|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 16, 2017 7:04:58 GMT
I'm sure phludowin, it's a real shocker you have the exact same stance re pedo since the old board. Maybe you and eva can break 18-month baby over it. Thanks for proving my point. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 7:06:43 GMT
Pedophila would/could be considered similar to sexual orientation/preferences (what types one is sexually attracted to), but not a sexual identity like transgendered. Yes, you've claimed it's a "misuse of sexuality," but I have no idea what that means or what you think it means (or what relevance it has to this discussion). I agree with everything you said about homosexuality (barring perhaps the "deviant and perverted" part, but it would depend on what you mean by that). All I was saying was that there is no evidence, as far as I know, that pedophilia is any different in the respect of it being something that's inborn and can't be changed (meaning that it doesn't have a "cause" that can be "cured."). That's literally the only possible connection I see between the two. I also admit that I could be wrong. It's just my (rather depressing) suspicion that I'm not. What types one is attracted to, is not always legally consensual though and therefore can be a "misuse" of sexuality. By this I mean, not acting accordingly or appropriately with how we use our sexuality. For instance, drugging somebody to take sexual advantage of them without their consent. Pedophilia is "misusing" sexuality, because it is taking advantage of those that still very impressionable and still have a way to go with physically and mentally maturing. OK, that's fair enough. I'm not sure if I like the term "misuse of sexuality," but I understand what you're saying and agree with it. Child abuse/rape is the actual act of getting it on with children; pedophilia is just the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. I agree homosexuality doesn't need to be changed and is absolutely fine; but for years people thought it "deviant" and thus tried to "cure it" as if it was a disease. That attempt was a massive failure, and I can't help but suspect it would equally be a failure with pedophilia. Given that, I think it would be more productive to find safe outlets and, barring that, some "treatment" programs that are more about redirecting that energy into other activities and counceling as opposed to trying to "cure/change" it (which I don't think will work). Yes, most of us have certain urges and desires we have to control, from those innocuous as "I'd like to eat an entire box of cookies" to those as dangerous as "I'd really like to kill this person right now." The urges/desires we have to resist will depend on the person. But as someone who tremendously enjoys my own sexuality, I can only imagine how miserable I'd be if there was immense social pressure and even laws trying to prevent me from enjoying it, whether by myself or with adult women (my own orientation); and it would be even worse to know that this desire was somehow harmful to those I was attracted to. While it's absolutely true our first concern and sympathies should be for the children (the potential and actual victims), it also shouldn't be too hard to imagine the other side of the coin as well and think that sympathetic treatments (in the form of safe outlets or aforementioned programs) would be preferable to the horrendous things that homosexuals were subjected to for years. Of course, this kind of thinking doesn't work in those for whom sympathy is a zero-sum game (the more you have for one side, the less you must have for the other). I've never thought that way and frankly never understood that way of thinking either. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 7:10:59 GMT
I'm sure phludowin, it's a real shocker you have the exact same stance re pedo since the old board. Maybe you and eva can break 18-month baby over it. Thanks for proving my point. Seriously: "Maybe you and eva can break 18-month baby over it." What kind of sick fuck says that based on the actual disagreements in this thread? I don't know what it's going to take for everyone on this board, regardless of what "side" they're on, to realize that rabbit can be and often is as big an idiot as the Ada/Blade/Erjen brigade. He just usually puts up a better front for a bit longer before it's revealed. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 7:24:51 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:Because the sick f!cks of reality. Those that want 4 year-olds to be fodder for adult predators and those that advocate the wilful termination of 18 month-old toddlers. You guys is what you is.  Edit: and the board begs begin. How long for a slew of ops? Only the pedos know(s). 
