Author Topic: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy  (Read 5059 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline albeto

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
  • Darwins +70/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #116 on: October 25, 2011, 08:21:54 PM »
I am doing research.


Your "research" appears to me to be preparing yourself for sexual conquest.  You speak of molesters as lovers and infer children as compliant and even grateful.  I think you are trying to settle the guilt in your own mind before acting out on your own sexual fantasies in real life and I would encourage you to seek a counselor who can help you navigate these feelings without hurting children and landing yourself in jail eventually.  I also think that this kind of conversation is likely a means of sexual gratification for you because the conversation revolves around sex with children which inspires sexual arousal for you.  I think that's the "research" you're doing - finding out if you will be okay with acting this out in reality and not just vicariously.  I think words of anger or shame no longer have much effect on you because this sexual fantasy cannot be held off for long.  I do think there is help for you but it's not here, not calming your nerves about pedophilia. 


Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #117 on: October 25, 2011, 08:23:01 PM »
usually pedophiles just love children and do not want to harm them, I had chance to talk with some of them and they seem to be quite nice guys.

I agree, 12 Monkeys. Omega's comment pisses me off because I would never want my 2-year-old son to get "love" from a pedophile.
You just display your ignorance, or you are using argument of straw man.


If not wanting my son to be molested is "ignorant", then I love being ignorant. I don't care what you call me. I would not want my son to be molested. What kind of freak would want their kid molested???

I am doing research.

Since you are not doing professional research, and it is just a hobby for you, do you have a fetish for morbidity?

Quote
B. How did he know they were pedophiles? Did they show him some child porn or tell him the crimes they've committed? If they did so and he did not report them to the cops, IMO he is just as disgusting as they are.

I talk not only with pedophiles but also with murderers kidnappers  and rapists. Not sure if they are real or jut pretending. Cops are free to talk with them too.
I was just unable to talk with terrorists since these people are too stupid.

However,  if you never had any chance to talk with any of these people, how can you judge them?


Of course I can judge them. That is the nature of the subjective morality that humanity participates in on a daily basis. Besides, you seemed to have judged them as well when you posted this:

usually pedophiles just love children and do not want to harm them, I had chance to talk with some of them and they seem to be quite nice guys.


So I've gotta ask, Omega: are you a pedophile?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline Omega

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
  • Darwins +1/-5
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #118 on: October 25, 2011, 08:23:12 PM »
It just depends on who you ask,,,,islamists consider BinLaden a fine upstanding citizen and Bush a terrorist. Americans the opposite.
Right, but you must be neutral it you want to make correct judgement.

Offline Omega

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
  • Darwins +1/-5
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #119 on: October 25, 2011, 08:45:08 PM »
Your "research" appears to me to be preparing yourself for sexual conquest.  You speak of molesters as lovers and infer children as compliant and even grateful.  I think you are trying to settle the guilt in your own mind before acting out on your own sexual fantasies in real life and I would encourage you to seek a counselor who can help you navigate these feelings without hurting children and landing yourself in jail eventually.  I also think that this kind of conversation is likely a means of sexual gratification for you because the conversation revolves around sex with children which inspires sexual arousal for you.  I think that's the "research" you're doing - finding out if you will be okay with acting this out in reality and not just vicariously.  I think words of anger or shame no longer have much effect on you because this sexual fantasy cannot be held off for long.  I do think there is help for you but it's not here, not calming your nerves about pedophilia.

You think too good about me  :laugh:
no, I have no specific interest for children, but I am a angry or my childhood and I don't want other kids to live like me.
If I land in jail that probably will be because of some terrorism act or something worse, that will be revenge or society which attempted to enslave me.


Conversation revolves around this topic because it is most controversial absolute taboo. It is impossible to prove objectively  that sex with children is wrong, but since there is no proof everyone is resorting to insults, personal attacks or shame.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4546
  • Darwins +102/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #120 on: October 25, 2011, 09:01:21 PM »
Ya ok
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Omega

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
  • Darwins +1/-5
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #121 on: October 25, 2011, 09:14:49 PM »
If not wanting my son to be molested is "ignorant", then I love being ignorant. I don't care what you call me. I would not want my son to be molested. What kind of freak would want their kid molested???
I wonder why do you even have such ideas that someone may molest your 2 year old son?
I think you see pedophiles like some kind o kidnappers who steal kids and rape them?
Such thinking is based on absolute ignorance.

