agrote wrote:Can you point to where you've demonstrated that my arguments are bankrupt?
I'm not playing that stupid game. I've shot you down in two different threads, and in one of those, you attempted to ignore the arguments advanced against your thesis by Joe, and tried to force me to refute once again what Joe had already refuted.
You're playing the same stupid game that that holy roller jackass "real life" plays--you pretend that each thread exists in its own universe and that each exchange with a separate individual member exists in a separate universe, and that is plausible to advance the same bullshit argument in each thread and to each interlocutor, and to demand that that interlocutor refute your argument on each occasion that you bring it up--
even though your dog and pony show had been repeatedly shot down.
No, i'm not playing that fool's game. It is enough that your arguments have been shown to be bankrupt. But more important than that is it is now shown that you will be repeatedly and willfully dishonest about the exchanges with others on these topics.
You're a liar. You're a bullshit artist. All of that is in addition to you being a pathetic and disgusting paedophile--pathetic and disgusting because you are unrepentant, and actually have the gall to argue that you are somehow an abused and victimized innocent.
Quote:You're implying that we're obliged to go to war against terrorism. That is very much open to debate.
Without that part of the attempted analogy, it not only fails to arrive, it fails to depart.
Quote:Anyway, I can think of analogies which involve actions that we are definitely not obliged to perform. We can, if we want to, choose to take artistic photographs of abandoned buildings, and display them in a gallery for purely aesthetic reasons. They cannot do this if there are no abandoned buildings. It is, let's assume, a bad thing that we allow there to be so many disused buildings when there are so many homeless people on the streets. So the action of taking these photographs depends o nthe existence of a bad state of affairs. Nevertheless, there is nothing wrong with taking the pictures, because it doesn't worse that state of affairs, or create any other bad states of affairs.
This analogy fails, too. This idiotic attempt at analogy will not succeed because you cannot separate child sexual abuse from the aspect of the harm suffered by the victim, and there is no direct cause and effect relationship resulting automatically in harm to someone by a building simply being vacant.
Quote:Analogously, children being abused is a bad state of affairs. But paedophiles looking at free images of that abuse will not worsen that state of affairs.
Just as i said above--you dredge up the same bullshit arguments again and again, as though they haven't been addressed. At the top of this page, O'Bill explains in detail why looking at images online creates a demand for them. In your disgusting, self-serving thread it was pointed out to you, and Joe additionally hammered you repeatedly (and Dlowan has also done so) on the continuing anguish of the victim who begins to understand that sick f*cks like you are still beating off to the images of their degradation. But you continue to play this stupid game of denial, as though everyone here were too stupid to connect the dots. You do this repeatedly, with nearly every post.
You have continued to state that your thread is not about sexuality, and that others introduced the topic. Bullshit. I quoted you in your opening post in that thread in my last post when you wrote: "Since paedophiles cannot help their sexuality, we cannot condemn them for it." You brought sexuality up in the very first post of the thread, and now attempt to claim that others brought up sexuality, and not you.
So, among all of the other excellent reasons to hold you in contempt, we can add a consistent and embarrassingly obvious dishonesty on your part.
Quote:Quote:Your attempt to suggest that there is a logical basis for your opinion fails miserably.
Are you going to explain how, or you just going to assert that?
I'm not playing your stupid game in which you attempt to oblige me to restate all of your arguments and the refutations of them by me and by several others. That is not simple assertion, it is a summation of the continuing failure on your part to sustain logical arguments in the face of persistent criticism from Joe and from me and from several others.
Quote:Quote:Furthermore, it is precisely because people want to see images of child sexual abuse that people produce images of child sexual abuse.
Is it as simple as that? Do child porn producers really just act out of a twisted sense of generosity? Or are they looking specifically for money and/or social engagement with other paedophiles (not to mention the immediate pleasure they get from abusing children in front of a camera)?
If you take away the exchange of money, and you take away the social interaction, all that's left is a paedophile clicking on a website link. Is this single mouse-click really going to add eny extra encouragement to the producer of the child porn?
Jesus H. Christ--how many times are you going to advance that witless argument, which has been repeatedly shot down? Look at the top of the page at what O'Bill posted, which is essentially how i answered this bullshit in your thread the first time i took on this idiotic failure of an argument. Yes, each mouse-click adds up with all the other mouse-clicks to provide income and incentive to the purveyor of this sick bullshit.
Quote:Yes, at the production end there is a clear distinction between child porn and adult porn. But at the consumer end, there is no such distinction to be made.
