather, I'm promoting a mutually beneficial relationship in which both parties benefit. Children are clearly capable of loving and making choices to a certain degree. I am not promoting "using" children as sex objects, just as I would not promote using and beating your wife. However, it seems that in the correct circumstances, pedophilia relationships could be mutually beneficial and morally acceptable.

Thus, in certain cases, where the boy looks up to the man and learns from him, and the man sincerely loves the boy, pedophilia can be beneficial to both.

Logic is brilliant. Reality...not so much.

Try to enforce this; I dare you! Wouldn't work as it gives far too much opportunity for malicious intent and would be impossible to enforce effectively.

Couldn't we say that about marriage? Maybe the husband is abusing the wife. Maybe the husband is abusing his children. Since it's too difficult to enforce, marriage should be made illegal.

Define marriage. It's harder than you'd like to believe. :D

In this case I meant man/woman sexual relations where the idea is a long-term relationship.

Families should be illegal. They live in their homes, and the police can't do in without a warrant. They could be raping and abusing each other.

This is applying your reasoning to families.

If your concerned about putting something into practice, then why not just have the government run reproduction?

I don't think the appeal to the consequences or real-world practice debunk the argument very well.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 4:09:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 4:00:57 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:58:12 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:53:48 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:50:04 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:29:39 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I'm not sure what topic to put this in, but here goes. I will play devil's advocate and present an argument for pedophilia.

Please note: I do not support pedophilia

Also, this is not meant to be a slippery slope type argument against gay marriage.

My argument shall run thus:

P1: All mutually beneficial relationships which don't harm other people ought to be allowed
P2: Some pedophilia relationships are mutually beneficial and don't harm other people
C: Some pedophilia relationships ought to be allowed.

This is a logically valid CAMESTRES categorical syllogism. Look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about.

P1 seems obvious to me. Mutually beneficial relationships shouldn't be prohibited, provided they don't harm anyone.

P2 is where I shall argue.

Now a man with attractions towards young boys desires comradeship. However, it's absurd to say that he should marry another man or a woman, since he's not attracted to them.

Thus, the relationship would be beneficial to the man.

What about the boy?

Well, young boys need guidance and are easily impressionable. They need a strong male in their life to set a good example for them. As long as the man sincerely loves the boy, and cares for him in a loving manner, the boy will be well taken care of. The man will teach him and care for him.

Now you might say: But child abuse is scarring to the child!

However, this is in a completely different context. I'm not promoting that men should be allowed to grab a young boy, rape him, and then discard him like a piece of trash. Rather, I'm promoting a mutually beneficial relationship in which both parties benefit. Children are clearly capable of loving and making choices to a certain degree. I am not promoting "using" children as sex objects, just as I would not promote using and beating your wife. However, it seems that in the correct circumstances, pedophilia relationships could be mutually beneficial and morally acceptable.

Thus, in certain cases, where the boy looks up to the man and learns from him, and the man sincerely loves the boy, pedophilia can be beneficial to both.

Logic is brilliant. Reality...not so much.

Try to enforce this; I dare you! Wouldn't work as it gives far too much opportunity for malicious intent and would be impossible to enforce effectively.

Couldn't we say that about marriage? Maybe the husband is abusing the wife. Maybe the husband is abusing his children. Since it's too difficult to enforce, marriage should be made illegal.

Define marriage. It's harder than you'd like to believe. :D

In this case I meant man/woman sexual relations where the idea is a long-term relationship.

OK, I'm going to assume you meant "legally recognised", too.


Families should be illegal. They live in their homes, and the police can't do in without a warrant. They could be raping and abusing each other.

Yes, they could. But we know from experience that the overwhelming majority of cases are not like this. Can you say the same for paedophilia?


This is applying your reasoning to families.

Not quite.


If you[']r[e] concerned about putting something into practice, then why not just have the government run reproduction?

I'm sorry: What?! How does that follow?

P1: Putting concepts into practice which have been shown to cause a very high level of distress, sexual harassment, and abuse in the majority of cases, for the sake of allowing the few cases where this wouldn't be the case legal, would be impractically difficult.
C: Therefore, reproduction should be government controlled.


I don't think the appeal to the consequences or real-world practice debunk the argument very well.

I do.

This confusion is my fault. I am assuming you're thinking along the same lines as I. We're different.

Paedophilia is - normally - very bad. I'm sure you agree, or you'd support it.
Your argument wants to do one of two things:

1) Legalise paedophilia for the sake of the few cases where it doesn't harm anyone.
2) Legalise paedophilia for only the cases where it doesn't harm anyone.

the first is ridiculous; the second is impractical. That's my point.
PiedPiper
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 4:13:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The "benefits" you mention about the child are just benefits that a child should be getting from parents. Guidance, protection, love, etc. for children should be coming from parents/guardians/family members. A romantic relationship between a child and adult is inherently unequal as the child is mentally and physically inferior to an adult. Thus a pedophilic relationship leaves far too great of a possibility for coercion and abuse. And yes I know you draw a distinction between abuse and a mutually beneficial relationship, but the fact remains that a child with no power and an adult with all the power in an unstable relationship.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 4:42:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 4:09:43 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 3/1/2014 4:00:57 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:58:12 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:53:48 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:50:04 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:29:39 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I'm not sure what topic to put this in, but here goes. I will play devil's advocate and present an argument for pedophilia.

Please note: I do not support pedophilia

Also, this is not meant to be a slippery slope type argument against gay marriage.

My argument shall run thus:

P1: All mutually beneficial relationships which don't harm other people ought to be allowed
P2: Some pedophilia relationships are mutually beneficial and don't harm other people
C: Some pedophilia relationships ought to be allowed.

This is a logically valid CAMESTRES categorical syllogism. Look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about.

P1 seems obvious to me. Mutually beneficial relationships shouldn't be prohibited, provided they don't harm anyone.

P2 is where I shall argue.

Now a man with attractions towards young boys desires comradeship. However, it's absurd to say that he should marry another man or a woman, since he's not attracted to them.

Thus, the relationship would be beneficial to the man.

What about the boy?

Well, young boys need guidance and are easily impressionable. They need a strong male in their life to set a good example for them. As long as the man sincerely loves the boy, and cares for him in a loving manner, the boy will be well taken care of. The man will teach him and care for him.

Now you might say: But child abuse is scarring to the child!

However, this is in a completely different context. I'm not promoting that men should be allowed to grab a young boy, rape him, and then discard him like a piece of trash. Rather, I'm promoting a mutually beneficial relationship in which both parties benefit. Children are clearly capable of loving and making choices to a certain degree. I am not promoting "using" children as sex objects, just as I would not promote using and beating your wife. However, it seems that in the correct circumstances, pedophilia relationships could be mutually beneficial and morally acceptable.