Quote
Since you are not doing professional research, and it is just a hobby for you, do you have a fetish for morbidity?
Maybe. I like everything that most people hate, normal stuff is boring for me.

Quote
Of course I can judge them. That is the nature of the subjective morality that humanity participates in on a daily basis. Besides, you seemed to have judged them as well when you posted this:
I have no subjective morality, my morality is objective.
when I said they are nice guys i, used usual standards how you define nice guy.

Quote
So I've gotta ask, Omega: are you a pedophile?
No. I would define myself as onmisexual with some exceptions,  pedophiles are locked  to one fetish.
I probably had no problems to have sex with children but I have no preference for that.
It could be something like exotic experience but I would definitely not risk doing that. I have better things to do.

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #122 on: October 25, 2011, 09:28:46 PM »
I wonder why do you even have such ideas that someone may molest your 2 year old son?
I think you see pedophiles like some kind o kidnappers who steal kids and rape them?
Such thinking is based on absolute ignorance.

I did not say someone "may," I said I would not want someone to. I think you are being a little too defensive by calling me ignorant.

I have no subjective morality, my morality is objective.
when I said they are nice guys i, used usual standards how you define nice guy.

How are pedophiles nice guys???


No. I would define myself as onmisexual with some exceptions,  pedophiles are locked  to one fetish.
I probably had no problems to have sex with children but I have no preference for that.
It could be something like exotic experience but I would definitely not risk doing that. I have better things to do.

Methinks thou doth protest too much...  &)
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #123 on: October 25, 2011, 09:33:46 PM »
Omega;
Quote
It is impossible to prove objectively  that sex with children is wrong,
No, it isn't. There is plenty of evidence that child sexual abuse is harmful to the child, and that such harm is often intense and long-lasting.

Are you really unaware of this ? After all your 'research' ?

And you didn't answer my question about where and how you're doing this research. You said:
Quote
I talk not only with pedophiles but also with murderers kidnappers  and rapists.
So, where are you talking to pedophiles?
« Last Edit: October 25, 2011, 09:48:00 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline albeto

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
  • Darwins +70/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #124 on: October 25, 2011, 09:35:14 PM »

You think too good about me  :laugh:
no, I have no specific interest for children, but I am a angry or my childhood and I don't want other kids to live like me.
If I land in jail that probably will be because of some terrorism act or something worse, that will be revenge or society which attempted to enslave me.

PTSD is no small matter to overcome but there are ways you can navigate life with more hope.  A trained psychologist or psychiatrist will be able to help with this. 

Quote
Conversation revolves around this topic because it is most controversial absolute taboo. It is impossible to prove objectively  that sex with children is wrong, but since there is no proof everyone is resorting to insults, personal attacks or shame.

Because there no objective resource for right and wrong, logical and rational arguments are used by societies to determine what is acceptable and what is not, and in our society (western civilization) sex with children is unacceptable for many reasons.  For example, children have not reached a state of maturity to consent to such behavior and so are to be protected en masse.  An 18 yo young man having sex with his 16 yo girlfriend is a different scenario even if he's reached the legal age of adulthood and she hasn't, because their relative maturity is more comparable than a 40 yo and 16 yo.  Or younger.  This isn't taboo but unacceptable behavior for the sake of protection of children by protecting their development.  It behooves us all to care for the next generation. 

If your childhood experiences were such that these kinds of behaviors have been imprinted onto your sexual attractions, you can still find new skills to cope without having to succumb to those traumatic memories all the time. 

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4719
  • Darwins +531/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #125 on: October 25, 2011, 10:15:31 PM »
I was considering whether it was worth coming back into this topic or not.  Then, I saw Omega's statement that it's "impossible to prove objectively that sex with children is wrong".  Considering that I've been arguing with a theist who's been trying to prove that you need God for objective morality and that the natural consequence of there being no God is no objective/absolute morality (thus you can't condemn any behavior), it should be evident why I might be interested in such a statement.

