Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Debate Idea: Pedophiles Are Not Monsters

Berend
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 7:33:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
So I do not do a lot of debates and threads because I like to think about it for a while. Frankly, I've been quite bored and had some free time on my hands. Due to a feel events in my life and friends, this idea came to mind. I have pondered it for a little bit before debating putting it here. So, what is it about? The topic is about the differentiations between what a pedophile is and a child molester and not treating pedophiles as these monsters (the latter of the two) and more in a humane, treatment, both to fix and for scientific reasons (I'd love to do mental and biological test to learn what causes it).

This debate goes on the basis of pedophilia being like a sexual orientation or fetish, where as one does not have control over it, they simply have it. And it's a matter of preventing their urge to not hurt kids.

SO, I have to ask, what do you guys think? Does it sound interesting? Would anyone play Con or Pro? If not, I'll think of another debate. This is, I'm quite confident, is going to be controversial (and knowing me being somewhat of a contraion) and thus thought it would be interesting to present. To walk away from the tiresome and fruitless constant God debates.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 12:57:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's a horrible debate topic. People are pretty aware of their own emotional biases and when they call pedophiles monsters, they know they're wrong. So they'll argue that Point of view with you in ways that are less formal, but since they're aware of that strong emotional bias, nobody will debate that they're monsters.

Maybe debating something like "psychiatrists should treat them for their problem and keep it confidential" would be preferable. That way you can show the advantages of giving them treatment and making them unafraid to ask for treatment significantly outweighs the advantage of having no psychologist-patient privilege.
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 2:01:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have no problem admitting that I'm attracted to girls under the age of 18... fight me.
Seriously though. I don't understand where all the hate over things like being a lolicon came from.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
Devilry
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 2:16:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 2:01:13 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
Seriously though. I don't understand where all the hate over things like being a lolicon came from.

I might make the argument that things like 'lolicon' foster extremely negative ideas. That children should be made sex objects of has to be the greatest perversion, to be quite honest. It is to nip it all off at the bud, so to speak. It is the death of every dream of 'humanity' that we have ever had.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 2:19:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 2:16:32 PM, Devilry wrote:
At 9/26/2015 2:01:13 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
Seriously though. I don't understand where all the hate over things like being a lolicon came from.

I might make the argument that things like 'lolicon' foster extremely negative ideas. That children should be made sex objects of has to be the greatest perversion, to be quite honest. It is to nip it all off at the bud, so to speak. It is the death of every dream of 'humanity' that we have ever had.

I apologize but this needs to be rewritten for clarity.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
Devilry
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 2:24:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I might make the argument that things like 'lolicon' foster extremely negative ideas. That children should be made sex objects of has to be the greatest perversion, to be quite honest. It is to nip it all off at the bud, so to speak. It is the death of every dream of 'humanity' that we have ever had (that is, it all becomes a Kubrickian nightmare. Nurse: "You can do whatever you like with these." Alex: "Eggiweggs. I would like... to smash them. And pick 'em all up, and THROW-" [moves injured arm] Alex: "OW! F*cking hell!")

Will that do?
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Devilry
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 2:32:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Honestly, I might easily regard loli as child porn - to encroach upon the sanctity of the child.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 2:39:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 2:24:13 PM, Devilry wrote:
I might make the argument that things like 'lolicon' foster extremely negative ideas. That children should be made sex objects of has to be the greatest perversion, to be quite honest. It is to nip it all off at the bud, so to speak. It is the death of every dream of 'humanity' that we have ever had (that is, it all becomes a Kubrickian nightmare. Nurse: "You can do whatever you like with these." Alex: "Eggiweggs. I would like... to smash them. And pick 'em all up, and THROW-" [moves injured arm] Alex: "OW! F*cking hell!")

Will that do?
You seem to be misunderstanding the concept of loli. WE love loli not because we want to have sex with them, but because we find them adorable. Is there nothing more innocent than wanting to see the endearing sight that is a smiling child?