Thus, in certain cases, where the boy looks up to the man and learns from him, and the man sincerely loves the boy, pedophilia can be beneficial to both.

Logic is brilliant. Reality...not so much.

Try to enforce this; I dare you! Wouldn't work as it gives far too much opportunity for malicious intent and would be impossible to enforce effectively.

Couldn't we say that about marriage? Maybe the husband is abusing the wife. Maybe the husband is abusing his children. Since it's too difficult to enforce, marriage should be made illegal.

Define marriage. It's harder than you'd like to believe. :D

In this case I meant man/woman sexual relations where the idea is a long-term relationship.

OK, I'm going to assume you meant "legally recognised", too.


Yes.


Families should be illegal. They live in their homes, and the police can't do in without a warrant. They could be raping and abusing each other.

Yes, they could. But we know from experience that the overwhelming majority of cases are not like this. Can you say the same for paedophilia?


How do we know that about families? Also, to say that because the majority of people with attractions to boys are rapists, this doesn't mean we can deny a whole orientation their rights.


This is applying your reasoning to families.

Not quite.


If you[']r[e] concerned about putting something into practice, then why not just have the government run reproduction?

I'm sorry: What?! How does that follow?


It would solve the problem of families and potential abuse.

P1: Putting concepts into practice which have been shown to cause a very high level of distress, sexual harassment, and abuse in the majority of cases, for the sake of allowing the few cases where this wouldn't be the case legal, would be impractically difficult.
C: Therefore, reproduction should be government controlled.


I don't think the appeal to the consequences or real-world practice debunk the argument very well.

I do.


Even if I agree that it would be difficult to put into practice, it doesn't follow that it should be illegal. We're denying certain men and boys the chances for a mutually beneficial relationship.

This confusion is my fault. I am assuming you're thinking along the same lines as I. We're different.

Paedophilia is - normally - very bad. I'm sure you agree, or you'd support it.
Your argument wants to do one of two things:


Maybe, maybe not. All child abuse is pedophilia, but not all pedophilia is child abuse.

1) Legalise paedophilia for the sake of the few cases where it doesn't harm anyone.
2) Legalise paedophilia for only the cases where it doesn't harm anyone.

the first is ridiculous; the second is impractical. That's my point.

The argument is very clearly in favor of the second. Child-abuse cases should probably be illegal. But pedophilia =/= child abuse necessarily.

What about the man and boy who mutually love each other? Where their relationship is good for both of them. Where the man gets a comrade, and the boy gets a loving partner to raise and teach him. Do they not have their right to be together? Just because alot of a group may be child abusers, that doesn't mean they all are.

You're essentially arguing that we should infringe upon certain peoples' happiness and rights, just because it's "easier" to do so. The laws shouldn't primarily be "what's easy" or "what's practical" they should primarily be about what ought to be the case.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 4:42:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 3:29:39 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I'm not sure what topic to put this in, but here goes. I will play devil's advocate and present an argument for pedophilia.

Please note: I do not support pedophilia

Also, this is not meant to be a slippery slope type argument against gay marriage.

My argument shall run thus:

P1: All mutually beneficial relationships which don't harm other people ought to be allowed
P2: Some pedophilia relationships are mutually beneficial and don't harm other people
C: Some pedophilia relationships ought to be allowed.

This is a logically valid CAMESTRES categorical syllogism. Look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about.

P1 seems obvious to me. Mutually beneficial relationships shouldn't be prohibited, provided they don't harm anyone.

P2 is where I shall argue.

Now a man with attractions towards young boys desires comradeship. However, it's absurd to say that he should marry another man or a woman, since he's not attracted to them.

Thus, the relationship would be beneficial to the man.

What about the boy?

Well, young boys need guidance and are easily impressionable. They need a strong male in their life to set a good example for them. As long as the man sincerely loves the boy, and cares for him in a loving manner, the boy will be well taken care of. The man will teach him and care for him.

Now you might say: But child abuse is scarring to the child!

However, this is in a completely different context. I'm not promoting that men should be allowed to grab a young boy, rape him, and then discard him like a piece of trash. Rather, I'm promoting a mutually beneficial relationship in which both parties benefit. Children are clearly capable of loving and making choices to a certain degree. I am not promoting "using" children as sex objects, just as I would not promote using and beating your wife. However, it seems that in the correct circumstances, pedophilia relationships could be mutually beneficial and morally acceptable.

Thus, in certain cases, where the boy looks up to the man and learns from him, and the man sincerely loves the boy, pedophilia can be beneficial to both.

Do you believe the prepubescent brain is fully developed?
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 4:44:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 4:42:54 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:29:39 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I'm not sure what topic to put this in, but here goes. I will play devil's advocate and present an argument for pedophilia.

Please note: I do not support pedophilia

Also, this is not meant to be a slippery slope type argument against gay marriage.

My argument shall run thus:

P1: All mutually beneficial relationships which don't harm other people ought to be allowed
P2: Some pedophilia relationships are mutually beneficial and don't harm other people
C: Some pedophilia relationships ought to be allowed.

This is a logically valid CAMESTRES categorical syllogism. Look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about.

P1 seems obvious to me. Mutually beneficial relationships shouldn't be prohibited, provided they don't harm anyone.

P2 is where I shall argue.

Now a man with attractions towards young boys desires comradeship. However, it's absurd to say that he should marry another man or a woman, since he's not attracted to them.

Thus, the relationship would be beneficial to the man.

What about the boy?

Well, young boys need guidance and are easily impressionable. They need a strong male in their life to set a good example for them. As long as the man sincerely loves the boy, and cares for him in a loving manner, the boy will be well taken care of. The man will teach him and care for him.

Now you might say: But child abuse is scarring to the child!

However, this is in a completely different context. I'm not promoting that men should be allowed to grab a young boy, rape him, and then discard him like a piece of trash. Rather, I'm promoting a mutually beneficial relationship in which both parties benefit. Children are clearly capable of loving and making choices to a certain degree. I am not promoting "using" children as sex objects, just as I would not promote using and beating your wife. However, it seems that in the correct circumstances, pedophilia relationships could be mutually beneficial and morally acceptable.

Thus, in certain cases, where the boy looks up to the man and learns from him, and the man sincerely loves the boy, pedophilia can be beneficial to both.

Do you believe the prepubescent brain is fully developed?

What do you mean by "fully developed"? You mean equal in development to an adult brain? Whether or not something is "fully developed" is relative.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 4:53:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 4:13:13 PM, PiedPiper wrote:
The "benefits" you mention about the child are just benefits that a child should be getting from parents.

