Pedophilia Deserves Civil Rights, Says New York Times’ Op-ed

[Asclepias]

It does a lot of harm. Depending on the pictures you are speaking about, they create a demand that exploits children.

no their pedophilia created the demand, the pictures helped them control their urges much like methadone does to meth addicts.

Hogwash. Porn does NOT *prevent* people from committing sex crimes.

In fact, it's a crime to use children to create porn, dumbass.

Tell that to Sears and JCPenney

So you claim methadone doesn't prevent meth addicts from re-offending?

Nothing is 100%, I never claimed 100% of the time anything is vs anything.


Should we criminalized a person because he has a genetic disorder or defect that makes him want to have sex with kids?

Let me ask another way.

Do you see any problem with criminalizing a person because he has a genetic disorder or defect that makes him want to have sex with the same sex?

What's the difference? They are both born that way.

Nobody is born a depraved piece of shit.

You guys are created and nurtured.

"You guys" You aren't talking about me.
Define piece of shit.
Is it just someone who has sex with children or is it someone who sticks it up guys asses and goes around and flaunts the fake he's a flaming homo?

Where do you draw a line showing where the shit lies and the none shit lies? And why do you get to be the one to draw it?

Are you saying homosexuals aren't perverted deviants of nature because they were born that way but Pedophiles are?

I dont care what gay people do to each other. I decided long ago that an adult desiring a child is dangerous to children. The primary reason being that they are children. If there is not some instinct in you to protect a child then something is wrong with you. I get to be the one to make that decision because I said so.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

It does a lot of harm. Depending on the pictures you are speaking about, they create a demand that exploits children.

no their pedophilia created the demand, the pictures helped them control their urges much like methadone does to meth addicts.

Hogwash. Porn does NOT *prevent* people from committing sex crimes.

In fact, it's a crime to use children to create porn, dumbass.

Tell that to Sears and JCPenney

So you claim methadone doesn't prevent meth addicts from re-offending?

Nothing is 100%, I never claimed 100% of the time anything is vs anything.


Should we criminalized a person because he has a genetic disorder or defect that makes him want to have sex with kids?

Let me ask another way.

Do you see any problem with criminalizing a person because he has a genetic disorder or defect that makes him want to have sex with the same sex?

What's the difference? They are both born that way.

Nobody is born a depraved piece of shit.

You guys are created and nurtured.

"You guys" You aren't talking about me.
Define piece of shit.
Is it just someone who has sex with children or is it someone who sticks it up guys asses and goes around and flaunts the fact that he's a flaming homo?

Where do you draw a line showing where the shit lies and the none shit lies? And why do you get to be the one to draw it?

Are you saying homosexuals aren't perverted deviants of nature because they were born that way but Pedophiles are?

The fact that pedophilia is perverted isn't why it's illegal, it's illegal because children are not legally able to consent.

In fact, they should call it what it really is. RAPE.

 

[flacaltenn]

Nope.. Don't think anyone is saying that. But at the OTHER extreme, this thread is about an OP ED advocating that "pristine pedos" should be able to declare as an orientation and FREELY transverse society as a KNOWN (self-declared) Pedo.. Can't refuse to hire them at the Magic Kingdom or a day-care.. According to this idiot -- they need to FLAUNT their "affliction" for everyone without any societal stigma or penalties.

That's the ENTIRE POINT of anti-discrimination laws. If you don't like the laws, then repeal anti-discrimination laws. You think Christian bakers like baking "wedding" cakes for homosexuals?

Very true. But last time I checked there was no inherent societal risk associated with declaring as black or gay.. At least not any I want to discuss here.

It's the equivalent of saying "I'm dangerously mentally incompetent but you need to serve me, hire me and respect me" or I might go postal on your kids...

 

[Slyhunter]

You don't get imprisoned for admitting you like to look at underaged kids and imagine having sex with them, or you wouldn't be posting here.

The whole *movement* is about making it legally A-OK to have sex with kids. You're busted, loser.

That's not what the op said.
That's not what I argued about.

Though I am curious about the arbitrary nature of these rules you people pull out of the hat about what is acceptable vs what is not acceptable.

Plus I like to argue. It's boring when everyone agrees with one another. It's better to challenge their positions with logic. Allowing your emotions to cloud your words causes you to lose the argument.

Should we put people in jail because of their genetic disposition that they were born with? Are you actually ok with that? Were not just talking pedophiles here.

