Who didn't see this one coming?

[Weegle777 78]

I'll have to say, the title of the article doesn't reflect much of the content of the article.

[TitanTiger 20,460]

How do you propose to "stamp it out"? I doubt that's possible.

I was just using BigBens language on that. He said that quantifying it makes it easier to effectively stamp it out. I simply asked how.

[AUDub 11,114]

You do realize that age of consent laws are somewhat arbitrary, right? And the whole purpose of NAMBLA is to, if not have such laws eliminated entirely, to get the age of consent lowered significantly.

True, but do you honestly believe lawmakers in any state would consider lowering that age to include prepubescent children?

I'm not equating the two, I'm actually arguing that the APA in changing this language is careening toward equating the two. The next step will be to see if they continue to classify it as a mental disorder or not.

The idea behind quantifying it as such is that they can't help the fact that they find children attractive. Of course it's still abnormal, just like homosexuality. What differentiates them is that acting on those desires has the propensity for harm to a party incapable of consent.

And given the reaction to reparative therapy, exactly how does defining it as an unalterable sexual orientation help to stamp it out?

By looking at it a different way, psychologists may be able to help them repress their desires more efficiently. The goal is to eliminate (i.e. stamp out) the behavior, after all.

[TitanTiger 20,460]

You do realize that age of consent laws are somewhat arbitrary, right? And the whole purpose of NAMBLA is to, if not have such laws eliminated entirely, to get the age of consent lowered significantly.

True, but do you honestly believe lawmakers in any state would consider lowering that age to include prepubescent children?

Given that more and more girls are hitting puberty before they're 10 and 15% of them are hitting it before the age of seven, should that be a dividing line we give a flip about?

The idea behind quantifying it as such is that they can't help the fact that they find children attractive. Of course it's still abnormal, just like homosexuality. What differentiates them is that acting on those desires has the propensity for harm to a party incapable of consent.

How many things do we hold people culpable for that we also deem to be completely out of their control? This is the same rationale that has been used to normalize other deviant sexual inclinations. Are you certain we aren't just in the early stages of seeing barriers to pedophilia and ephebophiia undermined?

By looking at it a different way, psychologists may be able to help them repress their desires more efficiently. The goal is to eliminate (i.e. stamp out) the behavior, after all.

You are far more confident in this than I am. What looks like a means to stamping out behavior looks more like normalizing to me.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

You do realize that age of consent laws are somewhat arbitrary, right? And the whole purpose of NAMBLA is to, if not have such laws eliminated entirely, to get the age of consent lowered significantly.

True, but do you honestly believe lawmakers in any state would consider lowering that age to include prepubescent children?

Given that more and more girls are hitting puberty before they're 10 and 15% of them are hitting it before the age of seven, should that be a dividing line we give a flip about?

The idea behind quantifying it as such is that they can't help the fact that they find children attractive. Of course it's still abnormal, just like homosexuality. What differentiates them is that acting on those desires has the propensity for harm to a party incapable of consent.

How many things do we hold people culpable for that we also deem to be completely out of their control? This is the same rationale that has been used to normalize other deviant sexual inclinations. Are you certain we aren't just in the early stages of seeing barriers to pedophilia and ephebophiia undermined?

By looking at it a different way, psychologists may be able to help them repress their desires more efficiently. The goal is to eliminate (i.e. stamp out) the behavior, after all.

You are far more confident in this than I am. What looks like a means to stamping out behavior looks more like normalizing to me.

If that were true, why would they spend time analyzing these people? Why wouldn't they tell them there is nothing wrong with them and send them on their way?

[AUDub 11,114]

Given that more and more girls are hitting puberty before they're 10 and 15% of them are hitting it before the age of seven, should that be a dividing line we give a flip about?

Societal norms are too protean for me to answer with any certainty. Speaking for myself, I prefer the hard line at the age of sixteen, but a lot of that has to do with the environment in which I was raised. If you don't mind my asking, where would you draw the line?

How many things do we hold people culpable for that we also deem to be completely out of their control? This is the same rationale that has been used to normalize other deviant sexual inclinations. Are you certain we aren't just in the early stages of seeing barriers to pedophilia and ephebophiia undermined?

