Rationalizing Pedophilia (TED talks) (generation, poll, weapons, death)

[Travel Crazy]

Originally Posted by Catgirl64

The video is not about people who have acted on their attraction, it's about helping people who have not.

Thoughts vs. actions. Raping a child is a crime, a terrible crime, and should be treated as such. Nobody is suggesting otherwise, nobody.

You have forgotten the original premise put forth (or are being disingenuous). The video was BUT AN EXAMPLE of the point being made. You are getting lost amongst the trees while missing the forest. The OP theorized that conditioning was occurring. Many agree.

Re-read Vector's Post # 66 -- he/she describes in very succinctly right there. We have watched this occur related to many things over recent decades. Keep an eye peeled, you'll begin to see the patterns IF you have an open-mind.

Here's an excellent example: That is how you can get white people to feel racist toward themselves!!! Plenty of self-loathing people buy into the guilt they're told they should have. Pure looney-tunes. But, they were eased into it over a period of time and they are weak-minded.

Had someone told you 10 years ago that they could convince a percentage of white people to feel guilt about the skin color they were born with -- you'd have called them crazy. Welcome to 21st century America.

[RedZin]

Originally Posted by Vector1

Funny you should say that because as I and others have said, incrimentilism and desensitization are occuring even though many do not realize it.

Let's take homosexuality for example. Back in the day, during my lifetime, heteros were bombarded with false claims that homos made up 10% of the population. I still remember this one social studies teacher saying "look around at your fellow students, because at least 3 out of the almost 30 were homos".
Needless to say that false narrative (attempting to give the impression they were not a tiny minority)has been debunked, but it was a concerted effort to make the heteros believe homos were in much greater numbers than they were.

But back in the day when sodomy was still illegal in this country, no one thought there would come a day that homos would be allowed to marry, and/or claim their sexual behavior would be proclaimed "just another lifestyle choice". It didn't happen overnight, but over time the two aforementioned practices were at work behind the scenes.
AJ Scalia noted in his dissent that the ruling would eventually lead to homo marriage, bigamy, polygamy, and every other type of coupling for sexual purpose.
Many dismissed his warning as inconceivable, and believing that while they wanted homos to be able to engage in their sexual practices without fear of prosecution, they would never approve of homosexual marriage. Yet look at what happened just 14 years later.

Heck for those who remember, homosexuality was considered an abnormal mental disorder, but the homo agenda eventually coerced the APA to change their classification.
[Side Note - That is occurring today with liberal groups trying to force the Red Cross and other blood banks to get rid of the prohibition of homo donors.
Mind you, hetero donors have restrictions also like drug use and other things that could increase the likelihood of tainted blood.
But the homo lobby does not care about the safety of others so long as they are not "unfairly stigmatized" by the restriction.
So PC and acceptance must take a front seat to health and safety for everyone, hetero & homo alike. ]

The bottom line is that with pedos, they are not mainstream today, but given enough desensitization and incrementalism to "better understand their hardships", it is not inconceivable that the age of consent will be lowered. This of course will be pushed by the left, certainly not the right.
I assume we can all agree to that?
From there the pedo advocates will continue to push the envelope until they potentially get prepubescent boys and girls being able to give consent based on the individual case, not the general age group. After all, some 12 years olds are more mature than some 19 years will be their claim.
While I hope that never comes to pass even after I am long gone, would any of the permissive liberals on this forum (who would presumably never want to see that either), be willing to send me their life savings if it does occur in the next few decades?



`

Homosexuals are consenting adults.

Pedophiles cannot obtain consent from children.

That is really all there is to that.

That you are homophobic (I mean, I assume you are, given the way you are speaking about homosexuals here, but please correct me if I am misunderstanding your commentary on gay people) is not really my concern. Homosexuality appears to be a genetic trait.

Perhaps pedophilia is, too, but it is not socially acceptable at this point in history (though it was in the past) because we have laws regarding children and consent.

I cannot see us loosening them. If anything, our society seems to want people to stay young even longer than it ever has before.

[RedZin]

Originally Posted by Vector1

Sure there is a difference, but are you willing to have your kids around such people, leaving their physical and emotional safety in the hands of those who fantasize about molesting them?


`

Nope. Which is why I think it would be better if pedophiles could speak up and be helped before they ever molest, so we can help them not be alone with kids.

[Catgirl64]

Originally Posted by Travel Crazy

You have forgotten the original premise put forth (or are being disingenuous). The video was BUT AN EXAMPLE of the point being made. You are getting lost amongst the trees while missing the forest. The OP theorized that conditioning was occurring. Many agree.