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 7:29:30 GMT
tpfkar Those that want 4 year-olds to be fodder for adult predators and those that advocate the wilful termination of 18 month-old toddlers. Neither of which describe me. So your "you and eva can break 18-month baby over it." is just ridiculously disgusting. And there was no "beg." I was responding to what phludowin said. Of course, I'm sure in rabbit-language/logic world, wondering what it's going to take for everyone to realize you're an idiot in response to one of your most idiotic statements is me actually begging everyone to realize you're an idiot. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 16, 2017 7:30:34 GMT
It's entertaining to read the exchange between Eva Yojimbo and cupcakes . Three more pages to go; but I have to take a break. Conclusion: Eva is not lying, and Cupcakes is very narrow-minded. Sorry rabbit, but you really should not insult other posters' intelligence or reading comprehension. I would say that Rabbit has made statements that are based on emotions that give Eva an upperhand in this debate. In any case I do agree that Eva has not lied anywhere as far as I am concerned. Statements such as "Anyone that can envision 4 year-olds or any prepubescents in general as sex objects certainly is [pedo]." JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies never claimed to be a pedo. He claimed to support consent based sex between adults & children (which is an extremely stupid stance in itself), but it is not impossible for one to support such a position without being paedophile. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 7:33:32 GMT
OK, that's fair enough. I'm not sure if I like the term "misuse of sexuality," but I understand what you're saying and agree with it. Child abuse/rape is the actual act of getting it on with children; pedophilia is just the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. I agree homosexuality doesn't need to be changed and is absolutely fine; but for years people thought it "deviant" and thus tried to "cure it" as if it was a disease. That attempt was a massive failure, and I can't help but suspect it would equally be a failure with pedophilia. Given that, I think it would be more productive to find safe outlets and, barring that, some "treatment" programs that are more about redirecting that energy into other activities and counceling as opposed to trying to "cure/change" it (which I don't think will work). Yes, most of us have certain urges and desires we have to control, from those innocuous as "I'd like to eat an entire box of cookies" to those as dangerous as "I'd really like to kill this person right now." The urges/desires we have to resist will depend on the person. But as someone who tremendously enjoys my own sexuality, I can only imagine how miserable I'd be if there was immense social pressure and even laws trying to prevent me from enjoying it, whether by myself or with adult women (my own orientation); and it would be even worse to know that this desire was somehow harmful to those I was attracted to. While it's absolutely true our first concern and sympathies should be for the children (the potential and actual victims), it also shouldn't be too hard to imagine the other side of the coin as well and think that sympathetic treatments (in the form of safe outlets or aforementioned programs) would be preferable to the horrendous things that homosexuals were subjected to for years. Of course, this kind of thinking doesn't work in those for whom sympathy is a zero-sum game (the more you have for one side, the less you must have for the other). I've never thought that way and frankly never understood that way of thinking either. I wouldn't know how else to label it, other than a "misuse" of sexuality. What else can it be? I am taking this term from the Vedas however, and the do's and don'ts Yamas\Niyamas of leading a productive life.
Isn't it really a matter of semantics though, to compartmentalize the abuse\rape of children, from just pedophilia being the desire? If the action is acted out upon, then most would understandably consider it pedophilic behavior and the term pedophile would be attributed as such.
I think a compassionate approach to any malady or mental illness that can't be understood is the best approach; but I think people really need to fight for their own sanity as well and no-one else can really do this except themselves. Some may not have the cognitive ability to do this though, but regards to sexual desire in adults for children, like I have already mentioned earlier, is their a pattern in this behavior, from how these people are brought up and conditioned and from what socio-economic background is it more prevalent? Quick fixes just won't cut it, until the root cause is uncovered.
It is also nice to read your level-headed and compassionate comments about homosexuality, from a heterosexual male.
I think "sexual deviancy" covers it better. Misuse just sounds... odd to me. It's more than just semantics. There's a huge difference in just being attracted to children VS the actual abuse/raping of children. There are many pedophiles who can control their urges and they should be praised rather than condemned because of an attraction they didn't have any control over. I pretty much agree with your entire third paragraph, and if there is any cause that could be found (and cured), I'd certainly like to know about it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 8:00:33 GMT
I think "sexual deviancy" covers it better. Misuse just sounds... odd to me. It's more than just semantics. There's a huge difference in just being attracted to children VS the actual abuse/raping of children. There are many pedophiles who can control their urges and they should be praised rather than condemned because of an attraction they didn't have any control over. I pretty much agree with your entire third paragraph, and if there is any cause that could be found (and cured), I'd certainly like to know about it.
I think "misuse" is a more gentler or generic sounding term and can cover many spectrums with how we use the gift of sexuality. It wouldn't be sexual deviancy if it was a woman using her sexuality to get what she wants out of a male, only perhaps manipulation, but it could still be a misuse if a self-serving agenda is on the table.
Many pedophiles who do control their urges, yet if their desires are still known, human nature will still be very wary and being as it is, they will "unfortunately" condemn as deviant.