They can't help having the desires. Whether or not they act on those desires (and preventing them from doing so) is a different matter. Either way, the goal is to stop/prevent the associated behavior. Not all pedophiles (like the one in the article) are child molesters. Having a deviant sexual inclination isn't illegal, nor should it be. Violating the rights of a child is. If they can't be held criminally accountable, or can't otherwise keep their behavior under control, then other measures, including treatments such as chemical castration, are necessary.

Besides, no one claimed every sexual proclivity should be protected. Paraphilias can be understandably dangerous and homosexuality was removed from that list because it is not outside normal bounds of human sexuality in the basic sense of intimacy and relationship.

You are far more confident in this than I am. What looks like a means to stamping out behavior looks more like normalizing to me.

And what you're calling "normalizing" strikes me as an attempt to better understand and categorize the phenomena, not determine whether or not it's right or should be condoned.

[AURaptor 1,121]

Many experts now view pedophilia as a sexual orientation.

We're slowing moving from the "what could it hurt" phase to "how were we supposed to know?"

Kids are adults too!

[Aufan59 51]

Another one of these posts from Titan Tiger?

But the question is a valid one: How could we have known? The only people who are warning us of the future acceptance of pedophilia are those crazy enough to compare pedophilia and homosexuality. How could we have known to listen to them?

[TitanTiger 20,460]

Another one of these posts from Titan Tiger?

No one is putting a gun to your head forcing you to click on anything you don't want to.

But the question is a valid one: How could we have known? The only people who are warning us of the future acceptance of pedophilia are those crazy enough to compare pedophilia and homosexuality. How could we have known to listen to them?

Well when you strawman it like that, who could argue with you? What people said was that the same arguments that have been made for the normalization of homosexuality can reasonably made for other things that most would not find beneficial to society. The most likely one to me is the polygamy/polyamory realm. Once you start defining rights in this manner, you open the door to much more. But certainly the pedophilia/ephebophilia crowd was going to use it as well. Maybe not the simple frontal assault like with polygamy, but a side attack starting with things like this? Totally foreseeable...if you aren't committed to ignoring stuff that goes against your point of view a priori.

[AUDub 11,114]

Well when you strawman it like that, who could argue with you? What people said was that the same arguments that have been made for the normalization of homosexuality can reasonably made for other things that most would not find beneficial to society. The most likely one to me is the polygamy/polyamory realm. Once you start defining rights in this manner, you open the door to much more. But certainly the pedophilia/ephebophilia crowd was going to use it as well. Maybe not the simple frontal assault like with polygamy, but a side attack starting with things like this? Totally foreseeable...if you aren't committed to ignoring stuff that goes against your point of view a priori.

It's not a strawman. He's not misrepresenting your argument. He's spelling it out in its basest form. Your entire argument is some sort of slippery slope appeal to consequence because through some ridiculous notion you're equating the homosexual lifestyle to pedophilia.

[japantiger 4,051]

Another one of these posts from Titan Tiger?

No one is putting a gun to your head forcing you to click on anything you don't want to.

But the question is a valid one: How could we have known? The only people who are warning us of the future acceptance of pedophilia are those crazy enough to compare pedophilia and homosexuality. How could we have known to listen to them?

Well when you strawman it like that, who could argue with you? What people said was that the same arguments that have been made for the normalization of homosexuality can reasonably made for other things that most would not find beneficial to society. The most likely one to me is the polygamy/polyamory realm. Once you start defining rights in this manner, you open the door to much more. But certainly the pedophilia/ephebophilia crowd was going to use it as well. Maybe not the simple frontal assault like with polygamy, but a side attack starting with things like this? Totally foreseeable...if you aren't committed to ignoring stuff that goes against your point of view a priori.

Agreed...normalization is their goal.

[TitanTiger 20,460]

Well when you strawman it like that, who could argue with you? What people said was that the same arguments that have been made for the normalization of homosexuality can reasonably made for other things that most would not find beneficial to society. The most likely one to me is the polygamy/polyamory realm. Once you start defining rights in this manner, you open the door to much more. But certainly the pedophilia/ephebophilia crowd was going to use it as well. Maybe not the simple frontal assault like with polygamy, but a side attack starting with things like this? Totally foreseeable...if you aren't committed to ignoring stuff that goes against your point of view a priori.

