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

[koshergrl]

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.

Also not true.

You have been subjected to a lot of really bad science, probably in the form of pro-pedo propaganda that you've slurped up from someone who has manipulated you.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Pedophilia is not the same as skin color.

That's not for you to decide.

 

[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.

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

No shit. Are you batting for my side now?

 

[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.

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.

Because I said so. I dont care what others feel. I'm not a pedo.

 

[Asclepias]

Pedophilia is not the same as skin color.

That's not for you to decide.

Actually it is.

 

[koshergrl]

Pedophilia is not the same as skin color.

That's not for you to decide.

Pedophilia is not genetically determined. It is not something someone is *born* with. It's not the same as skin color or gender, which ARE genetically determined. These are facts. Do you know what a fact is?

Hello.

 

[koshergrl]

And currently, the only people who are claiming that pedophilia is genetic are the psychotic pro-pedo lunatics that are trying to normalize it.

 

[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.

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.​

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/ada.html

I don't see that exception.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Youre not explaining your logic. A predispositon towards men harms no one. A predisposition towards children is dangerous beyond belief due to the mental and physical advantage the pedo has.

 

[koshergrl]

The APA is about as pro-pedo as a group can be, and even THEY haven't made the claim that pedophilia is GENETIC.

Because it ISN'T.

 

[Rikurzhen]

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.

Because I said so. I dont care what others feel. I'm not a pedo.

You want to exercise your right to choose your own associations but you're content to deny people the very same right to choose their own associations.

Sorry, life doesn't work that way, there are no special rules which apply only to you. Maybe you should get behind this notion "I disagree with what you say but I shall defend to the death your right to speak your mind" and substitute free association in place of free speech. This way everyone has the right to free association restored to them.

Until you support human rights, I will find happiness in the thought of you being forced to work alongside a pedophile. Just thinking about that forced association makes me smile.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

And currently, the only people who are claiming that pedophilia is genetic are the psychotic pro-pedo lunatics that are trying to normalize it.

You are, once again, wholly incorrect.

It IS a mental illness, no different than autism. However, being mentally challenged doesn't allow one to violate the rights of others, so pedos don't get to say "hey I was born a pedo so I must be allowed to have sex with children" anymore than someone could claim "hey I was born a kleptomaniac,so you MUST allow me to steal"

 

[Slyhunter]

Pedophilia is not the same as skin color.

Genetically speaking what makes pedophilia different from homosexuality or heterosexuality?

 

[Rikurzhen]

And currently, the only people who are claiming that pedophilia is genetic are the psychotic pro-pedo lunatics that are trying to normalize it.

I'm claiming it's genetic/biological. It's the most parsimonious explanation. No one chooses to be a freaking pedophile!

 

[koshergrl]

Unfortunately, if you are speaking your mind about all the reasons it's wonderful to have sex with children, you are putting children at risk.

It's one instance where speech can harm, which is why it's illegal. Not all speech must be tolerated as *free speech*...and speech that puts children in harm's way is one of the few instances where you don't get to say exactly what you *feel*, and not face censure.

 

[Rikurzhen]

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.​

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/ada.html

I don't see that exception.

(b) CERTAIN CONDITIONS- Under this Act, the term `disability' shall not include--

(1) transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments, or other sexual behavior disorders;​

 

[koshergrl]

Pedophilia is not the same as skin color.

Genetically speaking what makes pedophilia different from homosexuality or heterosexuality?

Not a thing. One chooses one's sexuality.

 

[Slyhunter]

Pedophilia is not the same as skin color.

That's not for you to decide.

Pedophilia is not genetically determined. It is not something someone is *born* with. It's not the same as skin color or gender, which ARE genetically determined. These are facts. Do you know what a fact is?

Hello.

So you are saying they chose to be pedophiles. Knowing how the world ostracizes and prosecutes pedophiles they still voluntarily chose to become pedophiles? They must be crazy. Just like homo's.

 

[Rikurzhen]

The APA is about as pro-pedo as a group can be, and even THEY haven't made the claim that pedophilia is GENETIC.

Because it ISN'T.

I know more about genetics that do psychologists.

 

[koshergrl]

The APA is about as pro-pedo as a group can be, and even THEY haven't made the claim that pedophilia is GENETIC.

Because it ISN'T.

I know more about genetics that do psychologists.

You rather missed the point.

My point is they are lobbying hard to normalize pedophilia, and they aren't making the claim that it is normal because it's GENETIC. Because that boat already sunk.