There’s an easy smell test to determine if you’re on the wrong side of history. Has anyone ever changed their opinion from supporting to being against an issue? If the answer is no, you’re on the wrong side of history. No one has ever woken up one day and been like…. Hmmm while I’ve supported gay marriage for my entire life, I now think it’s wrong and should be banned because of what Tucker said! Meanwhile conservatives change their tune all the time when one of their children come out.
NOTE: QUOTING A QUOTE NOT QUOTING DEB AS NOTED BY THE QUOTE WITH QUOTATION MARKS CLICK THE LITTLE UP ARROW TO SEE THE QUOTED POST AMEN
You should note that Deb was not the person that said that it was ATW. You quoted Deb. Edit It was actually @JumpMan who said it sorry ATW.
I quoted a quote with quotation marks If you click the little 'up' arrow you can go to the quoted post ohkayyy eyeroll
I understand that but not everybody will do that and at 1st glance it looks like Deb said that it was very jarring to read and I know i would have a huge issue if it looked like I said that. Anyway, I think we have established who actually said it.
Here's what a member said... Was what I posted before the quote. I just didn't want to name the person, but they piped in anyway so now you know who said the words I quoted.
The whole point of the post was to see if people believe the same people who fight for civil rights and equality will showing empathy for pedophiles in the future. No, I don't think for a split second that will happen. I don't believe in the future people will say, "Pedophiles deserve empathy, even if they rape and molest babies and children." That's as bad as having empathy for a serial killer. The only difference is that a pedophile's victims are scarred and damaged for life. Their suffering lasts years.
Pedophiles were often victims of pedophilia themselves. I don't think the argument should be who deserves empathy or not. The question is what defines a pedophile. An 18 year old who messes around with a 16 year old can get classified as a pedophile - clearly not the same as a man who victimizes 8 year olds. The truly ill pedophile needs to be removed away from children so they aren't a threat, but we certainly need a better system for that. And regardless, trying to relate acceptance of LBGTQ as acceptance of pedophilia is just ridiculous.
the conversation about pedophilia being a sexual orientation has been going on in medicine, psychiatry, philosophy, and elsewhere for at least the last ten or fifteen years. For example: Is pedophilia a sexual orientation? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22218786/ Seto, the author, concludes: I have focused on the scientific and clinical implications of conceptualizing pedophilia as a sexual orientation in this brief article. But what about the legal and social implications? In particular, what impact might there be in conceptualizing pedophilia as a sexual age orientation, based on empirical evidence, akin to sexual gender orientation such as heterosexuality or homosexuality? For example, there are anti-discrimination laws or policies that specifically mention “sexual orientation” as grounds for redress. The makers of these laws and policies surely had sexual gender orientation in mind, not sexual age orientation. It is important to emphasize here that I am not equating these gender and age orientations. Homosexuality continues to be negatively sanctioned in a variety of ways, but social changes have occurred, including the legal rights of marriage or civil unions in Canada and several other countries, recognition of same-sex partner benefits, and the inclusion of sexual gender orientation in anti-discrimination policies and laws. In my opinion, these are signs of progress: I am generally opposed to discrimination, and I believe that mutually consenting sex between adults should not be subject to legal or other discrimination. Pedophilia, on the other hand, involves sex between an adult and a child who is not legally able to consent. There are substantial asymmetries in cognitive ability, psychosexual development, and autonomy that are not usually present in sexual interactions between consenting adults. I would still consider it no particular concern of mine if adult pedophiles advocated for the freedom to have sex with other adult pedophiles. They do not, however, and I think there is often a self-serving motive in adult statements supportive of adult–child sex.Footnote 3 Given the anxiety and fear elicited by pedophiles in contemporary societies, it is highly unlikely that citizens would support the expansion of legal and civil rights to other sexual orientations. Nonetheless, this challenging and complex discussion needs to take place. Accepting that pedophilia is a sexual orientation akin to heterosexuality or homosexuality, rather than a preference that is chosen or somehow learned, may influence the direction of this discussion. Pedophilia is unlikely ever to be accepted, given its behavioral manifestations involve the sexual exploitation of children, but can it be tolerated when it is not accompanied by criminal actions? This may seem far-fetched given the current prevailing views of pedophilia and sexual offending against children (see Jenkins, 1998), but there are examples of Dutch and other European pedophile groups that were at least tolerated in the 1970s and 1980s (e.g., Des Sables, 1976; O’Carroll, 1980; Pieterse, 1982; Rouweler-Wuts, 1976; see also online forums such as Girlchat and Boychat). Our efforts to respond to pedophilia and the associated social problems of sexual child exploitation—through child p*rnography, sex tourism, juvenile prostitution, and child sexual abuse—require a more compassionate and less discriminatory treatment of pedophiles (see Seto, 2008). Currently, treatment and support services are mostly available to individuals who have been charged or convicted of sexual offenses against children. Few resources are available to help-seeking pedophiles. A notable exception is the Dunkelfeld Project in Germany, which used mass media campaigns to advertise clinical services for help-seeking, self-identified pedophiles and hebephiles (Beier et al., 2009). Many of these individuals had not been detected by authorities for their pedohebephilic behavior, yet many (not all) had accessed child p*rnography or had sexual contacts with children (Neutze et al., 2011). Other organizations such as B4U-ACT and Stop It Now! Also provide referral and other services to self-identified pedophilic or hebephilic individuals. Pedophiles will remain hidden if they continue to be hated and feared, which would impede efforts to better understand this sexual orientation and thereby prevent child sexual exploitation. I could include more if there's interest. So the problem deb addresses ("show empathy") is a simple syllogism: 1) sexual orientations are unchosen, biologically determined in some important sense, and should be respected 2) pedophilia is (or might be) a sexual orientation 3) therefore those with pedophilia should be respected NOTE this says noting at all about the morality of anyone acting upon one's pedophilia. That is another class of moral concerns that have to do with the impact on the children acted up by pedophiles (or others). That is a separate issue. Either the syllogism must be accepted as it is, or else one or both of the premises must be modified and/or rejected. Either 2 is wrong, and pedophilia is NOT a sexual orientation, or 1 is wrong somehow--meaning there are sexual orientations that do NOT deserve respect.
Whether pedophilia is a sexual orientation as a biological factor is a scientific question but as a moral or legal question it comes down to a matter of consent. As such while we might say that homosexuality should be accepted socially as it’s between consenting adults that doesn’t mean that pedophilia should since the main issue is consent and not whether someone could control their impulses. It would be like saying that there is a biological reason for someone to be homicidal but that wouldn’t mean that such actions should be excused or accepted.
Is (1) implying that sexual orientations must be respected because they are biologically determined? I don't think I agree with that. Was that really ever stated? A person might be biologically predisposed to violence. That doesn't mean we should accept violence from that person. The important distinction here shouldn't be simply whether a sexual orientation is biologically determined, but more importantly whether a person pursuing relationships according to their orientation is doing actual harm to people.
Seems everything the GOP opposes they are secretly doing. Pedophilia - check Homosexuality - check Bribery - Check Theft - Check Facism - Check They just don't stand for anything. DD
Conservatives just make straw mans because they can’t actually debate substance. But, that’s because they’re morons.
