6
   

Is 'liking children' wrong, if you don't harm kids?

NSFW Forums: Spirituality And Religion, Philosophy, Debate, Pedophilia, Pedophiles
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Mon 4 Jun, 2007 08:12 pm
neologist wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
. . . Quote from Chai acknowledged. . ..20 pages of this sustained idiocy. Someone who thinks about children IS NOT the same as someone WHO THINKS HE WILL HARM THEM. Get that through your thick skull arleady.
Bill, the fact of the matter is that one who finds an underage person sexually attractive and subsequently ruminates on his/her desire, even in a small way, has already contemplated harm.
Another one ignoring the simple context, despite a dozen clarifications. The thought isn't the reason to self terminate; the prevention is. If one thinks he will act; do as I suggest. If one thinks about acting it is NOT THE SAME. How can so many literate people have so much trouble with the printed word after a dozen clarifications?
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Mon 4 Jun, 2007 08:16 pm
Answer....

Because you're trying to make this about anyone but you.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Mon 4 Jun, 2007 08:17 pm
Chai wrote:
The real well meaning man doesn't need to keep restating his case.
Rolling Eyes More mindless idiocy, ridiculous accusations and the restating is only brought on by the myriad of people obtusely convoluting the intent in my prior statements, whether it's intentional or not. I doubt it's intentional in your case.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Mon 4 Jun, 2007 08:22 pm
Chai wrote:

You know who stared at me? Men like you bill.


I was checking you out as well, Chai. I'm man enough to admit that.

And, might I add, you were one hot-looking 18 year-old. Hubba hubba.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Mon 4 Jun, 2007 08:24 pm
Chai wrote:
Answer....Because you're trying to make this about anyone but you.
Your intuition about is horribly wrong, and terribly offensive. My name and person is well known on A2K and hidden to no one. Were there anything but idiocy to explain your inexplicable conclusion; it would likely be easy to dig up, since I am not anonymous.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Mon 4 Jun, 2007 08:28 pm
doesn't make it any less true bill.

a well meaning man doesn't need to keep restating his case.

a man grasping at straws retorts to tired insults ad nauseum.

the same lame insults towards me over and over...I swear, you sound like a young boy.

oh yeah....well...you're stupid! Rolling Eyes
well....you're an idiot!
I know you are, but what am I?

Jesus bill, do you really think your calling me names is having any impact on me? or anyone? Honestly, each time you use the word idiot or similar I wonder what you think you're accomplishing. Unless that is you're used to dealing with someone who is of an age that names like that would bother them.

You'd come across a lot better if you left the grade school insults out of your posts.

The bottem line is, it's fine when you do it, awful and horrific when others have the same thoughts.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Mon 4 Jun, 2007 08:29 pm
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
Chai. I'm man enough to admit that.

And, might I add, you were one hot-looking 18 year-old. Hubba hubba.



Yes, I certainly was.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Mon 4 Jun, 2007 08:38 pm
Chai wrote:
bla, bla, bla,…


The bottem line is, it's fine when you do it, awful and horrific when others have the same thoughts.
No, the bottom line is; when the same idiotic tact is taken, over and over, I lose patience and simply call it what it is. I shouldn't have to reword the exact same thought a dozen times to be understood. Go back a few dozen pages and you'll see our fearless leader understood and re-worded my point effortlessly, first try (despite disagreeing as strenuously as most of you). He was exhibiting the opposite of idiocy... but even those of average intelligence should have caught up after an explanation or two. You apparently never will.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Mon 4 Jun, 2007 08:51 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Eorl: Your hang up isn't much less idiotic. Does it strike you as at all odd that you have to resort to finding grey areas to refute my suggestion, instead of facing it head on? (no pun intended Laughing) Here; I'll make it easier for you, with this amendment: If you think you fall into a grey area; please refrain from blowing your head of until you figure it out. Otherwise, please proceed immediately.

Happy?


