Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Shame, blame and stigma.

Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 5:37:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think stigma and shame can be good. For example, when I first came on here I had a chat with bsh1 who has no objections to pedophiles having fantasies or even enhancing those fantasies with porn as long as no child is involved in the making of it.

I think they SHOULD be shamed for indulging in those fantasies. I think a decent person who finds him or herself lusting after a 4-year-old should immediately shut those thoughts down. Those sorts of fantasies shouldn't be celebrated or actively exercised in any way. That's just one example. I think shame is a brilliant social force for everything from making people wash before leaving the house to donating money to stuff. Sometimes it can get toxic - for example with women and body image yikes - but thst doesn't mean it's always bad.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 5:19:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 5:37:09 AM, Garbanza wrote:
I think stigma and shame can be good. For example, when I first came on here I had a chat with bsh1 who has no objections to pedophiles having fantasies or even enhancing those fantasies with porn as long as no child is involved in the making of it.

I think they SHOULD be shamed for indulging in those fantasies. I think a decent person who finds him or herself lusting after a 4-year-old should immediately shut those thoughts down. Those sorts of fantasies shouldn't be celebrated or actively exercised in any way. That's just one example. I think shame is a brilliant social force for everything from making people wash before leaving the house to donating money to stuff. Sometimes it can get toxic - for example with women and body image yikes - but thst doesn't mean it's always bad.

I agree with you. However, even though we hide, or suppress, things from society, I don't think we should hide, or suppress, things from ourselves.

In saying that, I'm not saying one should engage in child pornography. However, I believe in suppressing one's internal dialogue by denying the fact he, or she, is a pedophile does nothing to solve the problem; in fact, I think it makes it worse. I believe as Jung said, "What you resist, persists," and also "We cannot change anything unless we accept it," and "Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses." It's only as we learn to accept all aspects of ourselves and appreciate each thing for that which it is, can we learn to deal with it. A pathology is not dealt with by ignoring it but by diagnosing it and treating it.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 7:07:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 5:37:09 AM, Garbanza wrote:
I think stigma and shame can be good. For example, when I first came on here I had a chat with bsh1 who has no objections to pedophiles having fantasies or even enhancing those fantasies with porn as long as no child is involved in the making of it.

I think they SHOULD be shamed for indulging in those fantasies. I think a decent person who finds him or herself lusting after a 4-year-old should immediately shut those thoughts down. Those sorts of fantasies shouldn't be celebrated or actively exercised in any way. That's just one example. I think shame is a brilliant social force for everything from making people wash before leaving the house to donating money to stuff. Sometimes it can get toxic - for example with women and body image yikes - but thst doesn't mean it's always bad.

Unfortunately, most of those who engage in the practice of shaming others do so out of forms of bigotry, sexism, and moralism, which goes beyond a morally legitimate objection to criminal acts such as child molestation. What's more, they often aren't the sort of people who cultivate and promote genuinely moral qualities such as kindness, empathy, and compassion. Rather, they promote cruelty in the sheep's clothing of morality, they are not at all a force for morality, for ethical enlightenment, but rather for sanctimoniousness and for moral and spiritual benightedness.
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.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 7:51:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 5:37:09 AM, Garbanza wrote:
I think stigma and shame can be good. For example, when I first came on here I had a chat with bsh1 who has no objections to pedophiles having fantasies or even enhancing those fantasies with porn as long as no child is involved in the making of it.

I think they SHOULD be shamed for indulging in those fantasies. I think a decent person who finds him or herself lusting after a 4-year-old should immediately shut those thoughts down. Those sorts of fantasies shouldn't be celebrated or actively exercised in any way. That's just one example. I think shame is a brilliant social force for everything from making people wash before leaving the house to donating money to stuff. Sometimes it can get toxic - for example with women and body image yikes - but thst doesn't mean it's always bad.