Hey bright boy, get this through your thick skull. The consumers of images of child sexual abuse encourage the repeated child sexual abuse from which the images are derived. People who look at pictures of bare nekkid ladies are not encouraging criminal acts which devastate the victims, and creeps who look at images of child sexual abuse do.
Quote:Whether and adult chooses to look at some free adult pornography has no bearing on whether the pornographic model disrobes to be photographed.
Pure bullshit--of course it has a bearing, the model doesn't do it without incentive, and the incentive is not there if the purveyor cannot profit from disseminating the images.
Quote:Similarly, whether and adult chooses to look at some free child porn has no bearing on whether the underage victim is forced to engage in a sexual act in front of a camera. The viewer has no effect on what happens. The paying viewer creates a demand, I accept that. But the non-paying viewer doesn't.
You lie like a rug. It has been repeatedly pointed out to you why even the distribution of "free" images encourages the trade. You just metaphorically stick your fingers in your ears and say "La la la la, I can't hear you" and bring this tripe up again and again, as though it has never been pointed out to you that you are wrong, and why. I've pointed it out to you, Joe has pointed it out to you, O'Bill points it out to you at the top of page 10 of this thread.
Quote:Quote:Your attempts at analogy are pathetic, and usually involve you either begging the question, or arriving at a false conclusion based on a faulty premise.
Can you give an example where I've done this?
I told you, i'm not playing this stupid game. I've pointed out each instance, and i won't be suckered by you into going back and dredging up the instances each time you are sufficiently dishonest to deny that your failures have been thrown up in your face--repeatedly.
Quote:Quote:Quote:Saying that you didn't pay for and therefore don't fuel demand for it is bullshit, and several individuals have carefully explained why.
Please name the individuals and briefly describe their explanations, and explain how my arguments against those explanations fail. If you can't do that, you're the liar.
Both Joe and i argued against this point of view on your part, and in fact, you conceded the point to each of us. I don't intend to go off to copy and paste quotes of the discussion just because you are too dishonest to acknowledge that. It is you who are the liar.
You're just re-asserting that I'm a liar and that you aren't. That doesn't add much to the conversation.[/quote]
I gave the reason that you are a liar--because your bullshit has been repeatedly refuted, and you just spread the same bullshit again, as though you had thought of something new which hasn't been refuted, and ignoring the arguments which have been advanced again and again against your theses and premises, and play the injured innocent when this is pointed out to you.
Talking to you about this topic, or what you are delusionally pleased to describe as a discussion of "ethics" never has constituted much of a conversation.
Quote:Just because you are so facile that you think you can ignore the refutation of your pathetic arguments because they appear in a different thread is no reason to oblige me to do the legwork necessary to demonstrate the case.
I didn't ignore them though, did I. I responded to them
in that thread.[/quote]
And
in that thread, you also acknowledged that your "ethical" arguments could not be supported, specifically in your exchanges with Joe, and yet here you are attempting to peddle the same bullshit as though it had never been refuted, and as though you had never acknowledged the failure of your "ethical" argument. That makes you a liar.
Quote:So if you don't care for the term sexual preference, simply substitute the phrase "paedophiles cannot help their sexuality," or simply substitute "sexuality"--it makes no difference to the specious nature of your argument, which is to imply that your "sexuality" is not qualitatively different from the sexuality of others.
I don't think it is qualitively different. Its moral status might be different, but that's a seperate matter. Paedophiles are justp eople who find children sexually attractive, in the same way that most people find adults sexually attractive. That's all. Sex with children may be entirely unethical, unlike sex with adults. But that's a difference between sex with children and sex with adults. It's not a difference between sexual attraction to children and sexual attraction to adults.
Hormones and libidos and genital organs have no sense of right and wrong. Our minds and our rationality override (in most cases) our sexual impulses, with their moral thinking. But sexual impulses themselves are not moral. Nobody has a moral penis. You can't get an immoral erection. Every paedophile feels the same way towards children as most adults feel towards other adults. That, at least, is my impression of what it is like to be a paedophile. I find various people between the ages of approximately 12 and 35 sexually desirable, and in my experience the sexual feelings are qualitatively indistinguishable.
There is a common assumption that the sexual feelings of paedophiles are inherently violent or cruel. But I can't see any basis for that in reality. Obviously a man who rapes children is a cruel man. But a man who rapes adults is a cruel man, and we don't assume on the basis of adult rape that adult sexuality is inherently cruel or violent. The only thing inherent about paedophilia, that distinguishes it from ordinary sexuality, is that it is directed towards children. Anything else - any violent tendencies or cruel behaviour - is contingent. It is something people have in addition to their paedophilia, not as a direct result of it.