Yes, but that doesn't affect the argument.

Guidance, protection, love, etc. for children should be coming from parents/guardians/family members.

I agree with you. Like I said, I'm just arguing devil's advocate. ;)

A romantic relationship between a child and adult is inherently unequal as the child is mentally and physically inferior to an adult. Thus a pedophilic relationship leaves far too great of a possibility for coercion and abuse.

And as I've argued, child abuse should not be allowed.

And yes I know you draw a distinction between abuse and a mutually beneficial relationship, but the fact remains that a child with no power and an adult with all the power in an unstable relationship.

Not necessarily. It could be an unstable relationship, but lots of relationships are unstable.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 4:53:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 4:44:17 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/1/2014 4:42:54 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:29:39 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I'm not sure what topic to put this in, but here goes. I will play devil's advocate and present an argument for pedophilia.

Please note: I do not support pedophilia

Also, this is not meant to be a slippery slope type argument against gay marriage.

My argument shall run thus:

P1: All mutually beneficial relationships which don't harm other people ought to be allowed
P2: Some pedophilia relationships are mutually beneficial and don't harm other people
C: Some pedophilia relationships ought to be allowed.

This is a logically valid CAMESTRES categorical syllogism. Look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about.

P1 seems obvious to me. Mutually beneficial relationships shouldn't be prohibited, provided they don't harm anyone.

P2 is where I shall argue.

Now a man with attractions towards young boys desires comradeship. However, it's absurd to say that he should marry another man or a woman, since he's not attracted to them.

Thus, the relationship would be beneficial to the man.

What about the boy?

Well, young boys need guidance and are easily impressionable. They need a strong male in their life to set a good example for them. As long as the man sincerely loves the boy, and cares for him in a loving manner, the boy will be well taken care of. The man will teach him and care for him.

Now you might say: But child abuse is scarring to the child!

However, this is in a completely different context. I'm not promoting that men should be allowed to grab a young boy, rape him, and then discard him like a piece of trash. Rather, I'm promoting a mutually beneficial relationship in which both parties benefit. Children are clearly capable of loving and making choices to a certain degree. I am not promoting "using" children as sex objects, just as I would not promote using and beating your wife. However, it seems that in the correct circumstances, pedophilia relationships could be mutually beneficial and morally acceptable.

Thus, in certain cases, where the boy looks up to the man and learns from him, and the man sincerely loves the boy, pedophilia can be beneficial to both.

Do you believe the prepubescent brain is fully developed?

What do you mean by "fully developed"? You mean equal in development to an adult brain? Whether or not something is "fully developed" is relative.

No. I'm speaking biologically. Something that's empirically measurable and verifiable in a lab. Do you believe the cerebral cortex of a prepubescent child is fully developed?
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 4:54:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 4:42:06 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/1/2014 4:09:43 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 3/1/2014 4:00:57 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:58:12 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:53:48 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:50:04 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:29:39 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I'm not sure what topic to put this in, but here goes. I will play devil's advocate and present an argument for pedophilia.

Please note: I do not support pedophilia

Also, this is not meant to be a slippery slope type argument against gay marriage.

My argument shall run thus:

P1: All mutually beneficial relationships which don't harm other people ought to be allowed
P2: Some pedophilia relationships are mutually beneficial and don't harm other people
C: Some pedophilia relationships ought to be allowed.

This is a logically valid CAMESTRES categorical syllogism. Look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about.

P1 seems obvious to me. Mutually beneficial relationships shouldn't be prohibited, provided they don't harm anyone.

P2 is where I shall argue.

Now a man with attractions towards young boys desires comradeship. However, it's absurd to say that he should marry another man or a woman, since he's not attracted to them.

Thus, the relationship would be beneficial to the man.

What about the boy?

Well, young boys need guidance and are easily impressionable. They need a strong male in their life to set a good example for them. As long as the man sincerely loves the boy, and cares for him in a loving manner, the boy will be well taken care of. The man will teach him and care for him.

Now you might say: But child abuse is scarring to the child!

However, this is in a completely different context. I'm not promoting that men should be allowed to grab a young boy, rape him, and then discard him like a piece of trash. Rather, I'm promoting a mutually beneficial relationship in which both parties benefit. Children are clearly capable of loving and making choices to a certain degree. I am not promoting "using" children as sex objects, just as I would not promote using and beating your wife. However, it seems that in the correct circumstances, pedophilia relationships could be mutually beneficial and morally acceptable.

Thus, in certain cases, where the boy looks up to the man and learns from him, and the man sincerely loves the boy, pedophilia can be beneficial to both.

Logic is brilliant. Reality...not so much.

Try to enforce this; I dare you! Wouldn't work as it gives far too much opportunity for malicious intent and would be impossible to enforce effectively.

Couldn't we say that about marriage? Maybe the husband is abusing the wife. Maybe the husband is abusing his children. Since it's too difficult to enforce, marriage should be made illegal.

Define marriage. It's harder than you'd like to believe. :D

In this case I meant man/woman sexual relations where the idea is a long-term relationship.

OK, I'm going to assume you meant "legally recognised", too.


Yes.


Families should be illegal. They live in their homes, and the police can't do in without a warrant. They could be raping and abusing each other.

Yes, they could. But we know from experience that the overwhelming majority of cases are not like this. Can you say the same for paedophilia?


How do we know that about families? Also, to say that because the majority of people with attractions to boys are rapists, this doesn't mean we can deny a whole orientation their rights.

Would you like me to pull some statistics together? I hoped we could agree on this one point, as to not detract from the core context, but if you want me to, I will. Should I?

I'll respond to your other points below.



This is applying your reasoning to families.

Not quite.


If you[']r[e] concerned about putting something into practice, then why not just have the government run reproduction?

I'm sorry: What?! How does that follow?


It would solve the problem of families and potential abuse.

No, it would shift it to other people.


P1: Putting concepts into practice which have been shown to cause a very high level of distress, sexual harassment, and abuse in the majority of cases, for the sake of allowing the few cases where this wouldn't be the case legal, would be impractically difficult.
C: Therefore, reproduction should be government controlled.


I don't think the appeal to the consequences or real-world practice debunk the argument very well.

I do.


Even if I agree that it would be difficult to put into practice, it doesn't follow that it should be illegal. We're denying certain men and boys the chances for a mutually beneficial relationship.

Yes, we are, but for the benefit of the other 90% of boys who want to be safe. (I'm making numbers up - I appreciate that - but the majority, to be sure.) Which takes priority? Because we cannot have both.


This confusion is my fault. I am assuming you're thinking along the same lines as I. We're different.