The Fool: I agree with shaming to a degree, in balance to how much is deserve and who in particular deserves it. I don"t think anyone chooses to be a "pedophile" no more or less then one who is chooses to be homosexual. Nobody wants to be sexually orientated in a way that will make everyone hate them. So I would assume such thoughts and fantasies are rather "intrusive" as appose to "intentional" like a homosexuals thoughts would to one who is homosexual. I am sure they are constantly trying to fight them already. It"s more of a sickness really, a type of addiction, which has much worse consequences, besides its hardly practical, since you don't know what they are thinking anyway.

Perhaps bsh1 is being sympathetic to that understanding.

Against The Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 8:47:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 5:37:09 AM, Garbanza wrote:
I think stigma and shame can be good. For example, when I first came on here I had a chat with bsh1 who has no objections to pedophiles having fantasies or even enhancing those fantasies with porn as long as no child is involved in the making of it.


I dont think bsh has ever met a pedophile. Hypothetically there is nothing wrong with what he say. But hypothetics does not address the reality of pedophilia. The truth is having a discussion about this topic is a moot point because we have very little empirical notions of it. We are basically discussing unicorns.

I think they SHOULD be shamed for indulging in those fantasies. I think a decent person who finds him or herself lusting after a 4-year-old should immediately shut those thoughts down.

No decent person thinks of children. Children are asexual.

Those sorts of fantasies shouldn't be celebrated or actively exercised in any way. That's just one example. I think shame is a brilliant social force for everything from making people wash before leaving the house to donating money to stuff. Sometimes it can get toxic - for example with women and body image yikes - but thst doesn't mean it's always bad.

There is no point in shaming pedophiles. Instead we should put them inside a lab. Dissect their brains. Try to figure out whats wrong?
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 8:49:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Children are asexual. They have no sex function. Pedophilia or the term itself seems alien to me.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 9:52:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 8:49:00 PM, fazz wrote:
Children are asexual. They have no sex function. Pedophilia or the term itself seems alien to me.

Actually, children can be very sexual, which is rather disturbing. The difference is that, unlike adults, children seldom show a desire to go all the way unless they've been abused.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 4:35:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 10:31:39 PM, fazz wrote:
Garbanza: Sometimes it can get toxic - for example with women and body image yikes

The Fool: ah.. You"re so clever and sneaky.. "I" can"t even tell how your trying to shame. We don't shame body images, and there is such think as legitimate criticism.
<(89)

The Fazz: Children are asexual. They have no sex function. Pedophilia or the term itself seems alien to me.

The Fool: I believe your equivocating the meanings of "sexuality". If your meaning reproductive functionality, well then, so much for having simply sex for pleasure, or bonding. That must be your own societies "morals" again and perhaps Pedophilia is a Greek expression.
<(89)

Apb4y: Actually, children can be very sexual, which is rather disturbing. The difference is that, unlike adults, children seldom show a desire to go all the way unless they've been abused.

The Fazz: Disturbing???? Shame on you Appleb4ee...

The Fool: I think he means "sexual" curiosity. Fazz it"s not even "funny" to stigmatize somebody with that.

E.g.
RE: Charleslb "Rather, they promote cruelty in the sheep's clothing of morality, they are not at all a force for morality, for ethical enlightenment, but rather for sanctimoniousness and for moral and spiritual benightedness."

The Fool: I don"t get me wrong, I"m not promoting pedophilia, but I have a hard time putting together a really strong moral argument against it.

Perhaps, children are not rational enough to make such decisions?

Perhaps because, early exposure to sexual stimulus can have a "sort" of priming effect, like hyper-sexuality, or priming of sexual orientation?

That"s about all I got.

E.g
Boys who have been molested by men, have an increased likelihood of being homosexual, and/or being pedophiles themselves.

Now, one might argue that in harms them in some way, but it"s hard to tell if it"s the social values rather than the act itself which causes harm.
E.g.
Acting as though they ought have been harmed, or that it"s bad, or that they were victimized, can actually create the sense of feeling violated and harmed, when they otherwise might have not.

What is "your" Rational Moral Argument?