Again, though, I can only really speak for myself. If you met me in person, you'd realise that I am neither violent nor cruel.[/quote]
Now you are parading your dishonesty again. You have already acknowledged that you don't know that paedophilia is simply a "sexual orientation" (your term, not mine), and that it may be an illness. If that is so, it completely invalidates your foregoing argument. Yet in your compulsive dishonesty, you want to argue as though you had never admitted as much.
Quote:The point remains the same--one, that you have not demonstrated that paedophilia can be considered nothing more than a "sexuality; and two, that it is equivalent to homosexuality (which is an activity between consenting adults, and the same cannot be said of paedophilia)...
Homosexuality isn't an activity. Homosexual sex is an activity. But a homosexual can be a virgin all his/her life; to be a homosexual you just need to have sexual feelings for members of the same sex. To be a paedophile you just need to have sexual feelings for children. You don't need to
do anything. Consent has nothing to do with merely being a paedophile. I have conceded that homosexual sex and paedophilic sex are qualitatively different. But homosexuality (i.e. the desires of gay people) is qualitatively similar to paedophilia. They're both cases of looking at other human beings and finding them sexually desirable.[/quote]
No, they are not the same. One is an attraction to another consenting adult. You've had your nose rubbed in that repeatedly, too, and here you come again attempting to compare paedophilia to homosexuality. The first is a psychologically morbid pathology--the second is merely a healthy expression of adult sexuality.
Quote:Quote:...or schizophrenia (which is a psychologically morbid pathology, and so you are faced either with acknowledging that paedophilia is a psychologically morbid pathology as well and abandoning your "sexuality" argument, or abandoning an attempt at analogy with schizophrenia).
This is a false dichotomy.
No, it is a real dichotomy, and you created it. If, as you have alleged, being a paedophile is simply a different "sexual orientation," then you have no basis for comparing yourself to a schizophrenic. If, however, you insist on a comparison to a schizophrenic, then you acknowledge by default that paedophilia is a psychologically morbid pathology. You can't have it both ways. The only thing false here is your repeated attempts to portray paedophilia as a normal sexual attraction, and to at the same time portray paedophiles as being discriminated against unfairly, just as it would be unfair to disctriminate against a schizophrenic simply for being schizophrenic.
Quote:I accept the possibility that, given that sexual with children is, by and large, harmful, the desire to have sex with children should be classed as a disorder. It needn't be classed as a morbid pathology. There's nothing morbid about it. And even if it is a pathology, I needn't abandon my (tentative) claim that it is qualitatively similar to ordinary sexuality. The paedophile's sexual experience is, I am tempted to think, qualitatively ordinary. I probably feel the same way when I see an attractive 13 year old girl as you do when you see... whoever you find attractive. Attractive 20-year-old women/men, perhaps. Sexual arousal is sexual arousal. And 'qualitatively similar' doesn't mean ethically similar, or similar in any other way. Obviously it is different to find a 13-year-old attractive than it is to find a 20-year-old attractive. But the qualitative aspect of it is, as far as I can see (having found people of both ages sexually desirable), extremely similar. Just as, while it is different to find a man attractive than it is to find a woman attractive, the sexual feelings are nevertheless qualitatively the same. Sexual feelings are sexual feelings, ethical or not.
I suspect that you don't know what morbid pathology means. How very decent of you to decide that you just might be willing to acknowledge what professional opinion has held for a very long time. You seem awfully confused, too. I have not only not said that your sickness, your paedophilia is qualitatively similar to normal sexuality (hetero-, homo- and bisexuality), i have consistently pointed out that it isn't, and that it is false for you to attempt to protray it as such, which is what you have been doing.
Quote:Oh, so now it might be a "sexual orientation," huh? But you objected to sexual preference?
I objected to your repeated use of the phrase "sexual preference" in scare quotes, implying that it was a phrase I had used, when it wasn't. The word 'preference' seems to imply that there is nothing wrong with the sexual feelings. I am open to the
possibility that there is something wrong with sexually desiring children. I therefore prefer the more neutral-sounding word 'orientation'.[/quote]
I have never in my life heard of "scare quotes." Now i think you are making **** up as you go along, in a feeble attempt to turn aside the burden of the argument which you cannot bear. I put sexual orientation into quote marks because it is just as false an attempt to suggest that this is a sexuality, equivalent to heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality.