 

[DriftingSand]

Just how FUCKED UP MENTALLY, can Liberals get...

About as fucked up as conservatives. Neither team has the market cornered on loud-mouthed extremism and fringe ideas.

Yeah but our loud-mouthed fringe ideas are much better than theirs and that's a fact because I say so.

 

[koshergrl]

There is no genetic disposition to pedophilia.

The fact that you're pretending there is, while insisting that children 14 and under should be having sex, identifies you as more than a disinterested bystander.

 

[Slyhunter]

no their pedophilia created the demand, the pictures helped them control their urges much like methadone does to meth addicts.

Hogwash. Porn does NOT *prevent* people from committing sex crimes.

In fact, it's a crime to use children to create porn, dumbass.

Tell that to Sears and JCPenney

So you claim methadone doesn't prevent meth addicts from re-offending?

Nothing is 100%, I never claimed 100% of the time anything is vs anything.


Should we criminalized a person because he has a genetic disorder or defect that makes him want to have sex with kids?

Let me ask another way.

Do you see any problem with criminalizing a person because he has a genetic disorder or defect that makes him want to have sex with the same sex?

What's the difference? They are both born that way.

Nobody is born a depraved piece of shit.

You guys are created and nurtured.

"You guys" You aren't talking about me.
Define piece of shit.
Is it just someone who has sex with children or is it someone who sticks it up guys asses and goes around and flaunts the fake he's a flaming homo?

Where do you draw a line showing where the shit lies and the none shit lies? And why do you get to be the one to draw it?

I know who I'm talking about, and so do you.

Harvey Milk? who had sex with an underage boy? Is that who your talking about?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You don't get imprisoned for admitting you like to look at underaged kids and imagine having sex with them, or you wouldn't be posting here.

The whole *movement* is about making it legally A-OK to have sex with kids. You're busted, loser.

That's not what the op said.
That's not what I argued about.

Though I am curious about the arbitrary nature of these rules you people pull out of the hat about what is acceptable vs what is not acceptable.

Plus I like to argue. It's boring when everyone agrees with one another. It's better to challenge their positions with logic. Allowing your emotions to cloud your words causes you to lose the argument.

Should we put people in jail because of their genetic disposition that they were born with? Are you actually ok with that? Were not just talking pedophiles here.

No we should not ever have thought police. If someone commits or attempts to commit a crime, THEN throw them in jail.

And certainly sex with children should ALWAYS be a crime.

 

[koshergrl]

Just how FUCKED UP MENTALLY, can Liberals get...

About as fucked up as conservatives. Neither team has the market cornered on loud-mouthed extremism and fringe ideas.

Yeah but our loud-mouthed fringe ideas are much better than theirs and that's a fact because I say so.

Ask avgjoe to identify one of our so-called "loud-mouthed extremism/fringe ideas".

 

[koshergrl]

Hogwash. Porn does NOT *prevent* people from committing sex crimes.

In fact, it's a crime to use children to create porn, dumbass.

Tell that to Sears and JCPenney

So you claim methadone doesn't prevent meth addicts from re-offending?

Nothing is 100%, I never claimed 100% of the time anything is vs anything.


Should we criminalized a person because he has a genetic disorder or defect that makes him want to have sex with kids?

Let me ask another way.

Do you see any problem with criminalizing a person because he has a genetic disorder or defect that makes him want to have sex with the same sex?

What's the difference? They are both born that way.

Nobody is born a depraved piece of shit.

You guys are created and nurtured.

"You guys" You aren't talking about me.
Define piece of shit.
Is it just someone who has sex with children or is it someone who sticks it up guys asses and goes around and flaunts the fake he's a flaming homo?

Where do you draw a line showing where the shit lies and the none shit lies? And why do you get to be the one to draw it?

I know who I'm talking about, and so do you.

Harvey Milk? who had sex with an underage boy? Is that who your talking about?

Him too, hero of the left.

 

[Slyhunter]

There is no genetic disposition to pedophilia.

The fact that you're pretending there is, while insisting that children 14 and under should be having sex, identifies you as more than a disinterested bystander.

2 different arguments.
1. should you go to jail for something you were born with.
Pedophiles are born that way.
Homosexuals are born that way.
Using the logic noted above you either put both in jail or neither. That is until one violates the rights of another.

