And Just As I Predicted... HERE COME THE PEDOPHILES...

[Texanmike]

We are a society that has tolerated the existance of NAMBLA since 1977 what could you expect.

And before any of you free speech advocates get your panties knotted up its not free speech when it advocates something illegal.

Of course it is still free speech. That is the POINT. I hate the term freedom of speech, but its the common term today so I'll use it here. "Freedom of speech" is directly proportionate to your ability to tolerate speech that you find vile and disgusting. Legal or illegal doesn't matter. To say that freedom of speech doesn't include something illegal would be to say that prior to Rosa Parks that forming an organization to promote blacks sitting at the front of the bus would have not been freedom of speech.

I don't like NAMBLA, but you have to allow them to exist. That's the point.

Of course the fact that I tolerate NAMBLA also means that I am free to discuss what disgusting and vile people are. I think that they are disgusting and would personally rather see them shipped off to some remote desert island than sit next to one.

Mike

 

[shintao]

by Michael Brown
8/25/2011
Townhall.com

Many Americans have been shocked by reports about a recent pro-pedophilia conference in Baltimore in which psychiatrists and other mental health professionals, representing institutions like Harvard and Johns Hopkins, sought to present pedophilia in a sympathetic and even positive light. But why should this surprise us?

Academic articles in scholarly journals have been presenting pedophilia in a sympathetic light for years, and, as Matthew Cullinan Hoffman noted, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) released a report in 1998 “claiming that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from their child sexual abuse experiences.’ It even claimed that large numbers of the victims reported that their experiences were ‘positive,’ and suggested that the phrase ‘child sex abuse’ be replaced with ‘adult-child sex.’” Others have coined the more disgusting term “intergenerational intimacy.”

LINK


I wonder if this means the days of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit are number.

(1)How many Amenricans were shocked by the report?

(2)And why wouldn't you be surprised by scientific organizations like Harvard and Johns Hopkins presenting the situation in a reality based light? I have always saw their scientific studies at the tip of the crust, so to speak.

(3)For instance, can you or the author of the article point out where any untruths were presented? Thank you.

 

[tonystewart1]

We are a society that has tolerated the existance of NAMBLA since 1977 what could you expect.

And before any of you free speech advocates get your panties knotted up its not free speech when it advocates something illegal.

Of course it is still free speech. That is the POINT. I hate the term freedom of speech, but its the common term today so I'll use it here. "Freedom of speech" is directly proportionate to your ability to tolerate speech that you find vile and disgusting. Legal or illegal doesn't matter. To say that freedom of speech doesn't include something illegal would be to say that prior to Rosa Parks that forming an organization to promote blacks sitting at the front of the bus would have not been freedom of speech.

I don't like NAMBLA, but you have to allow them to exist. That's the point.

Of course the fact that I tolerate NAMBLA also means that I am free to discuss what disgusting and vile people are. I think that they are disgusting and would personally rather see them shipped off to some remote desert island than sit next to one.

Mike

To be honest I know that you are right and that is why we have a constitution to protect their "speech" but sometimes you just want to destroy people based on their speech. There lies the rub. I may not want them to speak but I have to recognize their right to speak.

 

[shintao]

We are a society that has tolerated the existance of NAMBLA since 1977 what could you expect.

And before any of you free speech advocates get your panties knotted up its not free speech when it advocates something illegal.

Unfortunately your opinion is incorrect. Scientific studies can present anything, regardless of being illegal or not in most instances. Kinsey's studies were actually violations of law, such as prostitution and some sexual deviances. If it is for a common good, there is usually no howl.

 

[tonystewart1]

We are a society that has tolerated the existance of NAMBLA since 1977 what could you expect.

And before any of you free speech advocates get your panties knotted up its not free speech when it advocates something illegal.

Unfortunately your opinion is incorrect. Scientific studies can present anything, regardless of being illegal of not in most instances.

I know your right.


It was a statement of passion not reason and logic.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

We are a society that has tolerated the existance of NAMBLA since 1977 what could you expect.

And before any of you free speech advocates get your panties knotted up its not free speech when it advocates something illegal.