Also. You're doing nothing but making vague generalizations based on a fetish. As easily as you say "Lolicons are going to be the death of our morality!", I can say "Gays/Interracial Couples/Mormons are going to be the death of our morality!". The sad truth is that morality isn't something set in stone. It is a constantly changing set of ideals that humanity as a whole shares.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
Devilry
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 2:41:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You need to see children being f*cked to see them smiling? Very curious.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 2:44:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 2:41:08 PM, Devilry wrote:
You need to see children being f*cked to see them smiling? Very curious.

Once again, you are misunderstanding the concept. Loli does not always have to be portrayed sexually.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
Devilry
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 2:46:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 2:44:25 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 9/26/2015 2:41:08 PM, Devilry wrote:
You need to see children being f*cked to see them smiling? Very curious.

Once again, you are misunderstanding the concept. Loli does not always have to be portrayed sexually.

Do you like to look at cartoons of children f*cking? If not, I might suggest distancing yourself from 'loli', which has that connotation. If so... disturbing.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Devilry
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 2:48:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I mean I get that maybe you're young and an idiot and compensating and whatever, but still...
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 3:22:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 2:48:45 PM, Devilry wrote:
I mean I get that maybe you're young and an idiot and compensating and whatever, but still...

It's sad when someone realizes their mistake and has to resort to ad hominem.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
Devilry
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 3:38:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 3:22:18 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 9/26/2015 2:48:45 PM, Devilry wrote:
I mean I get that maybe you're young and an idiot and compensating and whatever, but still...

It's sad when someone realizes their mistake and has to resort to ad hominem.

Actually, I was excusing your being vile there. So you do like to look at pictures of kids f*cking, right?
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 8:39:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The word "monster" is flung around constantly but nobody ever really explains what it means. They certainly are not saying that pedophiles are loch ness monsters, of the bigfoot species, chimerae, or abominable snowmen.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 8:41:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 2:01:13 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
I have no problem admitting that I'm attracted to girls under the age of 18... fight me.
Seriously though. I don't understand where all the hate over things like being a lolicon came from.

Okay, if somebody who found 16 year olds hot was considered a pedophile, then probably over 50% of men would be at least mildly pedophilic. It has to refer to pre-pubescent children for the term to really mean anything.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
YYW
Posts: 36,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 2:20:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 7:33:10 AM, Berend wrote:

This is a complicated subject, and it's a cultural and political flashpoint for a number of reasons.

Pedophiles as people are not per se the most dangerous people out there, but they do present a kind of danger to children that cannot be ignored. I have offered some thoughts on the subject in a thread that Skep wrote a few weeks ago.

But I will add this here:

The majority of acts of sexual abuse of children are committed by their family members, by people who are not pedophiles. They are just opportunists who took advantage of a situation and hurt someone else in the process in a terrible way.

The archetype of a pedophile that most people have is something like what John Walsh says on his show "The Hunt" which is more or less one of the most idiotic shows I have seen on TV because of the kind of sociological damage that it does, and the foreseeable effects it perpetuates. I've elaborated on that ad nauseum in other places, so I won't repeat myself here.

The point here is that there is tremendous misunderstanding of pedophilia and how it works. I'm not sure it's an orientation; and I have seen no evidence that it is. The DSM-5 classifies it --I think correctly-- as a paraphilia. To say that pedophilia is an orientation is, more or less, to necessarily redefine the word in a way that it has never been used before.

Orientations describe the gender that a person is attracted to, in relation to the person who is so attracted; orientations do not account for the age of, or stage of biological maturity of the subject of someone's lust. That's just not what an orientation is.

But, whether pedophilia is an orientation or not, the point remains that it is definitely something that society has a right to be concerned about. There is no evidence that pedophiles are "born that way" and there is a tremendous amount that pedophiles are, in fact, the products of childhood sexual abuse, themselves (meaning at once that pedophilia could not be an orientation, but it is an environmentally and circumstantially contingent behavior).
Tsar of DDO
Conservative12
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 3:59:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 2:44:25 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 9/26/2015 2:41:08 PM, Devilry wrote:
You need to see children being f*cked to see them smiling? Very curious.

Once again, you are misunderstanding the concept. Loli does not always have to be portrayed sexually.