It's not a strawman. He's not misrepresenting your argument. He's spelling it out in its basest form. Your entire argument is some sort of slippery slope appeal to consequence because through some ridiculous notion you're equating the homosexual lifestyle to pedophilia.

It is a strawman. No one is equating or comparing pedophilia or homosexuality. I realize they are not the same thing. That's your and his silly tactic to try and avoid talking about the actual argument.

The argument is and has been that there is no argument for normalization of homosexuality or gay marriage that doesn't also apply to other things such as polygamy, polyamory and in a less direct route, pedophilia and ephebophilia.

If you would like to discuss that, let's do so. If you want to keep telling me what my argument is when you've demonstrated you have no clue, have that discussion on another forum. Discuss my argument, not your bastardized version of my argument.

[AUDub 11,114]

It is a strawman. No one is equating or comparing pedophilia or homosexuality. I realize they are not the same thing. That's your and his silly tactic to try and avoid talking about the actual argument.

But you are. How can you state that you're not equating the two when your next statement (your argument) is that they can be justified with the same reasoning?

The argument is and has been that there is no argument for normalization of homosexuality or gay marriage that doesn't also apply to other things such as polygamy, polyamory and in a less direct route, pedophilia and ephebophilia.

Yes, there is. The fact that child molestation causes irreparable harm to a party incapable of consent. Why would you need any other argument than that?!

[TitanTiger 20,460]

But you are. How can you state that you're not equating the two when your next statement (your argument) is that they can be justified with the same reasoning?

Because two things using the same reasoning not saying the two things are the same. This isn't hard to grasp.

Yes, there is. The fact that child molestation causes irreparable harm to a party incapable of consent. Why would you need any other argument than that?!

Without being gross, I would say that certain acts of that nature against a young enough child would not cause irreparable harm. They wouldn't be aware of what was going on and are too young to retain any memories of it before a certain age. I think we'd both agree that whether it actually causes them harm isn't the standard we want to go with.

That said *shudder* I notice that you didn't argue the point on polyamory or polygamy.

And the fact that you failed to compute that I said the argument for pedophilia or ephebophilia (another part you didn't bother to deal with) was indirect. The correlation between polyamory, polygamy and even consentual incestual marriage between adults is direct. If the sex of the participants isn't important as long as all are consenting adults, neither is the number or the familial status.

The line of argument for pedo/ephebo would tend to go more like this:

1. Start with defining it as an unalterable sexual orientation. They aren't sick, they were born this way.

2. Attack age of consent laws as arbitrary.

3. ????

Even if it never gets to where a toddler is ok, you mentioned the line being at prepubescent children. When children are hitting puberty at 7 years old, is that really a line that makes sense to you? Because it does to some. You can argue that people won't change their minds on that. I'd say that there are a lot of things condoned now in this realm that people would have said even 20-30 years ago would never be acceptable.

I know you're fond of blurting our 'slippery slope' as if that's some trump card to shut down any argument that suggests that certain actions or changes likely lead to other less palatable changes down the road, but such lines of argumentation are not de facto logical fallacies.

[Aufan59 51]

I've explained my position multiple times now (most recently in the post preceding this one) and you continue to lie about it.

Going forward, you can either respond to my argument as I have explained it or you can bow out of the discussion. What you won't do is proceed with the twisted version that just shuts down actual discussion.

I'm sorry it comes to this and it's something I have rarely had to do in this forum, but I'm tired of seeing subjects like this get shutdown or derailed because of this lazy tactic.

[japantiger 4,051]

But you are. How can you state that you're not equating the two when your next statement (your argument) is that they can be justified with the same reasoning?

Because two things using the same reasoning not saying the two things are the same. This isn't hard to grasp.

Yes, there is. The fact that child molestation causes irreparable harm to a party incapable of consent. Why would you need any other argument than that?!

Without being gross, I would say that certain acts of that nature against a young enough child would not cause irreparable harm. They wouldn't be aware of what was going on and are too young to retain any memories of it before a certain age. I think we'd both agree that whether it actually causes them harm isn't the standard we want to go with.

That said *shudder* I notice that you didn't argue the point on polyamory or polygamy.