No it isn't odd. I was talking about the radio interview you didn't listen to. The person described their gradual descent into deeper levels of grey, from normal and legal to slightly less so....at which point in this process is suicide recommended, the first time he realises the hot chick on the screen may not be of legal age?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Mon 4 Jun, 2007 08:55 pm
Eorl wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Eorl: Your hang up isn't much less idiotic. Does it strike you as at all odd that you have to resort to finding grey areas to refute my suggestion, instead of facing it head on? (no pun intended Laughing) Here; I'll make it easier for you, with this amendment: If you think you fall into a grey area; please refrain from blowing your head of until you figure it out. Otherwise, please proceed immediately.

Happy?


No it isn't odd. I was talking about the radio interview you didn't listen to. The person described their gradual descent into deeper levels of grey, from normal and legal to slightly less so....at which point in this process is suicide recommended, the first time he realises the hot chick on the screen may not be of legal age?
Good point, Eorl. Perhaps one should start out by only shooting himself in the foot. Unless it gets really bad.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Mon 4 Jun, 2007 09:24 pm
Eorl wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Eorl: Your hang up isn't much less idiotic. Does it strike you as at all odd that you have to resort to finding grey areas to refute my suggestion, instead of facing it head on? (no pun intended Laughing) Here; I'll make it easier for you, with this amendment: If you think you fall into a grey area; please refrain from blowing your head of until you figure it out. Otherwise, please proceed immediately.

Happy?


No it isn't odd. I was talking about the radio interview you didn't listen to. The person described their gradual descent into deeper levels of grey, from normal and legal to slightly less so....at which point in this process is suicide recommended, the first time he realises the hot chick on the screen may not be of legal age?
I cannot discuss the specifics of a program I didn't and am not interested in listening to. Based on what you've said; I doubt I'd be able to define the line in the sand anyway. Suffice to say the recommendation remains an alternative to hurting kids. Any sicko contemplating following it will have to make up his own mind as far as where critical mass is met. I remain confident that the majority who would follow such advise, will do so only if (s)he thinks it's necessary… and I'm happy to trust in their heroic judgment.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Mon 4 Jun, 2007 09:50 pm
My take is still that you took a stupid position and choose to ridicule the several who are rightfully puzzled by it, rather than have the grace to back away from it.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jun, 2007 06:25 am
Does anyone imagine that Bill knows any other insult that stems from the word "idiot"?

Who, by the way, is our "fearless leader"?

dlowan?

All due respect, but I don't think anyone on this forum serves as a leader to me. Well, maybe gus.

see, an unimpressionable adult doesn't require some wise elder, like a 39 year old man, to look up to.

Also (all this is in no particular order), what does Bill's being "well known" on A2K have to do with anything?

anyone.....?

anyone.....?

I see you as well known for nauseating flirting, and letting poor young victims of abuse know you're always a shoulder they can cry on. What would they do without you bill? What a comfort you must be.

Just to mix things up a little bit bill....let's try something really new and fresh.

Stop using the tired word idiot, or any derivitive of it. It's boring.

The problem is, if you take all the insults and talk about shooting people or their shooting themselves out of it, you'd have nothing left to say.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jun, 2007 06:45 am
Re: Is 'liking children' wrong, if you don't harm kids?
The Pentacle Queen wrote:
BUT, what is wrong with a sexual feeling towards children? Isn't it just like being gay? Or being straight for that matter.

There is nothing morally wrong with lusting for a child except for its tendency to lead to child abuse. I'm not sure if this statement means much because the part after the "except for" may well be a very big deal. We're unlikely to find out how big this deal really is, because people who don't act on their sexual preference for children are unlikely to talk about their preference. But my answers to the questions as you stated them are `nothing per se', `yes', and `yes'.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jun, 2007 07:10 am
Thank you Thomas for getting us back on track.


That is, ultimately, the correct answer.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jun, 2007 09:16 am
Re: Is 'liking children' wrong, if you don't harm kids?
Thomas wrote:
The Pentacle Queen wrote:
BUT, what is wrong with a sexual feeling towards children? Isn't it just like being gay? Or being straight for that matter.