2. Why is it ok to have sex with an 18 year old and not a 14 year old. You haven't established a hard and logical differentiation between the two. The number used at what is an acceptable age to have sex and what isn't is arbitrarily made. My argument is that those who make these rules need to sit down and establish some solid lines based on cold hearted logic instead of drawing lines in the sand based on their emotional state at the time they make the decisions.

3. The fact that you can't tell the difference between an intellectual debate and someone pushing an agenda shows a lot towards your inability to use logic.

 

[flacaltenn]

It does a lot of harm. Depending on the pictures you are speaking about, they create a demand that exploits children.

no their pedophilia created the demand, the pictures helped them control their urges much like methadone does to meth addicts.

Are you comfortable saying you have no doubt these pictures will keep peds from attacking a child? I'm not.

People go to jail for committing crimes not for thinking about committing crimes. Are you saying some people should go to jail simply because they were born a way you don't approve of, even if they have, as of yet, never harmed anyone?

Nope.. Don't think anyone is saying that. But at the OTHER extreme, this thread is about an OP ED advocating that "pristine pedos" should be able to declare as an orientation and FREELY transverse society as a KNOWN (self-declared) Pedo.. Can't refuse to hire them at the Magic Kingdom or a day-care.. According to this idiot -- they need to FLAUNT their "affliction" for everyone without any societal stigma or penalties.

I don't see anything in the article about anyone flaunting anything. It simply says that people should not be discriminated against simply for being born with the predilection of wanting to have sex with children if they have the character to not pursue such desires. And that the law needs to be adjusted so these individuals can confess their desires without fear of imprisonment for the purpose of receiving medical aid/psychological aid for their disease without fear of loosing their jobs or being ostracized for it.

The batshit crazy lady is advocating for the ability of self declared pedos to freely purchase an apartment in a complex -- and invite 6 others pedos to a 12 step meeting every Tues night.. With no ability for the residents to say no... Or for a guy to don a Goofy costume at Disney and whack off in it during his breaks.. THAT'S flaunting it.

Wouldn't be long until child porn was legal and the industry sucks up all these Honduran child refugees into full employment..

PS --- no evidence that pedos are "born that way" or this is genetic. Large numbers of pedos are respectable family men..

 

[Rikurzhen]

Nope.. Don't think anyone is saying that. But at the OTHER extreme, this thread is about an OP ED advocating that "pristine pedos" should be able to declare as an orientation and FREELY transverse society as a KNOWN (self-declared) Pedo.. Can't refuse to hire them at the Magic Kingdom or a day-care.. According to this idiot -- they need to FLAUNT their "affliction" for everyone without any societal stigma or penalties.

That's the ENTIRE POINT of anti-discrimination laws. If you don't like the laws, then repeal anti-discrimination laws. You think Christian bakers like baking "wedding" cakes for homosexuals?

Very true. But last time I checked there was no inherent societal risk associated with declaring as black or gay.. At least not any I want to discuss here.

It's the equivalent of saying "I'm dangerously mentally incompetent but you need to serve me, hire me and respect me" or I might go postal on your kids...

There's no risk to you if you hire a pedophile accountant in your rock quarry company. Right? You can't fire a woman because she's pregnant, or a woman, you can't fire a black guy because he's black, you can't fire an epileptic because he's epileptic, you can't fire a homosexual because he's a homosexual, you can't fire a Mulsim because he's a Muslim, you can't fire a depressed person because he's depressed, but you can fire a pedoph8ile for being a pedophile.

I can understand why people want to reserve the right to fire a pedophile for being a pedophile - they want to make a statement, they don't want to be near that person. These reasons also apply to people who want to fire homosexuals - they want to make a statement and they don't want to be near them. Why is it correct for government to force people who are disgusted with homosexuals to associate with them and not force people who are disgusted by pedophiles to do the same?

 

[Asclepias]

You don't get imprisoned for admitting you like to look at underaged kids and imagine having sex with them, or you wouldn't be posting here.

The whole *movement* is about making it legally A-OK to have sex with kids. You're busted, loser.

That's not what the op said.
That's not what I argued about.

Though I am curious about the arbitrary nature of these rules you people pull out of the hat about what is acceptable vs what is not acceptable.

Plus I like to argue. It's boring when everyone agrees with one another. It's better to challenge their positions with logic. Allowing your emotions to cloud your words causes you to lose the argument.