Paedophilia is - normally - very bad. I'm sure you agree, or you'd support it.
Your argument wants to do one of two things:


Maybe, maybe not. All child abuse is pedophilia, but not all pedophilia is child abuse.

1) Legalise paedophilia for the sake of the few cases where it doesn't harm anyone.
2) Legalise paedophilia for only the cases where it doesn't harm anyone.

the first is ridiculous; the second is impractical. That's my point.

The argument is very clearly in favor of the second. Child-abuse cases should probably be illegal. But pedophilia =/= child abuse necessarily.

Agreed.


What about the man and boy who mutually love each other? Where their relationship is good for both of them. Where the man gets a comrade, and the boy gets a loving partner to raise and teach him. Do they not have their right to be together? Just because alot of a group may be child abusers, that doesn't mean they all are.

What about the boys who want to feel safe, secure, and live in a society where their needs are being seen to? Do they not have their right to be safe? Is sexual desires > safety and privacy, now?

You see?I see your point, but the time, effort, money, and risks would be ridiculous. Also, reverse psychology FTW.


You're essentially arguing that we should infringe upon certain peoples' happiness and rights, just because it's "easier" to do so. The laws shouldn't primarily be "what's easy" or "what's practical" they should primarily be about what ought to be the case.

You're essentially arguing that we should put a majority of young, hormone driven (at least in times of sexuality) boys into immense danger by satisfying the sexual desire of older men (or women, I suppose) who feel that their sexual desires - malicious or no - trump those boys and girls who they want to be "happy" with.

Reverse psychology is the best demonstration of why your argument doesn't work.

This is a good time to ask: Since you're against it, yourself, how would you rebut this argument?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 5:11:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 3:29:39 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I'm not sure what topic to put this in, but here goes. I will play devil's advocate and present an argument for pedophilia.

Please note: I do not support pedophilia

Also, this is not meant to be a slippery slope type argument against gay marriage.

My argument shall run thus:

P1: All mutually beneficial relationships which don't harm other people ought to be allowed
P2: Some pedophilia relationships are mutually beneficial and don't harm other people
C: Some pedophilia relationships ought to be allowed.

This is a logically valid CAMESTRES categorical syllogism. Look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about.

P1 seems obvious to me. Mutually beneficial relationships shouldn't be prohibited, provided they don't harm anyone.

P2 is where I shall argue.

Now a man with attractions towards young boys desires comradeship. However, it's absurd to say that he should marry another man or a woman, since he's not attracted to them.

Thus, the relationship would be beneficial to the man.

What about the boy?

Well, young boys need guidance and are easily impressionable. They need a strong male in their life to set a good example for them. As long as the man sincerely loves the boy, and cares for him in a loving manner, the boy will be well taken care of. The man will teach him and care for him.

Now you might say: But child abuse is scarring to the child!

However, this is in a completely different context. I'm not promoting that men should be allowed to grab a young boy, rape him, and then discard him like a piece of trash. Rather, I'm promoting a mutually beneficial relationship in which both parties benefit. Children are clearly capable of loving and making choices to a certain degree. I am not promoting "using" children as sex objects, just as I would not promote using and beating your wife. However, it seems that in the correct circumstances, pedophilia relationships could be mutually beneficial and morally acceptable.

Thus, in certain cases, where the boy looks up to the man and learns from him, and the man sincerely loves the boy, pedophilia can be beneficial to both.

The issue is what constitutes a "relationship", and in this case, it means sex.
Sex is a contract that one enters into regarding their body. (I allow you to touch/enter me in exchange for mutual satisfaction... or ice cream)
Children cannot enter into contracts.
Ergo, children cannot consent.

This is the legal issue.
From a philosophical issue, some relationships make sense. Of course, from a philosophical standpoint, I ought to be able to end an abusive relationship on behalf of another.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 5:16:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would also like to point out that there is nothing illegal, albeit creepy, about a man and boy having a relationship. He may bestow gifts upon the lad and give him ungodly amounts of attention.

This is only a legal matter when sex is involved.
My work here is, finally, done.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 5:29:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 4:53:49 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 3/1/2014 4:44:17 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/1/2014 4:42:54 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:29:39 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I'm not sure what topic to put this in, but here goes. I will play devil's advocate and present an argument for pedophilia.

Please note: I do not support pedophilia

Also, this is not meant to be a slippery slope type argument against gay marriage.

My argument shall run thus:

P1: All mutually beneficial relationships which don't harm other people ought to be allowed
P2: Some pedophilia relationships are mutually beneficial and don't harm other people
C: Some pedophilia relationships ought to be allowed.

This is a logically valid CAMESTRES categorical syllogism. Look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about.

P1 seems obvious to me. Mutually beneficial relationships shouldn't be prohibited, provided they don't harm anyone.

P2 is where I shall argue.

Now a man with attractions towards young boys desires comradeship. However, it's absurd to say that he should marry another man or a woman, since he's not attracted to them.

Thus, the relationship would be beneficial to the man.

What about the boy?

Well, young boys need guidance and are easily impressionable. They need a strong male in their life to set a good example for them. As long as the man sincerely loves the boy, and cares for him in a loving manner, the boy will be well taken care of. The man will teach him and care for him.

Now you might say: But child abuse is scarring to the child!

However, this is in a completely different context. I'm not promoting that men should be allowed to grab a young boy, rape him, and then discard him like a piece of trash. Rather, I'm promoting a mutually beneficial relationship in which both parties benefit. Children are clearly capable of loving and making choices to a certain degree. I am not promoting "using" children as sex objects, just as I would not promote using and beating your wife. However, it seems that in the correct circumstances, pedophilia relationships could be mutually beneficial and morally acceptable.

Thus, in certain cases, where the boy looks up to the man and learns from him, and the man sincerely loves the boy, pedophilia can be beneficial to both.

Do you believe the prepubescent brain is fully developed?

What do you mean by "fully developed"? You mean equal in development to an adult brain? Whether or not something is "fully developed" is relative.

No. I'm speaking biologically. Something that's empirically measurable and verifiable in a lab. Do you believe the cerebral cortex of a prepubescent child is fully developed?

Could you please explain what you mean by "fully developed"? I agree that a child's brain is not as developed as an adult's.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 5:41:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago


Families should be illegal. They live in their homes, and the police can't do in without a warrant. They could be raping and abusing each other.

Yes, they could. But we know from experience that the overwhelming majority of cases are not like this. Can you say the same for paedophilia?


How do we know that about families? Also, to say that because the majority of people with attractions to boys are rapists, this doesn't mean we can deny a whole orientation their rights.

