User Controls
Posts by gadzooks
-
2019-03-10 at 1:15 PM UTC in Little girls are tight.
Originally posted by Technologist If my child came to me and said he had pedophilic tendencies, you can bank Iād get him continued psychiatric help. Accepting this as normal, is not normal.
That's exactly my same position.
I do not accept pedophilia as "normal". I see it as an affliction that requires (humane!) treatment.
I'd be devastated to find out a child of mine were sexually abused, but I'd be equally taken aback if I discovered my own child had those same tendencies.
I would want them to get help, and I would fight as much as I could to ensure they get that help and don't end up becoming outcast from society and vilified as monsters.
It could literally happen to anyone. People don't just get bit by the pedophile bug and turn out that way.
So that's why I endorse a compassionate approach towards treatment.
The fewer traumatized people out there, the better. That's the bottom line. -
2019-03-10 at 1:10 PM UTC in I bet none of you have ever even been outside of the US
-
2019-03-10 at 1:09 PM UTC in Random image thread
-
2019-03-10 at 1:08 PM UTC in Random image thread
-
2019-03-10 at 1:07 PM UTC in Random image thread1. Valium.
2. Special K.
3. Crack.
4. (Alcoholic) Ginger beer.
5. *knock knock knock* "It's the feds, bruh!" -
2019-03-10 at 1:06 PM UTC in Random image thread
-
2019-03-10 at 12:52 PM UTC in Little girls are tight.
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING V: A Cat-Girl/Boy Under Every Bed So this work of fiction is real in your mind?
Including the motiveless false accusation.
It's literally a made up blood libel, and you're too dumb to realise that.
Man, I haven't read the book in over 20 years...
Plus it's 10 minutes to 6 (AM) out here...
Plus I been drinking, snorting K, and smoking crack all night...
Maybe you're right and I totally misinterpreted it in my earlier curricucucking in public high school.
Call it wishful thinking, but I like to think that Atticus was a decent, compassionate man who defended an accused criminal because nobody else would, and only he could see the humanity in his client.
Call it wrong, I don't even know at this point. -
2019-03-10 at 12:49 PM UTC in Gadzooks feels that alcohol withdrawal is more undesirable than benzodiazepine withdrawal...
-
2019-03-10 at 12:37 PM UTC in Gadzooks feels that alcohol withdrawal is more undesirable than benzodiazepine withdrawal...WellHung, you understand me pretty well.
I respect that. -
2019-03-10 at 12:36 PM UTC in Little girls are tight.
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING V: A Cat-Girl/Boy Under Every Bed All the blacks and the lawyer are enlightened, intelligent, kind, and pure as driven snow.
All the whites (beside the lawyer) are comically evil, stupid, cruel and venal.
Lots of other shit, but this stands out.
That doesn't necessarily imply some kind of white-guilt radical liberal agenda, though.
The thing with literature is that it's open to interpretation, and subsequent generations will interpret the same story as influenced by different contexts.
At the time the book was written, you HAVE TO admit that blacks were at a huge disadvantage compared to whites.
Say what you want about affirmative action and black lives matter and all that stuff today, but when that book came out, whites were absolutely privileged compared to their black counterparts. When that white bitch (can't remember her name) yelled rape, they all believed her and rounded up the negro. Atticus Finch was an iconoclast in that town because he came to the defense of a true underdog.
It's a piece of fiction, people will have varying opinions. But I personally think that it was a very important piece of American history. -
2019-03-10 at 12:26 PM UTC in Little girls are tight.
-
2019-03-10 at 12:26 PM UTC in Little girls are tight.
-
2019-03-10 at 12:24 PM UTC in Compared to honkies, niggers have DNA that more closely resembles chimpanzees...
-
2019-03-10 at 12:23 PM UTC in Little girls are tight.
-
2019-03-10 at 12:22 PM UTC in Little girls are tight.
-
2019-03-10 at 12:21 PM UTC in Little girls are tight.
Originally posted by -SpectraL Lotta pedos and pedo apologists up in dis here tred.
And this... this right here...
I explicitly mentioned that I see value in having laws of consent.
Yet I also believe in showing some compassion for people with paraphilias (such as pedophilia).
So, like, do I just end up getting hated by both sides or something?
Maybe it's a fight just not even worth fighting.
Fuck, I dunno. -
2019-03-10 at 12:20 PM UTC in Little girls are tight.