Against The Ideologist

Yes you "Ought" have ajustification to engage in persecution.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 4:41:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 4:35:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 9/17/2014 10:31:39 PM, fazz wrote:
Garbanza: Sometimes it can get toxic - for example with women and body image yikes

The Fool: ah.. You"re so clever and sneaky.. "I" can"t even tell how your trying to shame. We don't shame body images, and there is such think as legitimate criticism.
<(89)

The Fazz: Children are asexual. They have no sex function. Pedophilia or the term itself seems alien to me.

The Fool: I believe your equivocating the meanings of "sexuality". If your meaning reproductive functionality, well then, so much for having simply sex for pleasure, or bonding. That must be your own societies "morals" again and perhaps Pedophilia is a Greek expression.
<(89)

Yes, Socrates was a pedophile. Shame. But if American children are sexually curious. Well shame on them twice!
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 4:44:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Actually, shame, blame and stigma are wrong.

But but I would like to know how many of you had such thoughts whilst you were at that age?

How many, fact, not numbers.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 4:56:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 4:41:10 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/18/2014 4:35:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 9/17/2014 10:31:39 PM, fazz wrote:
Garbanza: Sometimes it can get toxic - for example with women and body image yikes

The Fool: ah.. You"re so clever and sneaky.. "I" can"t even tell how your trying to shame. We don't shame body images, and there is such think as legitimate criticism.
<(89)

The Fazz: Children are asexual. They have no sex function. Pedophilia or the term itself seems alien to me.

The Fool: I believe your equivocating the meanings of "sexuality". If your meaning reproductive functionality, well then, so much for having simply sex for pleasure, or bonding. That must be your own societies "morals" again and perhaps Pedophilia is a Greek expression.
<(89)

Yes, Socrates was a pedophile. Shame. But if American children are sexually curious. Well shame on them twice!

The Fool: No Fazz shame on you. Harming people without justification is immoral.

Proof:
P1.Suffering for the sake of suffering is bad in nature.
C1-P2. Therefore harming somebody for the sake of harming somebody, is an objective and universal, immoral act.
P3. And this kind of persecution is a type of harm,
C2 therefore If you have no justification, you are acting morally.

It follows deductively, from a universal moral necessity that your acting immoral.

Against The Ideologist

A justified shame on you. Fazz.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 5:26:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 4:35:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

RE: Charleslb "Rather, they promote cruelty in the sheep's clothing of morality, they are not at all a force for morality, for ethical enlightenment, but rather for sanctimoniousness and for moral and spiritual benightedness."

The Fool: I don"t get me wrong, I"m not promoting pedophilia, but I have a hard time putting together a really strong moral argument against it.

Really, dear Fool, you find it challenging to construct an argument against child rape? I never credited you with much brilliance but I didn't realize that you were this limited.
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.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 6:09:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 5:26:35 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/18/2014 4:35:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

RE: Charleslb "Rather, they promote cruelty in the sheep's clothing of morality, they are not at all a force for morality, for ethical enlightenment, but rather for sanctimoniousness and for moral and spiritual benightedness."

The Fool: I don"t get me wrong, I"m not promoting pedophilia, but I have a hard time putting together a really strong moral argument against it.

Really, dear Fool, you find it challenging to construct an argument against child rape? I never credited you with much brilliance but I didn't realize that you were this limited.

The Fool: I believe you are blinded by your own biases. I was agreeing with you. In fact so much that I was using your quote as an example of what Fazz and for the most part Garbanza are essentially doing,(Thus the E.G.) because they don't give positive arguments of why something is immoral, but rather assume some "moral fad", for their own self-promotion.

But you're so focused on trying to get your opportunity for revenge, that you overlooked that. And hope that a mob, as a mob and not as moral individuals would overlook the fact that you didn't actually give a justification. But did the very same thing, including trying to stigmatize me as a pedophile, and of course a stupid one at that. Why, Because that all you can do when somebody always gives a legitimate justification for what they're saying.