Would you like me to pull some statistics together? I hoped we could agree on this one point, as to not detract from the core context, but if you want me to, I will. Should I?


I'm very inclined to agree with you, in fact I do, but for the sake of argument I'm wondering if that really is the case that families are as safe and protective as one might believe.

I'll respond to your other points below.



This is applying your reasoning to families.

Not quite.


If you[']r[e] concerned about putting something into practice, then why not just have the government run reproduction?

I'm sorry: What?! How does that follow?


It would solve the problem of families and potential abuse.

No, it would shift it to other people.


P1: Putting concepts into practice which have been shown to cause a very high level of distress, sexual harassment, and abuse in the majority of cases, for the sake of allowing the few cases where this wouldn't be the case legal, would be impractically difficult.
C: Therefore, reproduction should be government controlled.


I don't think the appeal to the consequences or real-world practice debunk the argument very well.

I do.


Even if I agree that it would be difficult to put into practice, it doesn't follow that it should be illegal. We're denying certain men and boys the chances for a mutually beneficial relationship.

Yes, we are, but for the benefit of the other 90% of boys who want to be safe. (I'm making numbers up - I appreciate that - but the majority, to be sure.) Which takes priority? Because we cannot have both.


Good question. If we're talking about which is "more important" then it seems we'd need a scale of how "important" things are. I'd say that we can have both though. Perhaps the pedophilia relationships should be looked into more often to make sure its not abusive for the child.


This confusion is my fault. I am assuming you're thinking along the same lines as I. We're different.

Paedophilia is - normally - very bad. I'm sure you agree, or you'd support it.
Your argument wants to do one of two things:


Maybe, maybe not. All child abuse is pedophilia, but not all pedophilia is child abuse.

1) Legalise paedophilia for the sake of the few cases where it doesn't harm anyone.
2) Legalise paedophilia for only the cases where it doesn't harm anyone.

the first is ridiculous; the second is impractical. That's my point.

The argument is very clearly in favor of the second. Child-abuse cases should probably be illegal. But pedophilia =/= child abuse necessarily.

Agreed.


Well actually I personally think that pedophilia IS child abuse, but yeah... ;) Just wanted to make that clear, lol.


What about the man and boy who mutually love each other? Where their relationship is good for both of them. Where the man gets a comrade, and the boy gets a loving partner to raise and teach him. Do they not have their right to be together? Just because alot of a group may be child abusers, that doesn't mean they all are.

What about the boys who want to feel safe, secure, and live in a society where their needs are being seen to? Do they not have their right to be safe? Is sexual desires > safety and privacy, now?


Yes, they do have that right. But you're making it a false dichotomy. It's not "Either all pedophile relationships are legal, or none are." I'm arguing for the proposition that "Some pedophile relationships should be allowed."

Either: (i)No pedophile relationships should be allowed
or: (ii)Some pedophile relationships should be allowed.

These are logically contradictory statements. They cannot both be true, nor can they both be false. The arguments I've presented are in favor of (ii).

You see?I see your point, but the time, effort, money, and risks would be ridiculous. Also, reverse psychology FTW.


Yes, and I understand as well, but you're placing time, effort, money, and risks over some peoples' happiness. We all have the rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Infringing upon these rights is discrimination, even if you think you have good reasons to discriminate.

Discrimination is still discrimination, even if it's easier.


You're essentially arguing that we should infringe upon certain peoples' happiness and rights, just because it's "easier" to do so. The laws shouldn't primarily be "what's easy" or "what's practical" they should primarily be about what ought to be the case.

You're essentially arguing that we should put a majority of young, hormone driven (at least in times of sexuality) boys into immense danger by satisfying the sexual desire of older men (or women, I suppose) who feel that their sexual desires - malicious or no - trump those boys and girls who they want to be "happy" with.


I never said a majority. Just that certain pedophile relationships should be allowed, since certain ones are perfectly fine.

If there's a child in an institution who isn't being given the attention and love that a pedophile man or woman could offer him, wouldn't it be better for him to be with that person? It seems that if the person really truly loved him, then this would be an excellent way to find him a home.

This is a good time to ask: Since you're against it, yourself, how would you rebut this argument?

I'd argue that no one has the "right" to pedophile relationships, that they are inherently evil, and should be regarded the same as murder with the same consequences. Namely that of the death penalty.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 5:55:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 5:29:51 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/1/2014 4:53:49 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 3/1/2014 4:44:17 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/1/2014 4:42:54 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:29:39 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I'm not sure what topic to put this in, but here goes. I will play devil's advocate and present an argument for pedophilia.

Please note: I do not support pedophilia

Also, this is not meant to be a slippery slope type argument against gay marriage.

My argument shall run thus:

P1: All mutually beneficial relationships which don't harm other people ought to be allowed
P2: Some pedophilia relationships are mutually beneficial and don't harm other people
C: Some pedophilia relationships ought to be allowed.

This is a logically valid CAMESTRES categorical syllogism. Look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about.

P1 seems obvious to me. Mutually beneficial relationships shouldn't be prohibited, provided they don't harm anyone.

P2 is where I shall argue.

Now a man with attractions towards young boys desires comradeship. However, it's absurd to say that he should marry another man or a woman, since he's not attracted to them.

Thus, the relationship would be beneficial to the man.

What about the boy?

Well, young boys need guidance and are easily impressionable. They need a strong male in their life to set a good example for them. As long as the man sincerely loves the boy, and cares for him in a loving manner, the boy will be well taken care of. The man will teach him and care for him.

Now you might say: But child abuse is scarring to the child!

However, this is in a completely different context. I'm not promoting that men should be allowed to grab a young boy, rape him, and then discard him like a piece of trash. Rather, I'm promoting a mutually beneficial relationship in which both parties benefit. Children are clearly capable of loving and making choices to a certain degree. I am not promoting "using" children as sex objects, just as I would not promote using and beating your wife. However, it seems that in the correct circumstances, pedophilia relationships could be mutually beneficial and morally acceptable.

Thus, in certain cases, where the boy looks up to the man and learns from him, and the man sincerely loves the boy, pedophilia can be beneficial to both.

Do you believe the prepubescent brain is fully developed?

What do you mean by "fully developed"? You mean equal in development to an adult brain? Whether or not something is "fully developed" is relative.

No. I'm speaking biologically. Something that's empirically measurable and verifiable in a lab. Do you believe the cerebral cortex of a prepubescent child is fully developed?

Could you please explain what you mean by "fully developed"? I agree that a child's brain is not as developed as an adult's.