It might very well be true that there is no such thing as objective morality.  Objective morality would have to be something that everyone, of every time and place, could agree on, and I don't even know if that's possible.  It's certainly not possible to quiz them all to find out.  So the idea of an 'objective' morality is most likely a red herring.  But that doesn't mean morality itself doesn't exist.  It also doesn't mean that you have to create some kind of artificial 'objective' middle ground by equalizing something like the 9/11 attacks and military air strikes against a country in a war.  It's that kind of thinking that leads to giving groups which plot deliberate, murderous attacks against civilians a kind of quasi-respectability that leads to accepting their methods as 'justified' by the circumstances they are in.

Determining responsibility for civilian deaths is not as simple as simply counting up the death toll.  It's probably true that the number of civilians hurt or killed as a result of the war in Iraq over much of the last decade greatly exceeds the number hurt or killed as a result of 9/11.  But you also have to consider other factors, such as why the deaths happened.  Most of the actual deaths in Iraq, aside from the inevitable ones due to the military attack or the immediate aftermath, were the result of the guerrilla insurgency in Iraq and retaliation against the insurgents.  It was never a matter of the President deliberately ordering the slaying of civilians for no purpose other than to make a point, which was a substantial part of what the 9/11 attacks were about.

As for the issue of pedophilia, it really isn't a matter of proving it 'objectively', that is, comparing the position of the pedophile and his[1] victims and trying to come up with some sort of 'balance' between the two.  Because that isn't being objective, it's a form of the middle ground fallacy.  There is simply no way to consider a prepubescent child, or even one who has come into pubescence but has no experience in the matter, competent to make a decision about sex, and an adult[2] is invariably going to be too much more powerful than such a child as well.  As well, the physical and psychological harm done to a child in such an uneven power relationship must be considered.  Those three considerations add up to the conclusion that pedophilia is about as close to objectively wrong as it is feasibly possible to get.  The pedophile gets all of the benefits from the 'relationship', and the child pays an excessive and extreme penalty.  About the only thing that could be worse would be murder.
 1. since most pedophiles are male
 2. male or female, although pedophilia is primarily done by the former, as I said

Offline Klokinator

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Darwins +7/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • ^This is Molly. Btw, I'm an apatheist forever.
    • My game: Fire Emblem Phoenix Saga
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #126 on: October 26, 2011, 04:20:08 AM »
Quote
Quote
A. What is Omega doing talking with pedophiles?
I am doing research.
Interesting. Where and how are you doing this research? Are you a professional researcher? Just curious...

No, I am not professional researcher in that area . I am doing that for myself as hobby, mostly because I want to be able to identify people and find a ways to manipulate them.
I read books about psychology and sexuality, and when possible try to check if my ideas are correct.

I am mostly interested why people act in some ways and how to convince them to change their minds.

other topics o my research is what is the best way to deconvert someone from religion.
I wonder what the odds are you want to manipulate your "dick into a childs' various orifices"? I'm sure once you've become a master manipulator it shouldn't be too hard.

Quote
Yeah, they don't wanna hurt anyone. They just love children. Just wants the little children to enjoy his dick in their various orifices.

You make me sick.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 04:21:45 AM by Klokinator »

Offline Omega

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
  • Darwins +1/-5
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #127 on: October 26, 2011, 05:17:45 AM »
Omega;
Quote
It is impossible to prove objectively  that sex with children is wrong,
No, it isn't. There is plenty of evidence that child sexual abuse is harmful to the child, and that such harm is often intense and long-lasting.

Are you really unaware of this ? After all your 'research' ?

everybody says that but where is proof of that harm?
my research says that harm comes in the moment when all this "abuse" is discovered

Quote
And you didn't answer my question about where and how you're doing this research. You said:
Quote
I talk not only with pedophiles but also with murderers kidnappers  and rapists.
So, where are you talking to pedophiles?
you can talk to them on freenet.
you can occasionally meet people who claim that they have plans to kidnap or kill someone, or rapists who discuss tips how to hide evidence and how to select victim.

Offline Omega

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
  • Darwins +1/-5
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #128 on: October 26, 2011, 05:21:36 AM »
I wonder what the odds are you want to manipulate your "dick into a childs' various orifices"? I'm sure once you've become a master manipulator it shouldn't be too hard.
I think such possibility is equal to zero. Unless laws change.