Should we put people in jail because of their genetic disposition that they were born with? Are you actually ok with that? Were not just talking pedophiles here.

There is a huge difference in a genetic disposition that creates victims of sexual molestation and someone wanting to have sex with dead bodies. There is a primal instinct that the majority of people have on this earth to protect children. There simply is no peer to pedophilia.

The only way the article in the OP makes the slightest bit of sense is if there is a gurantee that a pedo will not ever harm a child be it through actual interaction or through viewing of kiddie porn.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Nope.. Don't think anyone is saying that. But at the OTHER extreme, this thread is about an OP ED advocating that "pristine pedos" should be able to declare as an orientation and FREELY transverse society as a KNOWN (self-declared) Pedo.. Can't refuse to hire them at the Magic Kingdom or a day-care.. According to this idiot -- they need to FLAUNT their "affliction" for everyone without any societal stigma or penalties.

That's the ENTIRE POINT of anti-discrimination laws. If you don't like the laws, then repeal anti-discrimination laws. You think Christian bakers like baking "wedding" cakes for homosexuals?

Very true. But last time I checked there was no inherent societal risk associated with declaring as black or gay.. At least not any I want to discuss here.

It's the equivalent of saying "I'm dangerously mentally incompetent but you need to serve me, hire me and respect me" or I might go postal on your kids...

There's no risk to you if you hire a pedophile accountant in your rock quarry company. Right? You can't fire a woman because she's pregnant, or a woman, you can't fire a black guy because he's black, you can't fire an epileptic because he's epileptic, you can't fire a homosexual because he's a homosexual, you can't fire a Mulsim because he's a Muslim, you can't fire a depressed person because he's depressed, but you can fire a pedoph8ile for being a pedophile.

I can understand why people want to reserve the right to fire a pedophile for being a pedophile - they want to make a statement, they don't want to be near that person. These reasons also apply to people who want to fire homosexuals - they want to make a statement and they don't want to be near them. Why is it correct for government to force people who are disgusted with homosexuals to associate with them and not force people who are disgusted by pedophiles to do the same?

Rik, I believe the Americans with Disabilities Act would preclude one from firing a person for being a pedophile.

Another Act I find unconstitutional by the way.

 

[koshergrl]

Most progressives aren't interested in reserving the right to fire pedophiles. Like sly, they think the poor souls can't help themselves, and believe we should ply them with kiddie porn in order to make sure that children aren't abused.
Crazy.

 

[Asclepias]

Nope.. Don't think anyone is saying that. But at the OTHER extreme, this thread is about an OP ED advocating that "pristine pedos" should be able to declare as an orientation and FREELY transverse society as a KNOWN (self-declared) Pedo.. Can't refuse to hire them at the Magic Kingdom or a day-care.. According to this idiot -- they need to FLAUNT their "affliction" for everyone without any societal stigma or penalties.

That's the ENTIRE POINT of anti-discrimination laws. If you don't like the laws, then repeal anti-discrimination laws. You think Christian bakers like baking "wedding" cakes for homosexuals?

Very true. But last time I checked there was no inherent societal risk associated with declaring as black or gay.. At least not any I want to discuss here.

It's the equivalent of saying "I'm dangerously mentally incompetent but you need to serve me, hire me and respect me" or I might go postal on your kids...

There's no risk to you if you hire a pedophile accountant in your rock quarry company. Right? You can't fire a woman because she's pregnant, or a woman, you can't fire a black guy because he's black, you can't fire an epileptic because he's epileptic, you can't fire a homosexual because he's a homosexual, you can't fire a Mulsim because he's a Muslim, you can't fire a depressed person because he's depressed, but you can fire a pedoph8ile for being a pedophile.

I can understand why people want to reserve the right to fire a pedophile for being a pedophile - they want to make a statement, they don't want to be near that person. These reasons also apply to people who want to fire homosexuals - they want to make a statement and they don't want to be near them. Why is it correct for government to force people who are disgusted with homosexuals to associate with them and not force people who are disgusted by pedophiles to do the same?

No retard. They want to fire a pedo because its quite possibly the lowest form of scum on earth. There is no hypocrisy involved at all. Pedophiles are a totally different animal.

 

[Slyhunter]

You don't get imprisoned for admitting you like to look at underaged kids and imagine having sex with them, or you wouldn't be posting here.

The whole *movement* is about making it legally A-OK to have sex with kids. You're busted, loser.