The frontal lobe, of the cerebral cortex, which is responsible for cognitive control, namely the ability to determine consequences from current actions, override and suppress socially unacceptable responses, and determine similarities and differences between spatial-temporal phenomena demonstrably is not fully matured in the prepubescent brain.... Please, do not take my word for it; look it up.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 2:11:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 3:29:39 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I'm not sure what topic to put this in, but here goes. I will play devil's advocate and present an argument for pedophilia.

Please note: I do not support pedophilia

Then do you deny the logic you are about to use or the premises?

My argument shall run thus:

P1: All mutually beneficial relationships which don't harm other people ought to be allowed

I disagree, even if a relationship would be mutually beneficial, and didn't cause objective harm if one party did not want to engage in it, it should be banned. I will note this consent criteria along side your other premise. This is provided of course that you don't define violating consent as necessarily harmful.

P2: Some pedophilia relationships are mutually beneficial and don't harm other people

At least in theory some relationships could be consensual as well, the situation seems hard to imagine given today's cultural climate though.

C: Some pedophilia relationships ought to be allowed.

Your logic is valid. With the consent modification it is sound.

This is a logically valid CAMESTRES categorical syllogism. Look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about.

Before coming here I would have assumed almost everyone on a debate site would know what a categorical syllogism was, how to evaluate it's validity etc... This site (wrichcirw/EndarkenedRationalist in particular) has sadly proved me wrong, and your advice to look it up is clearly pertinent.... so sad.

Now a man with attractions towards young boys desires comradeship. However, it's absurd to say that he should marry another man or a woman, since he's not attracted to them.

Thus, the relationship would be beneficial to the man.

What about the boy?

Well, young boys need guidance and are easily impressionable. They need a strong male in their life to set a good example for them. As long as the man sincerely loves the boy, and cares for him in a loving manner, the boy will be well taken care of. The man will teach him and care for him.

Now you might say: But child abuse is scarring to the child!

However, this is in a completely different context. I'm not promoting that men should be allowed to grab a young boy, rape him, and then discard him like a piece of trash. Rather, I'm promoting a mutually beneficial relationship in which both parties benefit.

Which is to imply that rape and discard is abuse (and they certainly are) but not necessarily sex (which is also common knowledge).

However, most people believe that sex alone is constitutes abuse because it always scars the child.

If that could be proven, or it could be proven that such is a significant unmanageable risk wouldn't just sex constitute abuse?

Children are clearly capable of loving and making choices to a certain degree.

Clearly.

I am not promoting "using" children as sex objects, just as I would not promote using and beating your wife. However, it seems that in the correct circumstances, pedophilia relationships could be mutually beneficial and morally acceptable.

Thus, in certain cases, where the boy looks up to the man and learns from him, and the man sincerely loves the boy, pedophilia can be beneficial to both.

This is exactly how the Greeks saw it. However, isn't it true that the benefit comes from the love and learning as opposed to the sex? It can be fairly easily established that prepubescent children do not garner pleasure directly from sex. If they like it, it is necessarily linked to what they've been told it means.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 10:20:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 2:11:42 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:29:39 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I'm not sure what topic to put this in, but here goes. I will play devil's advocate and present an argument for pedophilia.

Please note: I do not support pedophilia

Then do you deny the logic you are about to use or the premises?


The premises, since the logic is valid.

My argument shall run thus:

P1: All mutually beneficial relationships which don't harm other people ought to be allowed

I disagree, even if a relationship would be mutually beneficial, and didn't cause objective harm if one party did not want to engage in it, it should be banned. I will note this consent criteria along side your other premise. This is provided of course that you don't define violating consent as necessarily harmful.


We force kids to do all kinds of things we see as good for them though. We force them to go to school, to learn, etc. Why not force them into a pedophilia relationship if it would be good for them?

P2: Some pedophilia relationships are mutually beneficial and don't harm other people

At least in theory some relationships could be consensual as well, the situation seems hard to imagine given today's cultural climate though.


Some people claim children can't consent; but that's rather absurd in my opinion. It depends how old the kid is really.

C: Some pedophilia relationships ought to be allowed.

Your logic is valid. With the consent modification it is sound.

This is a logically valid CAMESTRES categorical syllogism. Look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about.

Before coming here I would have assumed almost everyone on a debate site would know what a categorical syllogism was, how to evaluate it's validity etc... This site (wrichcirw/EndarkenedRationalist in particular) has sadly proved me wrong, and your advice to look it up is clearly pertinent.... so sad.


Haha... yes, I've seen some sad things on here myself. Like calling a barbara syllogism a modus ponens.. Classical logic ftw, eh? :)

Now a man with attractions towards young boys desires comradeship. However, it's absurd to say that he should marry another man or a woman, since he's not attracted to them.

Thus, the relationship would be beneficial to the man.

What about the boy?

Well, young boys need guidance and are easily impressionable. They need a strong male in their life to set a good example for them. As long as the man sincerely loves the boy, and cares for him in a loving manner, the boy will be well taken care of. The man will teach him and care for him.

Now you might say: But child abuse is scarring to the child!

However, this is in a completely different context. I'm not promoting that men should be allowed to grab a young boy, rape him, and then discard him like a piece of trash. Rather, I'm promoting a mutually beneficial relationship in which both parties benefit.

Which is to imply that rape and discard is abuse (and they certainly are) but not necessarily sex (which is also common knowledge).


Correct. Here's an idea though: When a person reaches a certain age, then they get the rights to decide whether or not to be in the relationship.

However, most people believe that sex alone is constitutes abuse because it always scars the child.


Yes, well, that's debatable.

If that could be proven, or it could be proven that such is a significant unmanageable risk wouldn't just sex constitute abuse?


The problem is that all those examples of scarring the child would be in a rape/abuse like scenario. How many examples do we have of a loving pedophilia relationship in which the child is scarred for life?

Children are clearly capable of loving and making choices to a certain degree.

Clearly.

I am not promoting "using" children as sex objects, just as I would not promote using and beating your wife. However, it seems that in the correct circumstances, pedophilia relationships could be mutually beneficial and morally acceptable.

Thus, in certain cases, where the boy looks up to the man and learns from him, and the man sincerely loves the boy, pedophilia can be beneficial to both.

This is exactly how the Greeks saw it. However, isn't it true that the benefit comes from the love and learning as opposed to the sex? It can be fairly easily established that prepubescent children do not garner pleasure directly from sex. If they like it, it is necessarily linked to what they've been told it means.

Yes, but the sex is what is pleasurable to the man. Man gives boy protection, education, role model; boy gives man sex, pleasure, and a companion.

So even if it's emotionally scarring to the boy, you could still make the case it's overall beneficial.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 10:43:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 2:11:42 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:29:39 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I'm not sure what topic to put this in, but here goes. I will play devil's advocate and present an argument for pedophilia.