There is nothing morally wrong with lusting for a child except for its tendency to lead to child abuse. I'm not sure if this statement means much because the part after the "except for" may well be a very big deal. We're unlikely to find out how big this deal really is, because people who don't act on their sexual preference for children are unlikely to talk about their preference. But my answers to the questions as you stated them are `nothing per se', `yes', and `yes'.
You're right about the "except for", Thomas. Jesus wasn't just flapping his lips when he talked about one committing adultery in his heart (Matt 5:28) The danger of ruminating on one's desires has been known for a long time. (See also James 1:14)

And the worst thing is your observation that folks are unlikely to talk about their sexual fantasies until it may be too late. Why might that be?

Could it be that the fantasy offender avoids this vital intervention because of social attitudes similar to that of Bill? Attitudes such as:
Pedophiles cannot be cured.
They should be locked up or castrated or both, if not executed.
They should have a special license plate as has been proposed in one American state legislature.
How about signs in their front yards? ETC.

Under these circumstances, how many would seek the advice or help that they need?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jun, 2007 09:21 am
Re: Is 'liking children' wrong, if you don't harm kids?
neologist wrote:
And the worst thing is your observation that folks are unlikely to talk about their sexual fantasies until it may be too late. Why might that be?

Because they are afraid of the anti-pedophile lynchmobs that can form when they do? (You appear to be a proud member of these yourself.) I have seen the dynamic when a friend of a friend "came out" about it and asked his family for help. Based on what happened afterwards, I cannot in good conscience recommend that anyone follow his example.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jun, 2007 09:29 am
Re: Is 'liking children' wrong, if you don't harm kids?
Thomas wrote:
neologist wrote:
And the worst thing is your observation that folks are unlikely to talk about their sexual fantasies until it may be too late. Why might that be?

Because they are afraid of the anti-pedophile lynchmobs that can form when they do? I have seen the dynamic when a friend of a friend "came out" about it and asked his family for help. Based on what happened afterwards, I cannot in good conscience recommend that anyone follow his example.
I recommend the first step is to ask a lawyer for advice. (Clergy, maybe.)
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jun, 2007 09:33 am
Re: Is 'liking children' wrong, if you don't harm kids?
neologist wrote:
I recommend the first step is to ask a lawyer for advice. (Clergy, maybe.)

I agree about the lawyer, and would substitute the clergy with a psychotherapist.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jun, 2007 04:20 pm
Re: Is 'liking children' wrong, if you don't harm kids?
Thomas wrote:
neologist wrote:
I recommend the first step is to ask a lawyer for advice. (Clergy, maybe.)

I agree about the lawyer, and would substitute the clergy with a psychotherapist.



I think the lawyer thing is only de rigeur if you have DONE something....anyhoo, some people who HAVE done something feel it important to confess this, and experience the proper legal response, as part of the process of making reparation to anyone they have hurt, and in order to not have to live with secrets and fear any more.


And I would be consulting a service which specializes in such problems, not just a psychotherapist. It's a pretty specialist area.


As I have argued in the thread, I agree that the kind of lynch mob mentality expressed by some here is a strong factor preventing people from acknowledging and seeking help for their problem.

However, of course, one can seek help without telling anyone.

In the cases I mentioned re people I know personally, telling people was very helpful in terms of establishing safety and supporting people's efforts to be in control, (and there are many cases know about professionally, but cannot, therefore, discuss, where this was very helpful too) but you would want to be pretty confident that your circle was not of the witch burning variety.

I gather the addiction model programs (one of the many horses in the AA progeny stable) DO require that people tell wives, for instance, but there are many programs which do not use that sort of model, finding it extremely unhelpful.


The research re moving on from fantasy to action as reported in the program I linked to seemed to be suggesting that there is a group for whom fantasy suffices, and a group for whom it doesn't.


The problem is differentiating them, among other issues.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
Family files lawsuit against school over Jesus - Discussion by Baldimo
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is 'liking children' wrong, if you don't harm kids?
  3. » Page 15
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.58 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 06:13:54
▲ ▼