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

You are the only one playing word games here Occom Bill. You are trying to win debating points, if you think you have, then good for you.

I find your original suggestion ignorant and abhorrent whether it refers to everyone who ever looked at child or only to hardcore paedophiles. You utterly reject the idea that they could be understood and assisted with the problem. That you advocate suicide as a mental health solution is ridiculous in the extreme.

I'll join dlowan in not serving to forward your hateful agenda any further on this thread.

It never ceases to amaze me the length some people will go to in attempts to defend indefensibly stupid statements.

I couldn't agree more that he who kills or maims while committing the serious crime of DUI is a dangerous criminal and should be treated accordingly... though I do not see the crime of DUI as the equivalent of Child Molestation. Nor does any other rational person.

No one but you suggested it was. That doesn't make your idiotic lumping less idiotic.

Your feigned inability to differentiate the potential for harm caused by each is idiotic. Hence, if it isn't feigned; you sir are an idiot.

Utter nonsense that utterly ignores your highlighted deliberate dishonesty.

This is certainly a reasonable opinion... one no doubt shared by many on this thread. It isn't justification for building straw man arguments, denying them when they're pointed out nor accusing me of having played the word game in the first place.

Suit yourself. I'll continue to hope he who is likely to harm children shows the heroic decency to harm himself instead.

You must have been reading my mind.


Not only are more cases being reported, but #'s of any heinous thing like this rise because there are simply more people.

Not only are more cases being reported, but we are more aware of what goes on outside our immediate families, because (a) we're not as afraid to talk about it (b) because of our communication systems today, we are aware of the actual numbers.

I would be curious to know what the per capita # of pedophiles is today as opposed to 50, 100, 500, 1000 years ago, and more. Of course we can't know the # from fifty years ago, because it was not discussed in that generation. Who knows though if 500 years ago it was discussed more when some man or woman in the town was buggering kids and it was brought out and dealt with. I just don't know.

I can't name the source (sorry) but I do remember doing some reading on serial killers. The gist of it was the # of serial killers per capita has not changed, but because of communication, and most importantly, the ability of a serial killer to move about the world so quickly and freely, they get a lot more of the work done, we hear about them more and so we think it's an outbreak. Plus, if there's only 1 out of a million that does this, obviously they increase as the population does.

I'm not going to stoop to petty name calling, and if my words are perfect here, it's because I'm not going back to see if someone put an "it" before or after a the word "the" It's a huge waste of time IMO when anyone wants someone to go back to check such minutia, we're all adults and can explain our differences without resorting to complaining, but I said "desire" not whatever. We all know how to infer someones implication.

Bill....and without starting a stupid argument....Please get real. First off, discussing what someone like Dennis Miller said, and you can't even remember his exact words, can only go so far. Without all the word switching and stressing one part of a sentence over the other, the bottom line is you think someone with sex thoughts about a child should pick up a gun and shoot themselves....forget all this "capable of" and stuff. The bottom line is you feel they should be immediately done away with, and best if they do it voluntarily.

Also Bill, you do tend to twist words to attempt to get them to say what you want to. I've read your posts, and, while this I can't call a fault because I'm wordy myself, you tend to mish mash and dance so many things together it's difficult to understand what you're getting at, without having to often go back and dissect word for word prior posts of yours and others. Frankly, I don't have the time for that. It bugs me when I see anyone doing that, because it just clogs up the flow of communication.

Finally, something you said about "inferential" postings, or some word like that. I take that to mean, that the posts you know I'm addressing were not meant to be serious...well, perhaps not, perhaps so...but I do know your little party of naughty innuedos and tittering went on far to long for my taste, and it was sexually sickening to me. Now....the reason I brought that up is to compare it to, let's say a situation where an adult is saying something to a child that the adult assumes is not really that bad, just joking....I'm not going to use any specific words so they won't get torn apart....But let's even say it's words that you, as another adult, don't seem terrible...but what of the child? They may very well associate those words with yucky awful things, and be very disturbed.

How can I say this? Because it's happened to me on several occassions growing up. And if it's happened to me, it's happened to others. What makes a pedophile, when does it cross over the line? Is it when touching occurs, or when something is said that causes the spoken to to take it in a sexual way, even though it was not meant that way.

Your discussion re young women brushing their breasts on you may, in your mind, been all in good fun. However, and I'm not picking on you Bill, it would have been any man who was saying this, I came away with the feeling of having been confronted by a grade A #1 pervert. I'm sure you are sitting there shocked at my interpretation, but that goes to show intent does not always = reaction. If you say I over reacted, is that invalidating my feelings, telling me it wasn't really bad? That I'm the one with the problem? Isn't that what a pedophile does with a child? If I was more of a reactionary person, I could have found myself thinking, or even saying to others..."if someone can make another feel so sick and bad about their bodies, they'd be doing everyone a favor and blow their brains out" I feel the opportunity has come up in this topic to broaden it from pedophilia....it's about ALL types of actions statements that are harmful to ALL people.