And the fact that you failed to compute that I said the argument for pedophilia or ephebophilia (another part you didn't bother to deal with) was indirect. The correlation between polyamory, polygamy and even consentual incestual marriage between adults is direct. If the sex of the participants isn't important as long as all are consenting adults, neither is the number or the familial status.

The line of argument for pedo/ephebo would tend to go more like this:

1. Start with defining it as an unalterable sexual orientation. They aren't sick, they were born this way.

2. Attack age of consent laws as arbitrary.

3. ????

Even if it never gets to where a toddler is ok, you mentioned the line being at prepubescent children. When children are hitting puberty at 7 years old, is that really a line that makes sense to you? Because it does to some. You can argue that people won't change their minds on that. I'd say that there are a lot of things condoned now in this realm that people would have said even 20-30 years ago would never be acceptable.

I know you're fond of blurting our 'slippery slope' as if that's some trump card to shut down any argument that suggests that certain actions or changes likely lead to other less palatable changes down the road, but such lines of argumentation are not de facto logical fallacies.

#3 is, make it a civil rights issue...they were born this way, like Transsexuals or some other freakshow...

[AUDub 11,114]

Because two things using the same reasoning not saying the two things are the same. This isn't hard to grasp.

Your argument doesn't hold water unless you call this a comparison.

Without being gross, I would say that certain acts of that nature against a young enough child would not cause irreparable harm. They wouldn't be aware of what was going on and are too young to retain any memories of it before a certain age. I think we'd both agree that whether it actually causes them harm isn't the standard we want to go with.

Right. Try explaining that to the 2 wards of the state my mom is raising. They've been in and out of psychiatric care for a decade. Both of them are well aware of what happened to them. Ever had to take an 8 year old girl to have a pap smear (she's 17 now, before you ask)? Didn't think so. Children below the age of 10 are often physically damaged. Hurt for the rest of their lives. I am a Biomed by trade. I maintain the colposcopes at the CHIPS clinic downtown. They have 3 types of employees in that clinic; nurses, social workers, and psychologists. Trust me. There is harm.

That said *shudder* I notice that you didn't argue the point on polyamory or polygamy.

And the fact that you failed to compute that I said the argument for pedophilia or ephebophilia (another part you didn't bother to deal with) was indirect. The correlation between polyamory, polygamy and even consentual incestual marriage between adults is direct. If the sex of the participants isn't important as long as all are consenting adults, neither is the number or the familial status.

Because these are much more morally ambiguos than child molestation, and I really want to stay on topic. Wasn't pedophilia the subject of this thread?

The line of argument for pedo/ephebo would tend to go more like this:

1. Start with defining it as an unalterable sexual orientation. They aren't sick, they were born this way.

2. Attack age of consent laws as arbitrary.

3. ????

Even if it never gets to where a toddler is ok, you mentioned the line being at prepubescent children. When children are hitting puberty at 7 years old, is that really a line that makes sense to you? Because it does to some. You can argue that people won't change their minds on that. I'd say that there are a lot of things condoned now in this realm that people would have said even 20-30 years ago would never be acceptable.

Honestly, how many post pubescent 7 year olds have you met? Some children are hitting puberty at 7 years of age, but this is almost certainly abnormal developement. They actually treat in some cases to delay the onset. Have you ever met any sane individual that would even consider lowering the age of consent to include 10-12 year olds? Sure, there are organizations like NAMBLA, but there aren't many of those people, and they are near universally vilified.

And I never stated they were born that way. There are circumstances, often beyond their control, that may have contributed to the fact that they developed that way. For instance, if they were abused as children. And toddlers?! What in the hell are you talking about?!

I know you're fond of blurting our 'slippery slope' as if that's some trump card to shut down any argument that suggests that certain actions or changes likely lead to other less palatable changes down the road, but such lines of argumentation are not de facto logical fallacies.

You're reasoning is so outrageously flawed here I'm almost unsure of whether or not I should point it out. Your entire argument is that the same reasoning can be applied to both. In this sense, you are comparing the 2. You are saying the legal arguments that can be applied to gay marriage can be applied to child molestation. I'm saying no they can't. Polygamy is certainly a more apt comparison. But I'm not addressing that one.