Please note: I do not support pedophilia

Then do you deny the logic you are about to use or the premises?

My argument shall run thus:

P1: All mutually beneficial relationships which don't harm other people ought to be allowed

I disagree, even if a relationship would be mutually beneficial, and didn't cause objective harm if one party did not want to engage in it, it should be banned. I will note this consent criteria along side your other premise. This is provided of course that you don't define violating consent as necessarily harmful.

P2: Some pedophilia relationships are mutually beneficial and don't harm other people

At least in theory some relationships could be consensual as well, the situation seems hard to imagine given today's cultural climate though.

C: Some pedophilia relationships ought to be allowed.

Your logic is valid. With the consent modification it is sound.

This is a logically valid CAMESTRES categorical syllogism. Look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about.

Before coming here I would have assumed almost everyone on a debate site would know what a categorical syllogism was, how to evaluate it's validity etc... This site (wrichcirw/EndarkenedRationalist in particular) has sadly proved me wrong, and your advice to look it up is clearly pertinent.... so sad.

I explained this to you, Liberty; you took the words I used and falsely equivocated them within the syllogisms, which is why they were invalid. You and I walked through it together, and I directly pointed out where the fault was.

Now a man with attractions towards young boys desires comradeship. However, it's absurd to say that he should marry another man or a woman, since he's not attracted to them.

Thus, the relationship would be beneficial to the man.

What about the boy?

Well, young boys need guidance and are easily impressionable. They need a strong male in their life to set a good example for them. As long as the man sincerely loves the boy, and cares for him in a loving manner, the boy will be well taken care of. The man will teach him and care for him.

Now you might say: But child abuse is scarring to the child!

However, this is in a completely different context. I'm not promoting that men should be allowed to grab a young boy, rape him, and then discard him like a piece of trash. Rather, I'm promoting a mutually beneficial relationship in which both parties benefit.

Which is to imply that rape and discard is abuse (and they certainly are) but not necessarily sex (which is also common knowledge).

However, most people believe that sex alone is constitutes abuse because it always scars the child.

If that could be proven, or it could be proven that such is a significant unmanageable risk wouldn't just sex constitute abuse?

Children are clearly capable of loving and making choices to a certain degree.

Clearly.

I am not promoting "using" children as sex objects, just as I would not promote using and beating your wife. However, it seems that in the correct circumstances, pedophilia relationships could be mutually beneficial and morally acceptable.

Thus, in certain cases, where the boy looks up to the man and learns from him, and the man sincerely loves the boy, pedophilia can be beneficial to both.

This is exactly how the Greeks saw it. However, isn't it true that the benefit comes from the love and learning as opposed to the sex? It can be fairly easily established that prepubescent children do not garner pleasure directly from sex. If they like it, it is necessarily linked to what they've been told it means.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 10:06:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 10:43:30 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I explained this to you, Liberty; you took the words I used and falsely equivocated them within the syllogisms, which is why they were invalid. You and I walked through it together, and I directly pointed out where the fault was.

I equivocated nothing, categorical syllogisms don't allow for such an informal fallacy. You said I ignored the context, which was I think the sneaky way of admitting your statements were not complete without some conditionals. Had you updated them to include consent instead of giving up I would have shown how they failed to make equal treat of homosexual couples by society an imperative.

The fact remains that I took the time to organize it into categorical syllogisms and you tried to ignore them for 20 posts (or something like that) before quitting. If you understood them well you would not have been afraid of them, you would have immediately admitted that some of your statements were incomplete, provided the complete versions, and then re-posted the updated syllogisms.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 10:38:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 10:20:56 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/4/2014 2:11:42 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Then do you deny the logic you are about to use or the premises?


The premises, since the logic is valid.

Which one (or both?)

I disagree, even if a relationship would be mutually beneficial, and didn't cause objective harm if one party did not want to engage in it, it should be banned. I will note this consent criteria along side your other premise. This is provided of course that you don't define violating consent as necessarily harmful.


We force kids to do all kinds of things we see as good for them though. We force them to go to school, to learn, etc. Why not force them into a pedophilia relationship if it would be good for them?

First off I'd like to say that I believe forcing kids to go to school is not in their best interests. In many cases the benefit of education is not worth the damaging culture that schools full of involuntary students produce. It is only because many kids do like going to school, or are at least ambivalent towards it that this effect is not 'fatal' as it were.

There are far more effective ways to teach children the values of things without resorting to force, even if they seem crueler at the time.

Using force for sex is particular heinous however because the only good that could come of it are the sensations and emotions linked to it. If you use force they will almost certainly be negative defeating the whole purpose. Also important to note that as a role model you cannot be seen to be behaving in a way that is immoral, using force will teach the minor that sex is a reward for conquering the other person instead of a celebration of their mutual life and pleasure.

It is in that way inappropriate in the same way stealing from the minor would be.

P2: Some pedophilia relationships are mutually beneficial and don't harm other people

At least in theory some relationships could be consensual as well, the situation seems hard to imagine given today's cultural climate though.


Some people claim children can't consent; but that's rather absurd in my opinion. It depends how old the kid is really.

Even prepubescent children can consent to something as simple as sex. It's an explanation of physical interaction (words aren't even necessary) and then a "yes" or a "no" words learned before the age of two. From two years old and on children will become less likely to consent rather than more until they reach puberty when curiosity and desire eventually overcomes fear.

Consenting to all the cultural perceptions of sex is another matter, and that probably requires a teen who has put a real effort into understanding it (which is darn near impossible given the culture of teens, and the embarrassment of elders).

How soon after puberty a minor comes to understand enough to give informed consent is mostly up to them. It certainly isn't magically always 18 or 21 or even 16.

Haha... yes, I've seen some sad things on here myself. Like calling a barbara syllogism a modus ponens.. Classical logic ftw, eh? :)

Yes, and even not knowing isn't particularity shameful; it's the fact that it doesn't occur to them to just google it.

Which is to imply that rape and discard is abuse (and they certainly are) but not necessarily sex (which is also common knowledge).


Correct. Here's an idea though: When a person reaches a certain age, then they get the rights to decide whether or not to be in the relationship.

lol, where did you come up with that? Oh yea the age when you can legally emancipate yourself from the potentially involuntary relationship with parents, foster homes, or orphanages!

However, most people believe that sex alone is constitutes abuse because it always scars the child.


Yes, well, that's debatable.

Everything is, but this one could be won fairly easily. Note I said "most people believe" it's as simple as a poll.

If that could be proven, or it could be proven that such is a significant unmanageable risk wouldn't just sex constitute abuse?