Yes, yes....it's all about the children, but children grow into adults, and the feelings and reactions of children about some things don't change, and shouldn't change into adulthood.

To me, and I'm sure this will be refuted by some and make others scandalized...it's NOT all about the children....It's all about the PEOPLE. When it boils down to it, the hurt caused by abusing childen sexually, either physically or verbally is just as bad as doing that for an adult. The line that's given in response that "but the adult can speak for themselves" is not only not always true, but it doesn't make the disgust for what was imposed on them any less.

So Bill...and again, this is with no malice because I don't believe you have looked at it this way....your joking around about womens breasts was objectifying and gross and nasty, and saying it wasn't because you were addressing adults didn't make it any less queasy making. It was embarrassing to witness.

cj....and without starting a stupid argument....you believe you know no one who has these inclinations. Given the number of people you interact with on a daily, monthly, yearly basis....I would say it's a safe bet that you do.

You're quite quick about calling people names, and that's to change the subject and or build yourself up.
BTW - The bashing you said I put you through? I thought about that, and the only time I could think of was when I was attempting to get you to stop calling all Americans sexually ignorant, uneducated buffoons.

In addition, this friend thing you claim....I don't know which members you're talking about, but I don't know eorl very well, nor neologist, nor dlowan. So, I know you weren't talking about me.


Now, can we all get away from this stupid crap and continue the topic?

What are you talking about? I have never advocated death,
much less instant death, for pedophilic thinking. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I haven't entered this topic in a serious way because it's one I know nothing about. I have no idea of the rate or success of "rehabilitation" for pedophiles. I have no idea what makes them pedophiles or what could stop them or prevent it in the first place.

I would suspect there are as many answers as pedophiles, however.

Mame, this seems to be the theme of this thread. It is understandable
that this is a difficult subject, especially for us who have children.

I see there is a lot of rancor and vitriol being splattered around on this thread. What's the problem? Oh, now I see. It all started back when you guys decided to take Dennis Miller's quote literally. It's a goddammed joke, everyone.

And just to add to the stupidity, he was misquoted. This is what he actually said.



This, people, is what is referred to as an exaggeration. A joke. I'm sure that if you asked Dennis Miller himself, or any person who actually has the capacity to think beyond the end of his or her nose, you will find that they would agree that a person should seek help first before killing themselves. But that just doesn't sound as funny. And believe me, when he told that joke, it was funny. Not meant to be taken literally though, I'm sure.

Only an idiot would argue that this joke should be taken as the best possible solution in cases such as these.

And even if someone did want to argue this, the words, "the only way out" as modifiers pretty much exclude the option of going to seek help. If it's the only way out (meaning that you have ruled out seeking help as an option), then yes, killing yourself is the best option. So you see, you have nothing to argue about in either case.

Thank you kicky.


But then again, neither of us have children, so what do we know.

If we did we'd probably both be pimping them out.

I can ill imagine a less fitting opening to such a moronic filibuster.

I'm getting quite real. Yes, I absolutely think someone who recognizes they will hurt children, would do the world a favor by hurting themselves instead. It is not an inconsequential quibble to deny deliberately false interpretations that suggest my point is about "anyone with sex thoughts". Your suggestion is akin to asking me to leave the "having been proven guilty" part out of support for the death penalty... or the "motive" out of a murder. It is you who needs to get real. I am perfectly willing to defend my admittedly extreme positions on violence, but you can bet your last dollar I will attack idiotic, deliberate, mischaracterizations of my arguments with dilligence.

When people are honest about what's been written and why; there's no need beyond referrence points for quote dissecting. When forced to seperate points from rheems of meaningless babble (like you last post), I find it necessary for clarity... even a courtesy.

I meant simply that you inferred offensive contend where none was even implied let alone intended. Your comparison remains idiotic to the extreme. Even if that thread was designed and produced to cause offense; comparing it to the deeds of a child molesting monster would be no less idiotic. Get a grip.

You're entitled to this opinion, at least.
Yes. You are the one with the problem. If the content of a particular thread bothers you; don't read it. This is in no way anologous to a child having heinous crimes perpetrated against them. Are you really that thick?

Perhaps you should reread the idiotic crap you write before posting. You're now suggesting someone should blow their head off for creating an offensive thead (to you, not most), while comparing it to the deeds of a child molester. I can hardly imagine a more idiotic position to defend.


Then why not start a thread about it?

Yes, we're all well aware of your lack of concern for children. You illustrate it regularly when you viciously attack young teens with a mentality that barely matches theirs.