Quote
Quote
Yeah, they don't wanna hurt anyone. They just love children. Just wants the little children to enjoy his dick in their various orifices.
You make me sick.
that is not my text.

Offline plethora

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3456
  • Darwins +60/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Metalhead, Family Man, IT Admin & Anti-Theist \m/
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #129 on: October 26, 2011, 05:59:31 AM »
It might very well be true that there is no such thing as objective morality.  Objective morality would have to be something that everyone, of every time and place, could agree on, and I don't even know if that's possible.

Actually no. Objective morality would be true whether or not an individual's subjective morality agrees with it. It would also be true whether or not subjects even exist to question it. There is, of course, no such thing as objective morality. Morality is always subjective.

Morality, subjective as it may be, can be evaluated and put on a scale. Why do we consider slavery, murder and rape to be 'wrong'? Well... murder, rape and slavery are particularly unpleasant to the victims ... to the extreme. Nobody wants to be a victim of these acts. So the way I see it is this... 

By allowing people to victimize others, the perpetrators run the risk of being victimized themselves eventually. How many times have we seen the tables turn in the course of history? In order to eliminate the risk of being victimized, individuals must sacrifice the benefits of being the perpetrators.

Hence ... murder, rape and slavery have been put on the 'wrong' pile within our moral standard.

A system where these things are not considered 'wrong' is morally flawed as it creates more victims, increases the odds of being victimized and is not beneficial to the society as a whole. No objective morality is required to arrive at this conclusion.

Quote
Determining responsibility for civilian deaths is not as simple as simply counting up the death toll.  It's probably true that the number of civilians hurt or killed as a result of the war in Iraq over much of the last decade greatly exceeds the number hurt or killed as a result of 9/11.  But you also have to consider other factors, such as why the deaths happened.  Most of the actual deaths in Iraq, aside from the inevitable ones due to the military attack or the immediate aftermath, were the result of the guerrilla insurgency in Iraq and retaliation against the insurgents.  It was never a matter of the President deliberately ordering the slaying of civilians for no purpose other than to make a point, which was a substantial part of what the 9/11 attacks were about.

I think that most of what the US has done in Iraq is highly immoral, but that's another debate. I agree with your assessment that equating the 9/11 attacks to the collateral damage of the Iraq war is a colossally simplistic view.

Quote
As for the issue of pedophilia child rape, it really isn't a matter of proving it 'objectively' ...

Corrected that for you. Not all pedophiles are child-rapists. Most of them probably keep their fantasies to themselves.

I agree that objective morality doesn't need not be invoked to discuss whether it's morally wrong to rape a child. Our subjective moral standards will do the job just as well.

Quote
There is simply no way to consider a prepubescent child, or even one who has come into pubescence but has no experience in the matter, competent to make a decision about sex, and an adult[1] is invariably going to be too much more powerful than such a child as well.  As well, the physical and psychological harm done to a child in such an uneven power relationship must be considered.  Those three considerations add up to the conclusion that pedophilia child rape is about as close to objectively wrong as it is feasibly possible to get. The pedophile child rapist gets all of the benefits from the 'relationship', and the child pays an excessive and extreme penalty.  About the only thing that could be worse would be murder.
 1. male or female, although pedophilia is primarily done by the former, as I said

The above are all very good reasons why we consider child-rape morally wrong. The moral standard is still subjective, but not arbitrary as we have good reason to consider it wrong.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 06:01:21 AM by plethora »
The truth doesn't give a shit about our feelings.

Offline Omega

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
  • Darwins +1/-5
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #130 on: October 26, 2011, 06:14:25 AM »
PTSD is no small matter to overcome but there are ways you can navigate life with more hope.  A trained psychologist or psychiatrist will be able to help with this.
I do not have any PTSD, it is more like depression because life is boring and meaningless.
I am angry on society because it forced to waste my childhood without hawing any relationships with girls and so I missed lots o fun.
denying sex life to children is child abuse.