The problem is that all those examples of scarring the child would be in a rape/abuse like scenario. How many examples do we have of a loving pedophilia relationship in which the child is scarred for life?

That is very difficult to establish since children in relationships that are discovered are told they were abused horribly, and often come to believe it.

However, suppose we did find someone who was scarred despite every effort of consideration by the adult and despite consenting at the time. If this was a significant number of cases, and furthermore they appeared to be intrinsic to having sex with an adult at that age would it not follow that the risk is unmanageable despite the fact that some children make it through OK?

(funny because we are both playing devils advocate at this point)

Thus, in certain cases, where the boy looks up to the man and learns from him, and the man sincerely loves the boy, pedophilia can be beneficial to both.

This is exactly how the Greeks saw it. However, isn't it true that the benefit comes from the love and learning as opposed to the sex? It can be fairly easily established that prepubescent children do not garner pleasure directly from sex. If they like it, it is necessarily linked to what they've been told it means.

Yes, but the sex is what is pleasurable to the man. Man gives boy protection, education, role model; boy gives man sex, pleasure, and a companion.

So even if it's emotionally scarring to the boy, you could still make the case it's overall beneficial.

What if it was considered the man's duty to provide protection, education, and a role model no strings attached?
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 10:57:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
For the life of me I fail to recognize the internal logic behind so-called "devil's advocate" arguments of this nature.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 11:03:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 10:06:23 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:43:30 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I explained this to you, Liberty; you took the words I used and falsely equivocated them within the syllogisms, which is why they were invalid. You and I walked through it together, and I directly pointed out where the fault was.

I equivocated nothing, categorical syllogisms don't allow for such an informal fallacy. You said I ignored the context, which was I think the sneaky way of admitting your statements were not complete without some conditionals. Had you updated them to include consent instead of giving up I would have shown how they failed to make equal treat of homosexual couples by society an imperative.

Sure they do.

Right is the opposite of left.
My answer was right.
Therefore, my answer was the opposite of left.

See? Simple fallacy in a syllogism.

The fact remains that I took the time to organize it into categorical syllogisms and you tried to ignore them for 20 posts (or something like that) before quitting. If you understood them well you would not have been afraid of them, you would have immediately admitted that some of your statements were incomplete, provided the complete versions, and then re-posted the updated syllogisms.

My statements were perfectly complete, Liberty, unless you wish to blame me for assuming you could comprehend an argument where several of its factors were implied - and outright stated with other points. I apologised for not knowing I had to spell out every single point for you.

I hate having to say things like that, Liberty. I do respect you, and you seem very intelligent. Perhaps that's why it's more frustrating that you force things to come out as they do, twisting around other people's arguments and omitting the parts that disprove your own.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 12:00:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 3:29:39 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I'm not sure what topic to put this in, but here goes. I will play devil's advocate and present an argument for pedophilia.

Please note: I do not support pedophilia

Also, this is not meant to be a slippery slope type argument against gay marriage.

My argument shall run thus:

P1: All mutually beneficial relationships which don't harm other people ought to be allowed
P2: Some pedophilia relationships are mutually beneficial and don't harm other people
C: Some pedophilia relationships ought to be allowed.

This is a logically valid CAMESTRES categorical syllogism. Look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about.

P1 seems obvious to me. Mutually beneficial relationships shouldn't be prohibited, provided they don't harm anyone.

P2 is where I shall argue.

Now a man with attractions towards young boys desires comradeship. However, it's absurd to say that he should marry another man or a woman, since he's not attracted to them.

Thus, the relationship would be beneficial to the man.

What about the boy?

Well, young boys need guidance and are easily impressionable. They need a strong male in their life to set a good example for them. As long as the man sincerely loves the boy, and cares for him in a loving manner, the boy will be well taken care of. The man will teach him and care for him.

Now you might say: But child abuse is scarring to the child!

However, this is in a completely different context. I'm not promoting that men should be allowed to grab a young boy, rape him, and then discard him like a piece of trash. Rather, I'm promoting a mutually beneficial relationship in which both parties benefit. Children are clearly capable of loving and making choices to a certain degree. I am not promoting "using" children as sex objects, just as I would not promote using and beating your wife. However, it seems that in the correct circumstances, pedophilia relationships could be mutually beneficial and morally acceptable.

Thus, in certain cases, where the boy looks up to the man and learns from him, and the man sincerely loves the boy, pedophilia can be beneficial to both.

Man-boy relationships that were benign and beneficial to rather than detrimental to the boy indeed existed in ancient Greece; but as it did in ancient Greece, it takes an entire culture to produce men and boys capable of such relationships, it requires an entire culture to shape such relationships into something legitimate. In modern cultures amorous associations between men and male minors are at best disgusting and destructive travesties of the loving Greek type of man-boy relationship (of course often they're patently predatory and physically, not merely emotionally, dangerous for the child). Ergo, man-boy relationships with a romantic dimension most certainly should remain criminalized and never be viewed with acceptance.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 8:26:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 11:03:30 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:06:23 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:43:30 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I explained this to you, Liberty; you took the words I used and falsely equivocated them within the syllogisms, which is why they were invalid. You and I walked through it together, and I directly pointed out where the fault was.

I equivocated nothing, categorical syllogisms don't allow for such an informal fallacy. You said I ignored the context, which was I think the sneaky way of admitting your statements were not complete without some conditionals. Had you updated them to include consent instead of giving up I would have shown how they failed to make equal treat of homosexual couples by society an imperative.

Sure they do.

Right is the opposite of left.
My answer was right.
Therefore, my answer was the opposite of left.

See? Simple fallacy in a syllogism.

I took your words from the same context, they had to be in the same sense or you were the one who committed an equivocation fallacy and I merely reprinted it. There is nothing wrong with the above syllogism provided your answer was giving a direction, and nothing wrong with my syllogisms provided you meant discrimination and acceptance when you said discrimination and acceptance.

The fact remains that I took the time to organize it into categorical syllogisms and you tried to ignore them for 20 posts (or something like that) before quitting. If you understood them well you would not have been afraid of them, you would have immediately admitted that some of your statements were incomplete, provided the complete versions, and then re-posted the updated syllogisms.

My statements were perfectly complete, Liberty

See, and then you claim something like this. If they were complete the syllogisms hold and you are still ignoring them.

I hate having to say things like that, Liberty. I do respect you, and you seem very intelligent. Perhaps that's why it's more frustrating that you force things to come out as they do, twisting around other people's arguments and omitting the parts that disprove your own.

*sigh* I hate to have to say you appear to be flip flopping. First you say the statements were complete, then you say I am omitting parts of your argument that I disapprove of. If you are referring to an additional consent condition in your statements they were not complete.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.