When have I ever,not gave a Legitimate justification for what I'm saying? Ever!!!!!!
Just once. You go back and look into the archives and find just one time where I was serious about something that I didn't justify what was particularly in need of justification.

And if that is, so stupid what does that make you???

Love me or hate me, you can't take that away for me.

I want you to love me, but if you make bare assertions, Unfalsifiable claims, and promote ideology in that way, you're inevitably going to hate me.

Always And forever, Against The Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 8:41:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 6:29:27 PM, fazz wrote:
The Fazz: Shame on you Charles..

The Fool: He's not going to back up unjustified or religious persecution. He just responds impulsively sometimes. I can tell by the types of his responses. But yours are not such mistakes. They have an anti-western sentiment about them.

E.G.
The Fazz: You are a fool but an American Fool. So the logic of your society is somewhat different from mine (here logic = morality).
But if American children are sexually curious. Well shame on them twice!
http://www.debate.org...

Against The Ideologist

Shame on you..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 8:44:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 8:41:24 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

They have an anti-western sentiment about them.

E.G.
The Fazz: You are a fool but an American Fool. So the logic of your society is somewhat different from mine (here logic = morality).


Haha. I will take that as a compliment. I am not ashamed.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 8:55:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 8:41:24 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 9/18/2014 6:29:27 PM, fazz wrote:
The Fazz: Shame on you Charles..

The Fool: He's not going to back up unjustified or religious persecution. He just responds impulsively sometimes. I can tell by the types of his responses. But yours are not such mistakes. They have an anti-western sentiment about them.

E.G.
The Fazz: You are a fool but an American Fool. So the logic of your society is somewhat different from mine (here logic = morality).
But if American children are sexually curious. Well shame on them twice!
http://www.debate.org...

Against The Ideologist

Shame on you..

Are you American or are you not? Come out Come out.. tell me what makes you proud?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 10:04:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 4:56:56 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 9/18/2014 4:41:10 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/18/2014 4:35:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 9/17/2014 10:31:39 PM, fazz wrote:
Garbanza: Sometimes it can get toxic - for example with women and body image yikes

The Fool: ah.. You"re so clever and sneaky.. "I" can"t even tell how your trying to shame. We don't shame body images, and there is such think as legitimate criticism.
<(89)

The Fazz: Children are asexual. They have no sex function. Pedophilia or the term itself seems alien to me.

The Fool: I believe your equivocating the meanings of "sexuality". If your meaning reproductive functionality, well then, so much for having simply sex for pleasure, or bonding. That must be your own societies "morals" again and perhaps Pedophilia is a Greek expression.
<(89)

Yes, Socrates was a pedophile. Shame. But if American children are sexually curious. Well shame on them twice!

The Fool: No Fazz shame on you. Harming people without justification is immoral.

Proof:
P1.Suffering for the sake of suffering is bad in nature.
C1-P2. Therefore harming somebody for the sake of harming somebody, is an objective and universal, immoral act.
P3. And this kind of persecution is a type of harm,
C2 therefore If you have no justification, you are acting morally.

It follows deductively, from a universal moral necessity that your acting immoral.

Against The Ideologist

A justified shame on you. Fazz.



Just out of curiosity, do you think it's possible to intentionally harm someone, only, for the mere sake of harming someone?
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 11:04:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 10:04:11 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/18/2014 4:56:56 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 9/18/2014 4:41:10 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/18/2014 4:35:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 9/17/2014 10:31:39 PM, fazz wrote:
Garbanza: Sometimes it can get toxic - for example with women and body image yikes

The Fool: ah.. You"re so clever and sneaky.. "I" can"t even tell how your trying to shame. We don't shame body images, and there is such think as legitimate criticism.
<(89)

The Fazz: Children are asexual. They have no sex function. Pedophilia or the term itself seems alien to me.