I couldn't rightly care less if your mind numbing inability to scale is meant with malice. If you don't like a thread; don't read it. That you would compare posting it to a heinous crime like child molestation is what you should be embarrassed about.

That's a hoot after such a long tirade of attempting to bring relatively trivial complaints up to the level of heinous crimes, and even suggesting the topic be broadened to include them. You really should re-read your idiotic drivel before posting it.

Kicky, few comedians recycle their own jokes as often as Dennis Miller. The quote you found was further from the one I paraphrased, I assure you. If you like Dennis; then you know the reason he's funny is because he usually makes sound, though extreme, points into jokes. Few people, let alone comedians, work real positions into so few words so effectively, IMO. I also like his take best on Abortion and the Death Penalty.

Bill, you need help.

This is a bit off topic, but I think it merits posting on the whole Dennis is just a comedian thing...
Dennis on Cp,

People want to do away with Capital Punishment on the grounds that it's cruel and unusual. Let's break it down: Is it cruel? Of course it is… that's why we only do it to the bad people… and it wouldn't be so damned unusual if we did it more often.

Dennis on Abortion,
In response to the clever titles of "Pro-Life" and "Pro Choice" he iterated that no one is "Pro-Abortion"… which is a solid point. He's also stated that it's none of his business, because he's never going to have to have one. Also that the whole legal interference is sexist; because if it were men who had to get them; they'd be easier to get than a hotdog at a ballgame… then closed by listing off the very best of the Pro-Life arguments and suggesting that every woman take them under consideration before making her decision.
Sorry for the off-topic meandering; I just wanted to clarify that a comedian can be funny and make a lot of sense, at the same time.

Snappy lines do not a solid argument make. At least not in all cases.

I actually think we agree, for the most part. Yes, on the face of it, that Dennis Miller quote makes logical sense. The point that I'm trying to make though, is that you don't always have to go the most extreme measures in order to stop someone from doing something wrong.

And furthermore, I doubt highly that a would-be child-murderer knows exactly when he or she is at a point when they might actually go through with something like that. I think that it's probably the kind of thing that a lot of people would think they've got under control right up until the moment they cross the line and do something horrible. It's not a real-life situation. It's a joke with a cynical, acerbic edge to it, that's all.

This particular quote isn't meant as a blanket answer to any specific situation, in my opinion. I feel that it's just a statement that shows how repulsive this kind of thing is to Dennis and nothing more. But the way you have argued here, it sounds like you are actually making a blanket statement advocating that these wack-jobs all take this most extreme route in every case. Are you? I don't think you are, but it's coming across that way.

Dennis Miller ain't funny to me.

Reading along, nodding to kicky's last post.

(Oh, not because of friendship. What is that about? I like everyone posting, no matter how much I sputter from time to time.)

And so, to support a stupidly extreme position, based on an acerbic joke that you've taken to heart and made into your pet pique, you posit a straw man argument and say "though I do not see the crime of DUI as the equivalent of Child Molestation," when in fact the claim made--following your stupid position in a logical manner--was that kids getting killed and maimed by DUI as*holes was a victimization of kids comparable to that of other victimizations of kids. Child molestation harms kids in mental/emotional ways. DUI "accidents" involving kids not only harms kids in mental/emotional ways, it kills and maims them physically. They are not equivalent in this manner. They are equivalent in the manner that they both victimize children. They are not equivalent in that DUI "accidents" victimize women, and also men in addition to children. In this regard DUI as*holes pose a greater risk to the team than child molesters.

According to the stupidly extreme position, it is incumbent upon DUI as*holes to take one for the team because the inherent threat posed by the recidivism rate of these selfsame as*holes is too great a threat to the team to bear.

Just remember, when taking the big one for the team, make sure it's a winner.

Damn kicky, you sure know how to throw a wet towel on the fun I was having with our resident extremist simplton. What isn't so funny about all of this is that this psycho actually takes Miller's joke to heart.

A surprisingly thoughtful post, Kick... good on you. But let me go ahead and remove all doubt: YES! I am 100% (would be a trillion % were it possible) in favor of every coc*sucker who would molest children, given a chance, put a bullet in his own dome instead. 100%, let there be no doubt. PM me your telephone number if you need encouragement to find the strength to do the right thing and I promise to provide as much encouragement as I can conjure. If you are this sick f*ck... then you already know my advice is spot on. Don't be a coward. For once in your life, just once, stand up and do what you know needs to be done (and you know well that it does need to be done you sick f*ck), do it... and be a hero... be the savior instead of the piece of sh!t you know you are. Do it. Do it now...

Eh, that wasn't really directed at you, Kick... forgot to break the paragraph...


And IB; nothing Kick, you or I could say could or would make your position less idiotic. Well, I suppose you could just admit as much, but you don't strike me as bright enough for that...