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

[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?

jillian the alleged lawyer, tell us again how the law prevents ANY discrimination

 

[koshergrl]

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.

They aren't born that way.

So you continue to fail.

And they are free to seek medical help without fear of losing their job, or being ostracized in the community. Though currently there is no medical treatment for pedophilia. Since it's not an ILLNESS.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

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

What's to stop a group of homo's from doing the same thing?

If neither has violated anyones rights then neither should be illegal.

If homo's were born that way so were pedo's. If pedo's weren't born that way then neither were homo's. Same genetic alterations, approximately.

 

[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...

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?

If we are talking about ACTUAL pedophiles --- there are GREAT reasons why folks don't want to associate. This whole brawl here is over a DISTORTED definition of pedophile that can't be diagnosed or treated.. It's a fiction created to ADD to the progressive lefts special interest trophy case..

I've reached my limit in this topic. Badly need a shower and some time out. Not my favorite topic.. GTG...

 

[koshergrl]

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.​

The pedophile psychologists and teachers are working over time to fix that right up....hence their desire to have it identified as a sexual orientation.

 

[novasteve]

Take degenerate. Put degenerate in prison with someone who likes to kill child abusers. Justice.

 

[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.

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.

There is no guarantee you won't harm a living being.
There are no guarantees in life.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

So we should fire someone because of his genetics.
Ok lets fire all the homo's then and I don't want you to say a damn thing about preventing me from doing so.

 

[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.

They aren't born that way.

So you continue to fail.

And they are free to seek medical help without fear of losing their job, or being ostracized in the community. Though currently there is no medical treatment for pedophilia. Since it's not an ILLNESS.

I repeat if pedo's weren't born that way then neither were homo's.

 

[novasteve]

You can only fire people that liberals hate, like tobacco users.

 

[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.

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.

Thats not even rational. I'm all for openness but I draw the line at adults wanting to have sex with children. There would be no way I would employ a known pedophile. Pedophiles should be ostracized because they are a very real threat to children. There is no gray area. They are being driven by the strongest urge in human body. Its not worth the risk. Sorry.

 

[Slyhunter]

Take degenerate. Put degenerate in prison with someone who likes to kill child abusers. Justice.

Define degenerate.
I define homo's as degenerates. lets jail all of them bastards.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Take degenerate. Put degenerate in prison with someone who likes to kill child abusers. Justice.

Bullshit. If you want society to murder pedophiles then have the stones to actually pass that sentence in a court of law.

Prison is not supposed to be a rape factory or a murder chamber. If people want prisoners to be raped as part of their punishment then have courts mandate that as part of a sentence. Same with shanking a prisoner.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

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

What's to stop a group of homo's from doing the same thing?

If neither has violated anyones rights then neither should be illegal.

If homo's were born that way so were pedo's. If pedo's weren't born that way then neither were homo's. Same genetic alterations, approximately.

"Homos" don't have predisposed risks towards CRIME. In fact, they MAY make great parents. Latent Pedos should seek counseling. Don't NEED protection to publically ANNOUNCE their mental problem..

 

[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.

So we should fire someone because of his genetics.
Ok lets fire all the homo's then and I don't want you to say a damn thing about preventing me from doing so.

Explain your logic.

 

[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.

Thats not even rational. I'm all for openness but I draw the line at adults wanting to have sex with children. There would be no way I would employ a known pedophile. Pedophiles should be ostracized because they are a very real threat to children. There is no gray area. They are being driven by the strongest urge in human body. Its not worth the risk. Sorry.

Fine using your argument I demand the right to discriminate against homo's.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

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

What's to stop a group of homo's from doing the same thing?

If neither has violated anyones rights then neither should be illegal.

If homo's were born that way so were pedo's. If pedo's weren't born that way then neither were homo's. Same genetic alterations, approximately.

"Homos" don't have predisposed risks towards CRIME. In fact, they MAY make great parents. Latent Pedos should seek counseling. Don't NEED protection to publically ANNOUNCE their mental problem..

Homosexuality used to be a crime.
so they did have a disposition risk towards crimes.

 

[Rikurzhen]

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.

Thats not even rational. I'm all for openness but I draw the line at adults wanting to have sex with children. There would be no way I would employ a known pedophile. Pedophiles should be ostracized because they are a very real threat to children. There is no gray area. They are being driven by the strongest urge in human body. Its not worth the risk. Sorry.

Why do people have to abide by where YOU draw the line? Others may feel the same way about having to work next to you.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

So we should fire someone because of his genetics.
Ok lets fire all the homo's then and I don't want you to say a damn thing about preventing me from doing so.

Explain your logic.

I already did.
Sexual attractiveness is a genetic switch. Whether its a predisposition towards other men or children it's the same ******* switch.

 

[koshergrl]

Pedophilia is not the same as skin color.