Of course it is still free speech. That is the POINT. I hate the term freedom of speech, but its the common term today so I'll use it here. "Freedom of speech" is directly proportionate to your ability to tolerate speech that you find vile and disgusting. Legal or illegal doesn't matter. To say that freedom of speech doesn't include something illegal would be to say that prior to Rosa Parks that forming an organization to promote blacks sitting at the front of the bus would have not been freedom of speech.

I don't like NAMBLA, but you have to allow them to exist. That's the point.

Of course the fact that I tolerate NAMBLA also means that I am free to discuss what disgusting and vile people are. I think that they are disgusting and would personally rather see them shipped off to some remote desert island than sit next to one.

Mike

I agree with this; however, it's the behavior of the likes of Alfred Kinsey, Dr. Richard Green and John Money that is the most dangerous, well, with regard to social stability.

For example:

One must simply accept the fact that they do exist, and then, with optimum enlightenment, formulate a policy of what to do about it. —John Money​

This is actually a very loaded political statement, a vicious threat to familial stability and parental authority. The man's a sociopath. We already have a policy for dealing with the sick bastards who act on such compulsions. We lock their asses up.

 

[shintao]

Are we to infer from TruthSeeker's response that he thinks pedophilia is ok?

Why would you assume that?

Because you went through all the trouble of finding a partisan hack list of republican peds, and didn't say one word against the premise of the new push for acceptance of pedophilia.

And since homosexuality, a disgusting perversion in itself, is one of the liberal democrats favorite pet projects, you may as well champion the pedophile cause as well. What's one more perversion? Who are you to say one perversion is OK and the other isn't? And that will be EXACTLY what the peds say.

Does you bringing up homosexuals make you a gay blade?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

(1)How many Amenricans were shocked by the report?

(2)And why wouldn't you be surprised by scientific organizations like Harvard and Johns Hopkins presenting the situation in a reality based light? I have always saw their scientific studies at the tip of the crust, so to speak.

(3)For instance, can you or the author of the article point out where any untruths were presented? Thank you.

Appalling!

Aside from the depravity of violating innocence and the ties of familial relations, the implications of this "science" portends a direct attack on fundamental liberties.

 

[shintao]

We are a society that has tolerated the existance of NAMBLA since 1977 what could you expect.

And before any of you free speech advocates get your panties knotted up its not free speech when it advocates something illegal.

Of course it is still free speech. That is the POINT. I hate the term freedom of speech, but its the common term today so I'll use it here. "Freedom of speech" is directly proportionate to your ability to tolerate speech that you find vile and disgusting. Legal or illegal doesn't matter. To say that freedom of speech doesn't include something illegal would be to say that prior to Rosa Parks that forming an organization to promote blacks sitting at the front of the bus would have not been freedom of speech.

I don't like NAMBLA, but you have to allow them to exist. That's the point.

Of course the fact that I tolerate NAMBLA also means that I am free to discuss what disgusting and vile people are. I think that they are disgusting and would personally rather see them shipped off to some remote desert island than sit next to one.

Mike

I agree with this; however, it's the behavior of the likes of Alfred Kinsey, Dr. Richard Green and John Money that is the most dangerous, well, with regard to social stability.

For example:

One must simply accept the fact that they do exist, and then, with optimum enlightenment, formulate a policy of what to do about it. —John Money​

This is actually a very loaded political statement, a vicious threat to familial stability and parental authority. The man's a sociopath. We already have a policy for dealing with the sick bastards who act on such compulsions. We lock their asses up.

So you are admitting these people are beyond controlling their impulses, the act of compulsion. So next you can admit it is an instinctual drive of Homosapiens to be sexually attracted to fertile females for reproduction purposes. I am basically saying the behavior is a natural instinct, like being attracted to the female breasts, not that I think the behavior of pedophilism should continue.

Until we can let scientist reach unbiased conclusions, we cannot deal accurately with the problem.

Personally, I would make child abuse a capital offense and execute them to clear them from society. That is, if we are really serious about the problem of this small percentage of people with impulse control problems.

 

[shintao]

(1)How many Amenricans were shocked by the report?

(2)And why wouldn't you be surprised by scientific organizations like Harvard and Johns Hopkins presenting the situation in a reality based light? I have always saw their scientific studies at the tip of the crust, so to speak.