Noting that you were all too willing to modify the post above this one, even though it was a perfectly valid refutation of your reasoning, I'm sure this post won't last long in it's unmodified state. Childish abuse of your position as an admin (though you likely don't see it that way, blind as you are to your own sophistry) has destroyed any respect I had for your position. Have a good day and grow up.

[TitanTiger 20,460]

Your argument doesn't hold water unless you call this a comparison

I'm not sure what was trying to be said here, but suffice it to say, the point still stands...two things can use the same line of reasoning without being considered "equal" or "equated."

Without being gross, I would say that certain acts of that nature against a young enough child would not cause irreparable harm. They wouldn't be aware of what was going on and are too young to retain any memories of it before a certain age. I think we'd both agree that whether it actually causes them harm isn't the standard we want to go with.

Right. Try explaining that to the 2 wards of the state my mom is raising. They've been in and out of psychiatric care for a decade. Both of them are well aware of what happened to them. Ever had to take an 8 year old girl to have a pap smear (she's 17 now, before you ask)? Didn't think so. Children below the age of 10 are often physically damaged. Hurt for the rest of their lives. I am a Biomed by trade. I maintain the colposcopes at the CHIPS clinic downtown. They have 3 types of employees in that clinic; nurses, social workers, and psychologists. Trust me. There is harm.

I wasn't talking about a child anywhere close to the age of ten. Nor was I talking about a child even of the age of 5. I was giving a hypothetical of a VERY young child and of a type of molestation that doesn't necessarily leave any physical damage. I really don't want to have to spell this out for you because it's revolting to have to go there at all. The point is, when you set forth a standard that some sort of lasting harm is what makes it bad and something we could never condone, that's not a good standard. If if the molestation is something the child was so extremely young they can't remember, and even if there is no trace of physical damage...it's still bad. Harm is not the criteria.

Because these are much more morally ambiguos than child molestation, and I really want to stay on topic. Wasn't pedophilia the subject of this thread?

I think they are of the same genre...deviant sexual behaviors, of varying degrees. And all of them, including eventually some degree of pedophilia or ephebophilia are having the deviant nature of what they are undermined by the "what could it hurt" crowd.

Honestly, how many post pubescent 7 year olds have you met?

This isn't a contest of personal anecdotes. Statistics show that about 15% of girls are hitting puberty at age 7. A significantly greater percentage are hitting it by age 9 or 10.

Some children are hitting puberty at 7 years of age, but this is almost certainly abnormal developement.

They actually treat in some cases to delay the onset. Have you ever met any sane individual that would even consider lowering the age of consent to include 10-12 year olds? Sure, there are organizations like NAMBLA, but there aren't many of those people, and they are near universally vilified.

And I never stated they were born that way. There are circumstances, often beyond their control, that may have contributed to the fact that they developed that way. For instance, if they were abused as children. And toddlers?! What in the hell are you talking about?!

First, the problem is, it's becoming much less abnormal. Second even more are hitting it before age 10. You're the one who threw prepubescense as some sort of dividing line that mattered. I'm just showing you that is a troublesome notion.

And I'm not saying you necessarily believe they are born that way. But that is what these "experts" are starting to say. When you use terms like "sexual orientation", that is what you are heavily implying. They can't help themselves, that's just the way they are, it's unalterable, etc. Hell, there is a bill in California right now that wants to outlaw "conversion therapy" for sexual orientation and SPECIFICALLY includes pedophilia as an orientation it would make unlawful to try and change, even if the person wants to help to try and change it.

And toddlers...have you not paid attention to what I was trying to delicately mention earlier?

You're reasoning is so outrageously flawed here I'm almost unsure of whether or not I should point it out.

If it's flawed, you've yet to demonstrate how.

Your entire argument is that the same reasoning can be applied to both. In this sense, you are comparing the 2. You are saying the legal arguments that can be applied to gay marriage can be applied to child molestation. I'm saying no they can't. Polygamy is certainly a more apt comparison. But I'm not addressing that one.

Noting that you were all too willing to modify the post above this one, even though it was a perfectly valid refutation of your reasoning, I'm sure this post won't last long in it's unmodified state. Childish abuse of your position as an admin (though you likely don't see it that way, blind as you are to your own sophistry) has destroyed any respect I had for your position. Have a good day and grow up.