Re-read Vector's Post # 66 -- he/she describes in very succinctly right there. We have watched this occur related to many things over recent decades. Keep an eye peeled, you'll begin to see the patterns IF you have an open-mind.

Here's an excellent example: That is how you can get white people to feel racist toward themselves!!! Plenty of self-loathing people buy into the guilt they're told they should have. Pure looney-tunes. But, they were eased into it over a period of time and they are weak-minded.

Had someone told you 10 years ago that they could convince a percentage of white people to feel guilt about the skin color they were born with -- you'd have called them crazy. Welcome to 21st century America.

Thanks so much.

You have accused me, indirectly, of being not only rather stupid, but also blind, close-minded, weak (particularly amusing, as I have taken a rather unpopular stand on this issue), and self-loathing.

I do appreciate your concern, but I am quite capable of forming my own opinions, nor do I feel any guilt about my race. I am neither proud nor ashamed of being white, any more than I am proud or ashamed of being short. It just is.

Please go find some other brainwashed soul to save. I don't need your help.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by Travel Crazy

You have forgotten the original premise put forth (or are being disingenuous). The video was BUT AN EXAMPLE of the point being made. You are getting lost amongst the trees while missing the forest. The OP theorized that conditioning was occurring. Many agree.

Re-read Vector's Post # 66 -- he/she describes in very succinctly right there. We have watched this occur related to many things over recent decades. Keep an eye peeled, you'll begin to see the patterns IF you have an open-mind.

I already addressed Post #66, namely via Post #71 and especially Post #60.

Originally Posted by Travel Crazy

Here's an excellent example: That is how you can get white people to feel racist toward themselves!!!

If it doesn't involve whites thinking themselves as to be inherently more distasteful than non-whites due to low levels of skin melanin alone, or even that white culture contributes nothing of value to other cultures, or that "most" whites even today want to see racial minorities suffer -- then I'm not buying it. Let's see if that's what you say most non-whites want us to think that way.

Originally Posted by Travel Crazy

Plenty of self-loathing people buy into the guilt they're told they should have. Pure looney-tunes. But, they were eased into it over a period of time and they are weak-minded.

Nope, didn't think so. The closest you came to this is some vaguely defined "white guilt", presumably about slavery, ethnic cleansing of Native Americans, and stealing another part of a stolen land from some other racial group who already stole that part (what is today the SW USA from Mexico - ethnic-Spaniard ruled). If that's what it's about, you're jumping to conclusions - assuming people as individuals are obligated to be the guilty party in lieu of their ancestors. That is not what Blacks, Native Americans, and Hispanics are saying. They're simply saying everyone should be made aware of such acts, and that we should all recognize those as wrongful acts without accusing presently existing whites of the wrongs of their ancestors. The point being, make sure something like this NEVER happens again.

Originally Posted by Travel Crazy

Had someone told you 10 years ago that they could convince a percentage of white people to feel guilt about the skin color they were born with -- you'd have called them crazy. Welcome to 21st century America.

Even if that certain percentage of whites did feel that way, that still doesn't change the fact that most whites I know do NOT see it that way. They simply see it as remembering George Santayana's remark about "forget the past" and "condemned to repeat it".

[kdog]

Originally Posted by tamajane

I wonder why the video was taken down.

Apparently it was taken down by request of the presenter who was being threatened -- probably by people who didn't understand her talk, much as we're seeing in this thread.

https://blog.ted.com/tedx-talk-under-review/

[Vector1]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

Homosexuality does not hurt, harm, or demean the dignity of others. Any response you give to this, I sufficiently answered in my previous post. Also abnormal does not equal dysfunctional or scorn-worthy. "Normal" and "abnormal" are about statistics and nothing more. Slapping the label "scorn-worthy" is entirely a different matter, independent of its statistical frequency.



Already addressed this in my previous post.

As for the mature 12 yr old vs the immature 19 year old? I will quickly admit that there is not a perfect tightly-defined line or standard for maturity. Even so, that still does not change the essential facts: 1. If you're old enough to get your ass shot off for your country, then you're old enough to engage in sex with older people. 2. Most people are, by the time they are 18, do have at least minimal competency to understand the emotional and social implications of sex with another person. Again, the line is very blurred, but unless you can come up with a very strong argument that the age should be lower, I have to agree with the traditional legal and cultural opinion about this one. 18th birthday is the most reasonable age line to draw in matters of sex.