(3)For instance, can you or the author of the article point out where any untruths were presented? Thank you.

Appalling!

Aside from the depravity of violating innocence and the ties of familial relations, the implications of this "science" portends a direct attack on fundamental liberties.

Hmm, didn't answer any of my questions. I would bet if you contacted the author, you would find he can't answer the questions either.

What are the ties of family relations? That a child suck the same breast you do, and the same female derives erotic pleasure from both? Do you really have a clue what you are spouting, seeing you failed to debate my first line of questions.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

So you are admitting these people are beyond controlling their impulses, the act of compulsion. So next you can admit it is an instinctual drive of Homosapiens to be sexually attracted to fertile females for reproduction purposes. I am basically saying the behavior is a natural instinct, like being attracted to the female breasts, not that I think the behavior of pedophilism should continue.

That pedophilia may be an irreversible genetic or environmentally acquired compulsion doesn't mean that it's a "natural" instinct, in the sense that it is biologically, morally or politically functional. Right?

Until we can let scientist reach unbiased conclusions, we cannot deal accurately with the problem.

The fundamentals of the condition go to science, assertions like "the phrase 'child sex abuse' " should "be replaced with 'adult-child sex' " or "intergenerational intimacy" do not.

The answer to your question is self-evident.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you are going to consider something natural, it should be seen as the norm throughout nature. It is not 'normal' to have a 180 I.Q. and geniuses will not produce geniuses with any statistical consistency. In other words, there does not seem to be any 'genius' gene that is passed on to one's progeny. Therefore, genius is a deviance from norm however happy for the world it may be when it is channeled into constructive pursuits.

Redheads will produce redheads with statistical consistency; brown eyed parents will produce brown eyed children with statistical consistency, etc. Such is therefore a natural and expected reoccurence in nature and it causes no problems for society.

There is no statistical correlation showing that pedolphiles beget pedophiles, therefore it is reasonable to see this particular affliction as a dangerous and unhealthy deviance from nature. And there is also a statistical correlation with the condition being chronic and uncurable at least for now.

As a disproportionate number of pedophiles will seek out contact with children--this is why why they so often turn up in places like the Catholic clergy or the Boy Scouts or other situations giving them opportunity for intimate contact with children. Such organizations must be extremely wary and take prevenative measures however unpolitically correct those may be. The afflicted may not be inately evil, but they are always at risk of being compelled to do evil things.

Rather than sugarcoat the affliction or pretend it is something other than the unacceptable deviant behavior that it is, it is reasonable to see it as a threat not to be understood and accommodated, but a chronic condition requiring enforced conditions in which the pedophile will have no opportunity to be alone with children.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

If you are going to consider something natural, it should be seen as the norm throughout nature. It is not 'normal' to have a 180 I.Q.

That's because we as human beings set the average to 100. So yes, it falls outside the average to have an IQ above average. Circular reasoning is circular.

Let's talk about your point regarding "natural" requiring normalcy throughout nature. Remind me again, how many species throughout all of nature have higher levels of conscious awareness? How many cows in the US die due to health related illnesses, so called "natural causes?"

Your contrived and self-serving definition of "natural" is laughable.

There is no statistical correlation showing that pedolphiles beget pedophiles, therefore it is reasonable to see this particular affliction as a dangerous and unhealthy deviance from nature.

That's your reason? You think the reason pedophilia is dangerous is because it does not have a genetic component? That's it? Anything that isn't genetic is dangerous in your eyes? Such as becoming an engineer? Or having great musical talent? NO!

Rather than sugarcoat the affliction or pretend it is something other than the unacceptable deviant behavior that it is, it is reasonable to see it as a threat not to be understood and accommodated, but a chronic condition requiring enforced conditions in which the pedophile will have no opportunity to be alone with children.

Screw deviance. Your entire argument is stuck on this concept of "natural" and "deviant behavior" when these things are meaningless to the real issue, and that is the safety of minors. Child abuse is WRONG. It doesn't matter whether child abuse is a "natural" norm, an uncontrolled sexual compulsion, or plain old neglect. It's wrong.

While the majority of this last paragraph of yours is accurate, you really need to drop these flaky opinions if you want to understand the reasoning behind this article and make strong counterarguments.