I'll answer it for now, but if you can't distinguish between two things that are able to utilize similar or in some cases the same reasons even though those things are somewhat different, I don't know that discussing this with you is ever going to be fruitful. You simply want to throw up goofy attacks that I think homosexuality and pedophilia are the same and that's a lie. And yes, it's a lie that will henceforth be deleted. I don't know what has happened to the state of logical argumentation in the younger generation, but it's a disaster.

However, if you can somehow break out of this binary thinking pattern you're in on the subject, we can move forward.

I use my admin powers quite lightly around here, especially in this forum. But with some posters who can't help but resort to the same sad tactics over and over again, it becomes necessary. Sorry if that loses your respect. Not my intent, but not something that's going to bother me much either.

[Aufan59 51]

I'm not sure what was trying to be said here, but suffice it to say, the point still stands...two things can use the same line of reasoning without being considered "equal" or "equated."

We are saying that you compared the two concepts, not that you equated them. You apparently think "compare" is the same thing as "equate". LOL.

That you are willing to delete and edit posts because of your own misunderstanding says a lot about your moderating capabilities. Way to chase away posters who can challenge you intellectually.... or maybe that is the goal? If so, it worked. Have fun with your future gloom and doom threads.

p.s. when you edit this post, deleting everything I said, please leave a note.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I'm not sure what was trying to be said here, but suffice it to say, the point still stands...two things can use the same line of reasoning without being considered "equal" or "equated."

We are saying that you compared the two concepts, not that you equated them. You apparently think "compare" is the same thing as "equate". LOL.

That you are willing to delete and edit posts because of your own misunderstanding says a lot about your moderating capabilities. Way to chase away posters who can challenge you intellectually.... or maybe that is the goal? If so, it worked. Have fun with your future gloom and doom threads.

p.s. when you edit this post, deleting everything I said, please leave a note.

For what it's worth I agree with you. I doesn't seem to me that there is a compare contrast relationship in the statement. I see it actually trying to compare and to some degree equate two things that are totally different. Furthermore, it is a totally illogical argument. To believe that if the government doesn't step in now and give morality a boost, society will breakdown to the point some are suggesting is just foolish and paranoid. And, the only political argument I see is the one where it could be argued that by demanding the government do something now, as a totally knee jerk reaction to irrational fear, we give the over-reaching government even more power to run our lives for us. We don't seem to grasp that neither ourselves nor the government can stop anything bad from ever happening again. We don't seem to grasp that when we ask the government to prevent anything bad from ever happening again, there will be freedom lost and taxes to be paid or debt to be incurred. Becareful what you ask for.

[TitanTiger 20,460]

I'm not sure what was trying to be said here, but suffice it to say, the point still stands...two things can use the same line of reasoning without being considered "equal" or "equated."

We are saying that you compared the two concepts, not that you equated them. You apparently think "compare" is the same thing as "equate". LOL.

That you are willing to delete and edit posts because of your own misunderstanding says a lot about your moderating capabilities. Way to chase away posters who can challenge you intellectually.... or maybe that is the goal? If so, it worked. Have fun with your future gloom and doom threads. :)/>

p.s. when you edit this post, deleting everything I said, please leave a note. :D/>

Actually, your partner in sparring used the term "equating/equated" twice and you chimed in on the heels of his posts. It didn't appear that you were drawing any distinction in the terms and were using them interchangeably.

I will say this...the notion that the two can't even be discussed in the same breath is a notion that needs to go by the wayside too. You can compare (and contrast) two things.

I don't want to run anyone off, but I'm way past time of dealing with tactics that seek to shut down discussion with mock outrage that certain topics even get brought up together.

P.S. your post had a line at the end that said "edited by TitanTiger."

[AUDub 11,114]

59 and I aren't partners. In fact, he's flat destroyed me in the past in a climate change thread. I deserved it, too. Sometimes my hand types faster than my brain computes, so I'll slow it down and read your argument very carefully before I reply from now on.

I'm not sure what was trying to be said here, but suffice it to say, the point still stands...two things can use the same line of reasoning without being considered "equal" or "equated."

But you are taking one hell of a logical leap to get from "classifying pedophilia as an orientation" to "the same line of reasoning is what lead to the normalization of homosexuality." To make that leap, you have to measure the merits of one against the other. A comparison. I have been using the word equate as a synonym for compare. I know you don't think they are the same thing.