Originally posted by Sophie I don't think my "paraphilia" is a pathology. Therefore i would be a hypocrite if i were to say anyone's proclivities are more or less valid than mine. Here's another can of worms, what makes a pathology a pathology? That's something important to think about in this context.
Also, the pro pedo crowd is just edgy about their sexuality because it triggers normies. And can you blame them? I don't think so, pedos are nearly universally hated. Regardless whether they have ever touched a child inappropriately or not.
Luckily i am non-exclusive so i can like girls up to my age, but God damn, i can't imagine how shitty life would be if i could only like little girls.
Again, I am not the arbiter of what acts result in trauma and what acts don't. For thousands of years, normal families started with teenagers, and even at time pre-teens, getting married and starting to have kids. No one batted an eye.
Is this proof positive that age of consent laws are unnatural? My argument isn't a FIRM yes OR a FIRM no. It's a tricky subject.
Of course you have a vested interest in the outcome of that question, if it even is an empirical question. I get that.
Trauma is incredibly difficult to scientifically quantify.
For all we know, no teenage or preteen bride ever experienced even an iota of trauma throughout history because nobody was there to intervene with their puritan/feminist ethics.
But cognitive bias is always going to play a role. Anyone who isn't a 100% electromechanical robot is going to be influenced, to some degree, by cognitive bias.
But the thing here is that I am trying to appeal to the EXACT SAME moral principle when I'm getting into arguments against the unempathetic/sadistic pedophobes, as when I'm arguing with the genuine pedophile folks who see absolutely nothing wrong with their orientation.
It just comes down to walking a mile in the other person's shoes (yeah, I know, cliche English 12 novel, but To Kill a Mockingbird was pretty educational and full of applicable wisdom).
To the same extent that I don't want to see someone who is attracted to children, even if they go so far as to act on it, be brutalized and utterly dehumanized stripped of all dignity, I also empathize with the children who MAY OR MAY NOT have been traumatized by the whole ordeal.
In my humble opinion, at least, I feel like your every day citizen has somewhat of a duty to err on the side of caution.
We may not have absolutely, incontrovertible proof that adult-child sex leaves debilitating emotional scars, but we also can't say with certainty that it's entirely harmless, can we? -
2019-03-10 at 12:07 PM UTC in Random Thoughts*moved to Mongolvoid*
-
2019-03-10 at 11:57 AM UTC in I bet none of you have ever even been outside of the US
-
2019-03-10 at 11:53 AM UTC in Little girls are tight.
Originally posted by Sophie You might argue an adult can manipulate a child into thinking whatever was going on is acceptable. And that argument would make sense, but what is the actual issue here. Surely it must be the potential damage done to the child? If the child never experiences anything as damaging or traumatizing then your argument falls through. You might say: "But what makes you the grand arbiter of what is damaging to a child or not?" And i would counter with what makes you that? You might think you have the moral high ground because you percieve me to have ulterior motives but that is discounting the fact i might actually have empathy as well, and wouldn't in any circumstance, purposefully hurt or traumatize a child. Or an adult for that matter.
Spare me the moral judgement, you don't know me.
Hey, I'm not trying to claim that adult-child sexual relationships are unequivocally/unilaterally traumatizing. But I'm also not comfortable conceding automatically they aren't.
You're right when you say it's quite a can of worms.
You're a big boy, you don't need me to come to your defense on anything. But, for whatever reason, I have a certain kind of sympathy/empathy for anyone with any kind of obscure so-called "paraphilia".
Sexual drives are absolutely fundamental to human biology and psychology.
I have my own proclivities that are, to my own fortunate fate, totally legal, but they are certainly not simple or anywhere near vanilla.
I have a major femdom problem (and that might be where the two of us differ in our perspectives... I see my paraphilia as a pathology). I don't like that I can only get off by either being humiliated or even physically dominated, or at the very least having to pretend that that's what's happening when I'm having regular vanilla sex.
I like you, and I will come to defense of anyone being treated like some kind of modern day witch or leper for having atypical sexual proclivities, but when it comes to the issue of consent between adult and child, it is a VERY grey area as far as I'm concerned.
So, I dunno, I'm just kinda letting it out there and clearing the air about where I stand.
You're gonna keep doing you, Krow will keep doing him, and all the other folks on here will carry on with whatever their stance is on the subject.
To me it is a very complex subject that needs to be treaded on lightly, and the fervent anti-pedo crowd are not helping in that regard, but, I have to admit, neither are the fervent pro-pedo crowd (like Phantasmagoria, vinny - if he's even being serious and not trolling, I just can't tell with him, etc).