That's not what the op said.
That's not what I argued about.

Though I am curious about the arbitrary nature of these rules you people pull out of the hat about what is acceptable vs what is not acceptable.

Plus I like to argue. It's boring when everyone agrees with one another. It's better to challenge their positions with logic. Allowing your emotions to cloud your words causes you to lose the argument.

Should we put people in jail because of their genetic disposition that they were born with? Are you actually ok with that? Were not just talking pedophiles here.

No we should not ever have thought police. If someone commits or attempts to commit a crime, THEN throw them in jail.

And certainly sex with children should ALWAYS be a crime.

The op argues that someone who has the desire to have sex with children, but has never harmed a child, should be free to seek medical help without fear of loosing their job or being ostracized in the community. That's all I read in there. Since it's not their fault they were born that way then I AGREE.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Nope.. Don't think anyone is saying that. But at the OTHER extreme, this thread is about an OP ED advocating that "pristine pedos" should be able to declare as an orientation and FREELY transverse society as a KNOWN (self-declared) Pedo.. Can't refuse to hire them at the Magic Kingdom or a day-care.. According to this idiot -- they need to FLAUNT their "affliction" for everyone without any societal stigma or penalties.

That's the ENTIRE POINT of anti-discrimination laws. If you don't like the laws, then repeal anti-discrimination laws. You think Christian bakers like baking "wedding" cakes for homosexuals?

Very true. But last time I checked there was no inherent societal risk associated with declaring as black or gay.. At least not any I want to discuss here.

It's the equivalent of saying "I'm dangerously mentally incompetent but you need to serve me, hire me and respect me" or I might go postal on your kids...

There's no risk to you if you hire a pedophile accountant in your rock quarry company. Right? You can't fire a woman because she's pregnant, or a woman, you can't fire a black guy because he's black, you can't fire an epileptic because he's epileptic, you can't fire a homosexual because he's a homosexual, you can't fire a Mulsim because he's a Muslim, you can't fire a depressed person because he's depressed, but you can fire a pedoph8ile for being a pedophile.

I can understand why people want to reserve the right to fire a pedophile for being a pedophile - they want to make a statement, they don't want to be near that person. These reasons also apply to people who want to fire homosexuals - they want to make a statement and they don't want to be near them. Why is it correct for government to force people who are disgusted with homosexuals to associate with them and not force people who are disgusted by pedophiles to do the same?

Rik, I believe the Americans with Disabilities Act would preclude one from firing a person for being a pedophile.

Another Act I find unconstitutional by the way.

The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibit discrimination against otherwise qualified individuals with mental disabilities, in areas such as employment, education and medical care. Congress, however, explicitly excluded pedophilia from protection under these two crucial laws.​

 

[koshergrl]

no their pedophilia created the demand, the pictures helped them control their urges much like methadone does to meth addicts.

Are you comfortable saying you have no doubt these pictures will keep peds from attacking a child? I'm not.

People go to jail for committing crimes not for thinking about committing crimes. Are you saying some people should go to jail simply because they were born a way you don't approve of, even if they have, as of yet, never harmed anyone?

Nope.. Don't think anyone is saying that. But at the OTHER extreme, this thread is about an OP ED advocating that "pristine pedos" should be able to declare as an orientation and FREELY transverse society as a KNOWN (self-declared) Pedo.. Can't refuse to hire them at the Magic Kingdom or a day-care.. According to this idiot -- they need to FLAUNT their "affliction" for everyone without any societal stigma or penalties.

I don't see anything in the article about anyone flaunting anything. It simply says that people should not be discriminated against simply for being born with the predilection of wanting to have sex with children if they have the character to not pursue such desires. And that the law needs to be adjusted so these individuals can confess their desires without fear of imprisonment for the purpose of receiving medical aid/psychological aid for their disease without fear of loosing their jobs or being ostracized for it.

The batshit crazy lady is advocating for the ability of self declared pedos to freely purchase an apartment in a complex -- and invite 6 others pedos to a 12 step meeting every Tues night.. With no ability for the residents to say no... Or for a guy to don a Goofy costume at Disney and whack off in it during his breaks.. THAT'S flaunting it.

Wouldn't be long until child porn was legal and the industry sucks up all these Honduran child refugees into full employment..

PS --- no evidence that pedos are "born that way" or this is genetic. Large numbers of pedos are respectable family men..

Sounds like the lounge.