The way I see it, it's like saying the the case for the repeal of the prohibition of alcohol could be made for all illicit substances. In theory it could, but I would like to see someone trying to get meth legalized using that reasoning.

Without being gross, I would say that certain acts of that nature against a young enough child would not cause irreparable harm. They wouldn't be aware of what was going on and are too young to retain any memories of it before a certain age. I think we'd both agree that whether it actually causes them harm isn't the standard we want to go with.

I wasn't talking about a child anywhere close to the age of ten. Nor was I talking about a child even of the age of 5. I was giving a hypothetical of a VERY young child and of a type of molestation that doesn't necessarily leave any physical damage. I really don't want to have to spell this out for you because it's revolting to have to go there at all. The point is, when you set forth a standard that some sort of lasting harm is what makes it bad and something we could never condone, that's not a good standard. If if the molestation is something the child was so extremely young they can't remember, and even if there is no trace of physical damage...it's still bad. Harm is not the criteria.

Very well. The heinous nature of the act still stands even when it doesn't result in lasting harm to the child (though I would say this is rare). The idea of taking advantage of a child in such a way is utterly revolting in every sense of the word. I should have phrased it "the potential for irreparable harm."

I think they are of the same genre...deviant sexual behaviors, of varying degrees. And all of them, including eventually some degree of pedophilia or ephebophilia are having the deviant nature of what they are undermined by the "what could it hurt" crowd.

Maybe so. Only sick people would attempt to undermine the and deviant and potentially harmful nature of child molestation. There aren't as many of those people as you seem to think.

This isn't a contest of personal anecdotes. Statistics show that about 15% of girls are hitting puberty at age 7. A significantly greater percentage are hitting it by age 9 or 10.

First, the problem is, it's becoming much less abnormal. Second even more are hitting it before age 10. You're the one who threw prepubescense as some sort of dividing line that mattered. I'm just showing you that is a troublesome notion.

The definition of pedophilia is an attraction to prepubescent children. Even then there is large arbitrary grey area. Where to draw the line is hard to determine. I'll leave that to the lawmakers. I'm still curious as to where you would draw the line.

And I'm not saying you necessarily believe they are born that way. But that is what these "experts" are starting to say. When you use terms like "sexual orientation", that is what you are heavily implying. They can't help themselves, that's just the way they are, it's unalterable, etc. Hell, there is a bill in California right now that wants to outlaw "conversion therapy" for sexual orientation and SPECIFICALLY includes pedophilia as an orientation it would make unlawful to try and change, even if the person wants to help to try and change it.

No. What they are saying is that pedophiles are what they are and that attempting to change it is futile. The way I (and a growing number of the psychiatric community) see it, it's like you or I trying to change the fact that we're heterosexual, as if we have a conscious choice in the matter. Maybe they weren't born that way, but that is how they ended up.

As to your last sentence in this paragraph. These people aren't making the case that pedophilia is good or right. Conversion therapy won't change who you are. They're not saying it should be tolerated in the sense that we should allow child molestation. Only that we need to recognize it for what it is. An enduring personal quality. Who you are is reflective of your desires in the case of sexual orientation. Ignoring them altogether is far more harmful than recognizing it. These people need help. Not all pedophiles are child molesters. Many of them are struggling with it every day.

If it's flawed, you've yet to demonstrate how.

I'll answer it for now, but if you can't distinguish between two things that are able to utilize similar or in some cases the same reasons even though those things are somewhat different, I don't know that discussing this with you is ever going to be fruitful. You simply want to throw up goofy attacks that I think homosexuality and pedophilia are the same and that's a lie. And yes, it's a lie that will henceforth be deleted. I don't know what has happened to the state of logical argumentation in the younger generation, but it's a disaster.

I know you don't believe they are the same thing.

I use my admin powers quite lightly around here, especially in this forum. But with some posters who can't help but resort to the same sad tactics over and over again, it becomes necessary. Sorry if that loses your respect. Not my intent, but not something that's going to bother me much either.