The Fool: I believe your equivocating the meanings of "sexuality". If your meaning reproductive functionality, well then, so much for having simply sex for pleasure, or bonding. That must be your own societies "morals" again and perhaps Pedophilia is a Greek expression.
<(89)

Yes, Socrates was a pedophile. Shame. But if American children are sexually curious. Well shame on them twice!

The Fool: No Fazz shame on you. Harming people without justification is immoral.

Proof:
P1.Suffering for the sake of suffering is bad in nature.
C1-P2. Therefore harming somebody for the sake of harming somebody, is an objective and universal, immoral act.
P3. And this kind of persecution is a type of harm,
C2 therefore If you have no justification, you are acting morally.

It follows deductively, from a universal moral necessity that your acting immoral.

Against The Ideologist

A justified shame on you. Fazz.



Just out of curiosity, do you think it's possible to intentionally harm someone, only, for the mere sake of harming someone?

Hey mister? Since you here, can you explain Jungian consciousness to me? I have some questions?
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 11:50:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 10:04:11 PM, s-anthony wrote:

What is the theory of collective unconscious?
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 11:59:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 5:37:09 AM, Garbanza wrote:
I think stigma and shame can be good. For example, when I first came on here I had a chat with bsh1 who has no objections to pedophiles having fantasies or even enhancing those fantasies with porn as long as no child is involved in the making of it.

I think this is a gross overstatement of my initial position. I said that because pedophiles cannot help whether they have those fantasies, we should only criminalize (and blame people for) acting on the fantasies, not having the fantasies. That isn't to say I don't have concerns about pedophiles.

I think they SHOULD be shamed for indulging in those fantasies.

To what end? So that they lose all self-esteem and kill themselves and rid us of their pestilence? If they can't help the way we are, why should be blame them for being who they are, so long as they break no law and harm no child?

I think a decent person who finds him or herself lusting after a 4-year-old should immediately shut those thoughts down.

That isn't possible. If pedophilia--as most evidence suggests--is an unchosen trait, pedophiles can no more shut down those thoughts than I can shut down my homosexual thoughts. I see a hot a guy, and I think "damn, great abs." It's not something I have a conscious choice over, the thoughts just pop into my head. I assume it is the same in pedophiles.

This is not Big-Brother, and we are not the thought police. Rather, we shouldn't blame pedophiles for their feelings, but we should help them learn to cope with those feelings (as compared to shutting them down) so that they never act on those feelings.

Those sorts of fantasies shouldn't be celebrated or actively exercised in any way.

You're right, they shouldn't be celebrated, but pedophiles can't help having them.

I think shame is a brilliant social force for everything from making people wash before leaving the house to donating money to stuff. Sometimes it can get toxic - for example with women and body image yikes - but thst doesn't mean it's always bad.

I agree with the gist of what you're saying here--but "shame" is a very strong word. "Admonish" is perhaps more reasonable.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 12:04:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 7:51:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
I don"t think anyone chooses to be a "pedophile" no more or less then one who is chooses to be homosexual. Nobody wants to be sexually orientated in a way that will make everyone hate them. So I would assume such thoughts and fantasies are rather "intrusive" as appose to "intentional" like a homosexuals thoughts would to one who is homosexual.

Perhaps bsh1 is being sympathetic to that understanding.

^ This.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 12:17:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 12:14:57 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 9/17/2014 8:49:00 PM, fazz wrote:
Children are asexual. They have no sex function. Pedophilia or the term itself seems alien to me.

False.

Actually, shame, blame and stigma are wrong.

But but I would like to know how many of you had such thoughts whilst you were at that age?

How many, fact, not numbers.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 12:18:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 12:17:13 AM, fazz wrote:
At 9/19/2014 12:14:57 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 9/17/2014 8:49:00 PM, fazz wrote:
Children are asexual. They have no sex function. Pedophilia or the term itself seems alien to me.

False.

Actually, shame, blame and stigma are wrong.

...isn't that counter to your point?

But but I would like to know how many of you had such thoughts whilst you were at that age?

How many, fact, not numbers.

I recommend you read "The Queer Child." Children aren't innocent little angels.