Yes if they keep it to themselves then it is ok, however if they act against these children (prepubescent) then they will pay and they will pay dearly (usually prison where they are gutted alive by other prisoners). I don't care if they need to do this children are unable of giving consent, have no need and are too easily manipulated they need to be protected and are usually harmed for life by one of these actions. If someone goes against society's future then they will pay, they WILL be made as an example and they will be made to regret these actions.

Want to live normally and have acceptance fit in otherwise pay for it
Berend
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 12:19:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 2:20:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/26/2015 7:33:10 AM, Berend wrote:

This is a complicated subject, and it's a cultural and political flashpoint for a number of reasons.

Pedophiles as people are not per se the most dangerous people out there, but they do present a kind of danger to children that cannot be ignored. I have offered some thoughts on the subject in a thread that Skep wrote a few weeks ago.

But I will add this here:

The majority of acts of sexual abuse of children are committed by their family members, by people who are not pedophiles. They are just opportunists who took advantage of a situation and hurt someone else in the process in a terrible way.

The archetype of a pedophile that most people have is something like what John Walsh says on his show "The Hunt" which is more or less one of the most idiotic shows I have seen on TV because of the kind of sociological damage that it does, and the foreseeable effects it perpetuates. I've elaborated on that ad nauseum in other places, so I won't repeat myself here.

The point here is that there is tremendous misunderstanding of pedophilia and how it works. I'm not sure it's an orientation; and I have seen no evidence that it is. The DSM-5 classifies it --I think correctly-- as a paraphilia. To say that pedophilia is an orientation is, more or less, to necessarily redefine the word in a way that it has never been used before.

Orientations describe the gender that a person is attracted to, in relation to the person who is so attracted; orientations do not account for the age of, or stage of biological maturity of the subject of someone's lust. That's just not what an orientation is.

But, whether pedophilia is an orientation or not, the point remains that it is definitely something that society has a right to be concerned about. There is no evidence that pedophiles are "born that way" and there is a tremendous amount that pedophiles are, in fact, the products of childhood sexual abuse, themselves (meaning at once that pedophilia could not be an orientation, but it is an environmentally and circumstantially contingent behavior).

Very well said. Thank you for quite a detailed response. As to how they are mad,e there is, from my knowledge, very little science on it. I find the notion they're made via having it happen to them to be odd, when not all people who are sexually touched as kids to turn out that way. While I would not say it's an orientation, I would say it's similar to a sexual fetish in how it works. How some people might get aroused or sexually attracted to the idea of feet or inanimate objects. That, either they are or are not born that way, I'm not sure once someone knows or has this attraction, they have control over the fact they do.

I have a few people I know, which sparked this, who are more on the right side believing we are, on the left that is, treading more and more to the claimed "slippery slope" of gay marriage. You know the "if you legalize gay marriage, next think you know, you'll legalize pedophilia". Even a Slate/Salon (whichever it was) article with the author saying "I'm a pedophile, but I'm not the monster you think I am". Going on how he has this attraction, I believe not even touched too. Saying how he and others hate this stigma that pedophile means child molester or that they all want to "diddle" little kids. And that he and them want to prevent the kids from being hurt, and he does that by working with a group and even staying absent.

Personally, from what I know, I can't hate on someone who tells me they have this attraction. As long as they are not wanting to go out and hurt kids, I can't find myself demonizing them. But this idea anyone is going to end up doing what NAMBLA want's is just stupid. I am noticing with the current talk amongst people, there are those who think we should not demonize and lump anyone with such an attraction to be someone who will and wants to hurt kids. Which, I can see makes it hard for anyone who does have it to come forward and ask for help. But to equate making it easier for them, if it is something you can't change, to come out and prevent such things, and if possible, try to fix the issue and even prevent others to what NAMBLA wants (being able to legally screw kids) seems like a nonsensical thing.

As to the rest, sorry if the word monster was wrong in your eyes, I did not think I needed to distinguish what I meant by monster. Obviously I am not saying "pedophiles screwing kids hide under your bed at night!" I am, however, saying that it's not so uncommon people would consider someone who screws little kids to be a monster. It's a colloquial means to say they are doing wrong. Like calling them "evil, vile people".