Quote
Because there no objective resource for right and wrong, logical and rational arguments are used by societies to determine what is acceptable and what is not, and in our society (western civilization) sex with children is unacceptable for many reasons.  For example, children have not reached a state of maturity to consent to such behavior and so are to be protected en masse.  An 18 yo young man having sex with his 16 yo girlfriend is a different scenario even if he's reached the legal age of adulthood and she hasn't, because their relative maturity is more comparable than a 40 yo and 16 yo.  Or younger.  This isn't taboo but unacceptable behavior for the sake of protection of children by protecting their development.  It behooves us all to care for the next generation. 
No, there are objective reasons. or i you do not have objective reasons then it all depends on the opinion of majority.
if there is no objective morality then genocide and murder is also right if majority o people support it.
protection against your own will is abuse, not protection.
I do not advocate that it is ok to force kids into hawing sex, but there are few kids who actually like it at very young age and that should not be suppressed.


Quote
If your childhood experiences were such that these kinds of behaviors have been imprinted onto your sexual attractions, you can still find new skills to cope without having to succumb to those traumatic memories all the time.
My only traumatic memory is lack of any sexual memories from my childhood. I basically have no attractions at all.
when I read about kids "playing doctor" or hawing fun with girlfriends I envy them, because nothing of that happened to me. 
No now I fantasize about being child and experiencing all that fun.


Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10773
  • Darwins +274/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #131 on: October 26, 2011, 06:19:28 AM »
<snip>

If you wanna get laid either change your attitude or get some money and a hooker.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2297
  • Darwins +123/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #132 on: October 26, 2011, 07:01:56 AM »
I just learned of the existence of the quality of these discussions centering on pedophilia. My comments are on the basis of laws, mores and generally accepted morals in the United States.

Conversation revolves around this topic because it is most controversial absolute taboo. It is impossible to prove objectively that sex with children is wrong, but since there is no proof everyone is resorting to insults, personal attacks or shame.

Your statement flies in the face of the mores of our society (and I think most other societies) in that we try to protect our children from various kinds of harm until the point at which we believe that our children are able to avoid the potential harm, defend themselves or have the capacity to make their own decisions. In law, that is Age 18. For the purposes of sexual encounters, some of our laws allow gradations for certain behaviors beginning at Age 15, particularly for situations in which the age span of the participants is not that great.

We have these laws to quantify the generally acceptable limits for sexual encounters with children, meaning our progeny. A discussion centering on why these age limits are in place or why particular age limits were chosen is a worthy discussion that has occurred here previously. However, discussions in which members categorically state that sex with children is okay because no one can prove that it is objectively wrong, are unacceptable for this forum. We do not accept god absolutely as foisted upon us by statements of a believer, neither do we accept pedophilia in the same manner.

We do not own this domain name, the webserver it occupies nor the content of the book the forum sits behind. Any subject discussed here that is not a point raised in the book Why Won't God Heal Amputees? is at risk for censorship from the owner of the website, the web service company, the forum rules or the generally acceptable limits to forum management.

If you wish to conduct research on pedophiles, I cannot stop you. I applaud professionals in the fields of psychology or psychiatry when they perform research on a variety of issues, including pedophilia. Your encounters with pedophiles are not professional encounters nor do you show the results of objective research because, as you have specifically stated, you are not a professional in the field. You are expressing your personal opinion in a categorical, absolute manner, and the subject upon which you are expressing yourself can have legal consequences to this website. Ergo, your comments in this regard need to stop or we will stop them for you.

I wonder why do you even have such ideas that someone may molest your 2 year old son?
I think you see pedophiles like some kind o kidnappers who steal kids and rape them?
Such thinking is based on absolute ignorance.

While I agree that most children are never subject to sexual molestation and for a parent to be overly concerned about the issue can create problems for that parent, it is wholly wrong for you to say, by reverse implication, that pedophiles are not kidnappers or rapers. While a pedophile may not see him/herself in such light, the rest of us do. Unless the child is of a generally accepted age at which the child can agree to go somewhere or agree to have a sexual encounter, then the actions of the pedophile are, indeed, kidnapping and rape.

For all of your moralizing to us about how we should think about pedophiles, you are showing no concern for laws, mores or morality. You don't even discuss this issue in that manner.

I probably had no problems to have sex with children but I have no preference for that.

This is an inherent fault in your psychological being. The vast majority of adults protect all children, not just their own, and the summation of your comments here prove that if your 5yo was sexually molested, you would think it is okay, because it is not objectively wrong. Your comments are not welcome here, nor appropriate. You should go pontificate your opinions on a psychological forum.

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.