Quite frankly, it is not something I really ponder about or tear my hair out over—what little left of it there is—for something that is out of my, or even others control. It is really just wasted energy. It's perhaps just because it's not a common term you hear that it sounds odd, but I can't disagree with the virtues you ascribe to. I agree that it would be human nature to be wary of such a thing, but I was just thinking of it more abstractly as in "we should praise pedophiles who control their urges" rather than praising any specific pedophile who seems to be controlling it for now. Indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 16, 2017 8:01:49 GMT
JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies never claimed to be a pedo. We're all discussing Eddie like he's not here
I had edited my post before you commented on it. I know he was the person who posts under the name you mentioned as when I was mod I could see his email address by that name. I am not sure he wanted to reveal that he is the same person as once Appolo asked him if he were him then he declined to answer when he had initially joined this board. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 8:04:58 GMT
We're all discussing Eddie like he's not here
I had edited my post before you commented on it. I know he was the person who posts under the name you mentioned as when I was mod I could see his email address by that name. I am not sure he wanted to reveal that he is the same person as once Appolo asked him if he were him then he declined to answer when he initially joined this board. Ah, well, I can edit/delete my post too if you think it best. I had suspected he was Eddie for a while and then when he posted his "consent criteria" it basically sealed it for me (and I imagine it would for anyone who was familiar with it from IMDb). EDIT: I'll just delete it anyway since it's not really important. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 8:08:42 GMT
^ Done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 16, 2017 8:09:24 GMT
Cool.  |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 8:13:36 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:You and your 4 year-old foddering, and him and his 18 month toddler killing are definitely ridiculously disgusting. Regardless of how clinically you want to fodderize them. I'm not really too concerned about evagal logic world where advocating a system that offers up 4 year-olds for use by predator adults is not advocating offering up 4 year-olds for use by predator adults, nor the various similar-minded child-consuming types of this board.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 8:22:15 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Aj_June said:Disagree. of course. Anyone who advocates the advocating a system offering 4 year-old up to adults is inescapably one. And you're the one who started this whole line on him in this thread. Just IMDB1 and pally pal connections all over again. Next time you guys trot it out it will be the third of the same situation.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
 
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 16, 2017 8:22:20 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:You and your 4 year-old foddering, and him and his 18 month toddler killing are definitely ridiculously disgusting. Regardless of how clinically you want to fodderize them. I'm not really too concerned about evagal logic world where advocating a system that offers up 4 year-olds for use by predator adults is not advocating offering up 4 year-olds for use by predator adults, nor the various similar-minded child-consuming types of this board.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. killing 18 month olD todDlers? what? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 8:24:14 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. PanLeo said:"Abortion" until 18 months post-birth. That's how minds on this board work, of course.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 16, 2017 8:26:34 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. PanLeo said:"Abortion" until 18 months post-birth. That's how minds on this board work, of course.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. are you sure about that? did he say why? |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 16, 2017 8:37:46 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Aj_June said:Disagree. of course. Anyone who advocates the advocating a system offering 4 year-old up to adults is inescapably one. And you're the one who started this whole line on him in this thread. Just IMDB1 and pally pal connections all over again. Next time you guys trot it out it will be the third of the same situation.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. I brought him in the topic but I didn't say he was a paedophile and in fact I had explicitly stated that it is a good thing that he is not a paedophile (this was before your debate with Eva even began). And I too disagree of course as statements such as "Anyone who advocates the advocating a system offering 4 year-old up to adults is inescapably a paedophile" are based on emtotions. You have got to reflect on the childishness of your statement. People can lend support to certain positions without being benefited from those positions. Sure Eddie's support for such a position is disgusting but he can support such a dubious position without being a pedo. But given that you will continue to present the same illogical argument over and over, I will not continue to waste my time with that and your other pally pal bullsh!t. You have been called out by me on this topic because you have presented an emotion based argument. Likewise PHE_DE called you out for what he accessed of you on this topic. Please continue to throw insults on those who disagree with you as when people disagree with you then they are friends with each other and not because you made some illogical statement. You can babel something below just as you always do but this is last that you will hear from me on this topic. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 8:44:15 GMT
"Foddering" is not a word. No idea what you mean by it. If you mean what I think you mean then it's another disgusting lie (getting to be your par for the course). Regardless, including me in the "break 18-month baby" comment was ridiculously offensive given that you know it's something I've never advocated for. Of course, I know this kind of offense is "unconcerning" to you, as it would be to anyone lacking moral integrity. Sure, it's become well-established that you're unconcerned about the correct usage of words or logic, and equally unconcerned about anything resembling intellectual honesty or integrity, as long as you can maintain your fuzzy wuzzy outragey righteousness feelz. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 16, 2017 8:47:18 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:I didn't write that eva-gal. But since I'm feeling charitable, my 1. is correct, my 2 is correct, and my 3, 4, and 5, is correct. Hope that helps. I am pretty sure I remember you saying on the olD board that you diDnt know if peDophilia harmed children and that you had no opinion on it so you were certainly not in the "fuck the peDos" camp for a while. |
|