No, it does not become necessary. Let me make a fool of myself. You should have recused yourself from editing this argument because you are involved. Maybe my argument is invalidated by my misuse of the terms "equate" and "compare. " 59 's post that you edited pointed out the fact that there is a comparison. He isn't wrong.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I'm not sure what was trying to be said here, but suffice it to say, the point still stands...two things can use the same line of reasoning without being considered "equal" or "equated."

We are saying that you compared the two concepts, not that you equated them. You apparently think "compare" is the same thing as "equate". LOL.

That you are willing to delete and edit posts because of your own misunderstanding says a lot about your moderating capabilities. Way to chase away posters who can challenge you intellectually.... or maybe that is the goal? If so, it worked. Have fun with your future gloom and doom threads. :)/>

p.s. when you edit this post, deleting everything I said, please leave a note. :D/>

Actually, your partner in sparring used the term "equating/equated" twice and you chimed in on the heels of his posts. It didn't appear that you were drawing any distinction in the terms and were using them interchangeably.

I will say this...the notion that the two can't even be discussed in the same breath is a notion that needs to go by the wayside too. You can compare (and contrast) two things.

I don't want to run anyone off, but I'm way past time of dealing with tactics that seek to shut down discussion with mock outrage that certain topics even get brought up together.

P.S. your post had a line at the end that said "edited by TitanTiger."

Who is it again employing tactics that "seek to shut down the discussion"? How can you believe that a corrupt political system is going to be effective dictating what you see as the correct social norms? I agree with you that the ills of society have to be addressed, but by the government? I believe the answer is God, not politics. I beleive your attempt to equate or compare or associate homosexuality with pedophilia serves more of a political agenda than a moral one. I am not suggesting that is your intention, merely the end result. I also believe there is an absence of logic. If we recognize an adults right to choose homosexuality as their sexual orientation, then we will ultimately recognize an adults right to use children for their sexual gratification? That's ridiculous. If you believe the opposite, then please enlighten us to how that process works and give us some basis for an accurate prediction as to how long the process will take? Heck, I'm willing to admit that maybe your right. My problem is that I believe we love with our political ideology more than we love God, we have more faith in the government than we have in God, and that is the real cause of our problems.

[Aufan59 51]

Actually, your partner in sparring used the term "equating/equated" twice and you chimed in on the heels of his posts. It didn't appear that you were drawing any distinction in the terms and were using them interchangeably.

I will say this...the notion that the two can't even be discussed in the same breath is a notion that needs to go by the wayside too. You can compare (and contrast) two things.

I don't want to run anyone off, but I'm way past time of dealing with tactics that seek to shut down discussion with mock outrage that certain topics even get brought up together.

P.S. your post had a line at the end that said "edited by TitanTiger."

So you deleted my post based on what someone else said? I never once said the words "equating/equated", I never claimed you were equating the two, and I didn't even read my "partner's" posts until after you edited mine. I understand that you are upset that he claimed you were equating the two, but it seems you took it out on me.

Regardless, the tactic of comparing homosexuality to pedophilia has been used in this thread. Not because it is logically sound, but because it is an easy appeal to emotion to delegitimize homosexuality. If you want to reduce the "mock outrage", maybe go against those fishing for it? Oh wait...

I know moderating a forum is a thankless challenge. But if you think you were correct in deleting my post, then your moderating style will certainly chase people away.

[homersapien 11,337]

And I see the pedophile that gets near my children with his or her head cut off with a dull blade and its body hanging from a tree. Just typical of the moral decline of this country. And it will only get worse. Pretty soon, when homosexual government unions are legalized, it will set the stage for these sickos to push for the unions involving children.

But, haven't some of us here already said that this would happen? Thought so.

Are you suggesting homosexuality is a "gateway" sexual orientation?

What? That isn't what I took from his post at all...

I didn't either. I'm just pushing Weegs buttons because I think he is playing the irrational fear card.

Irrational fear? That's exactly what most of you said in a thread a few months ago when some of us said that soon, pedophilia would be an accepted relationship alternative. Looks like we were correct. Maybe you all will listen to reason one day and be able to see the writing on the wall instead of blindly ignoring the signs.

You and Titan tiger have a very strange interpretation of this article. There is nothing in the article that suggests pedophilia should be "accepted" as a "relationship alternative".

Why would you conflate understanding the science of pedophilia with acceptance of pedophilic behavior? And what is the connection to homosexuality?