Who gives a rat's ass what possibilities you are open to? The overwhelming weight of well-informed professional opinion is that paedophiles suffer from a psychologically morbid pathology. Since you obviously don't understand what that means, i'll put in terms you should be able to understand--they all agree that you ane your ilk are sick f*cks.
Quote:I don't need to make that distinction in order to be certain that the action of viewing child porn does not harm anybody. As a consequentialist, I must object to the punishment of paedophiles for performing a harmless action, by themselves in private. Even if paedophilia is a pathological condition, only some of its 'symptoms' are harmful. Raping a child is harmful. Looking at pictures of this is not, by itself, harmful. It may be the symptom of a mental illness, but in that case the appropriate response would be therapy, not imprisonment.
You have failed to demonstrate that it is a harmless actions, and again and again and again you ignore that it has been explained to you again and again and again that it is not harmless, and that it creates demand.
Quote:We've gone off on a tangent about whether or not paedophilia is an illness. I'm happy to discuss this side issue, but it is a side issue. My defence of the viewing of child porn is not an argument to the effect that paedophilia is not a pathological condition. Paedophilia might be a pathological condition. Nevertheless, paedophiles who merely view child porn do not deserve to go to prison.
This is not a side issue. It goes to the heart of the issue. That paedophilia is a psychologically morbid pathology is not doubted by the professional community. Governments have a right to prevent those who have a psychologically morbid pathology from feeding their sickness. If you fail to obey the law, you'll suffer the consequences.
Quote:Not true. They don't necessarily want to engage in sexual abuse. I personally want to engage in consentual sex with pubescent girls. That is commonly thought to be impossible (since they can't consent). All that means is that my sexual fantasies are unrealistic. Wanting to have consentual sex with a child is perhaps like wanting to ride a unicorn; it can't be done. But just because you can't ride a unicorn, that doesn't mean that people who want to ride unicorns actually want to ride horses. And just because I can't (let's assume) have consensual sex with a pubescent girl, that doesn't mean that I want to have unconsensual sex with a pubescent girl. Paedophiles don't necessarily want to abuse, they just want to have normal sex where normal sex is impossible (or at least, most people believe it's impossible).
Yes, it is true. To engage in sexual conduct with a pubescent girl is sexual abuse. That you can't face that doesn't invalidate it. It is completely unrealistic to describe that as "normal sex," which is what i've been hammering you about. It is completely false for you to attempt to suggest that such behavior is just "normal sex"
Quote:Quote:I've never said that i hate you or that i hate paedophiles.
You've been very rude to me, you at least can't deny that.
I don't deny it. That is not evidence of hatred. In fact, i'd like to have been even more rude to you than i have been. If you continue to dredge up the same horseshit again and again, and attempt to insist that it be refuted each time you bring it, even though this has already been done repeatedly, i will likely get more rude than i have been.
I don't hate paedophiles, but i'm beginning to despise you as i've never despised anyone i've met online.
Quote:I use that analogy because I know that you believe that paedophilia is an illness. The point I want to get across with the analogy is that it is irrational for you to think that paedophilia is an illness, and yet be so venomous towards paedophiles for having their illness.
No, you brought up schizophrenia before i ever described it as a psychologically morbid pathology. In fact, it was precisely because you attempted to compare paedophilia to schizophrenia that i took up the point. You could not have known what i do or don't believe before i had informed you of it.
Once again you are being dishonest.
That means you've just provided more evidence that you are a liar.
Quote:But my thread isn't about my sexuality! I'm not lying... You and others started talking about my sexuality. Not me. I started a thread about ethics.
Liar--you bring it up in the introductory post. I've now quoted the relevant sentence twice.
Quote:I'm not worried about the topic of this thread; we're obviously not discussing cannibalism. You're accusing me of coming here and parading my sexuality in front of you.
No, i've accused and will continue to accuse you of parading your sickness (it is not a sexuality, but it is hilarious that you continually deny that you are discussing sexuality, but you also continually characterize your sick obsession that way) in front of
everbody, while whining about how unfair it is that you cannot pursue your sick obsessions..
Quote:You're clutching at straws. That is not what you had in mind when you used that phrase. You called me his spiritual brother because you want to lump us both in to some sort of category so that it makes it easier for you to distance yourself from us, and easier for other people to agree with your condemnation of both of our views (i.e. if people think hawkeye is like me, they'll treat him like a paedophile; or if people think I am like hawkeye, they'll treat me like somebody who is in favour of rape, which couldn't be further from the truth by the way).
No, i'm not. You and Hawkeye are spiritual brothers because you both want to engage in sex with children under the age of consent. You've admitted as much in this thread, in the post which i have been quoting.
Liar.