Well as to your first part regarding normal vs. abnormal, maybe stats do cover much of it. However when we are talking about homo vs. hetero, there is a significant difference having nothing to do with stats. The biological drive to reproduce to carry on the species and genetic line are universal among all creatures, large and small.
So just because someone chooses to relieve their sexual desires with prepubescent children, or the same sex, has nothing to do with stats, and everything to do with biology and nature.

As to your second paragraph, whether you subscribe to this or not, the left is trying to say that adults under the age of 21 are not responsible enough to own a gun, drink liquor, etc., yet we can send them off to war, right?
Even worse, children under 18 need a parents permission to do just about everything on earth when it involves their health and well being. Yet liberals think it is ok for a girl, say 14 years old to be able to get a dangerous medical procedure without their parents consent to abort a child.
This is ok with them because it mirrors their political/ideological beliefs, nothing more. Plus they only tihnk of it in the abstract. Yet if it were their daughter who was able to do it and died as a result, they would be screaming bloody murder.
But as you say, if they are old enough to get their rear end shot off in defense of our country (which I would argue is one of the most important things for our culture/society to survive), then why are leftists trying to prohibit their constitutional right to own a gun?
As it relates to this discussion, clearly many on the left feel as if 18 is not old enough, yet the movement to allow minors (even 17 years and 364 days old) to have sex with adults is real. You and I both know it, so why deny reality.

As I said in another post, left up to liberals/progressives, this country would devolve into any type of pervert sex imaginable, total drug use, total disarmament of the populace, subordination of rights to the tender mercies of a "benevolent government", etc.
By their very nature, they are malcontents looking to always change improve things, even what they demanded and were given in previous generations.
Conservatives by their very nature look to preserve traditions, normalcy, and stick with proven methods to keep a society intact.
I'd be willing to bet if we could look into the future and see what a liberal or conservative dominated America would be like, we would more readily recognize the conservative America over a liberal one.


`

[kdog]

Originally Posted by Vector1

As I said in another post, left up to liberals/progressives, this country would devolve into any type of pervert sex imaginable, total drug use, total disarmament of the populace, subordination of rights to the tender mercies of a "benevolent government", etc.
By their very nature, they are malcontents looking to always change improve things, even what they demanded and were given in previous generations.
Conservatives by their very nature look to preserve traditions, normalcy, and stick with proven methods to keep a society intact.
I'd be willing to bet if we could look into the future and see what a liberal or conservative dominated America would be like, we would more readily recognize the conservative America over a liberal one.

This is your brain on Hannity.

[Vector1]

Originally Posted by RedZin

Homosexuals are consenting adults.

Pedophiles cannot obtain consent from children.

That is really all there is to that.

That you are homophobic (I mean, I assume you are, given the way you are speaking about homosexuals here, but please correct me if I am misunderstanding your commentary on gay people) is not really my concern. Homosexuality appears to be a genetic trait.

Perhaps pedophilia is, too, but it is not socially acceptable at this point in history (though it was in the past) because we have laws regarding children and consent.

I cannot see us loosening them. If anything, our society seems to want people to stay young even longer than it ever has before.

I do not disagree with the concept of age being an indicator of maturity (or by extension consent) in a general sense.
Thus I think society in general, and our culture in particular, has the right to set parameters to define adults vs. children.

Before I can answer your question/s, define what you mean by homophobic?

Also, out of curiosity, what led to you think that I might be "homophobic"


`

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by Vector1

Well as to your first part regarding normal vs. abnormal, maybe stats do cover much of it. However when we are talking about homo vs. hetero, there is a significant difference having nothing to do with stats. The biological drive to reproduce to carry on the species and genetic line are universal among all creatures, large and small.
So just because someone chooses to relieve their sexual desires with prepubescent children, or the same sex, has nothing to do with stats, and everything to do with biology and nature.

If reproduction / keeping the species alive is the actual central issue, then does that mean the conscious, committed child-free beliefs lack legitimacy (there's a huge variety of reasons why some people refuse to procreate; many quite sensible, in fact)? Or even any heterosexual activity not consciously performed for procreative purposes? Or even masturbation?

Originally Posted by Vector1

As to your second paragraph, whether you subscribe to this or not, the left is trying to say that adults under the age of 21 are not responsible enough to own a gun, drink liquor, etc., yet we can send them off to war, right?

Ability to follow orders, use firearms and 50 ton equipment in very controlled dangerous situations like military service is very different from buying a firearm in a civilian setting. That lets us lower the age of responsibility for firearm use. Even without this, there should still be the utmost rigorous mental health examinations before being allowed to own a firearm, including all people 21 and over who seek to own one. So I could be in favor of keeping the age at 18 IF there are those "utmost rigorous mental health examinations" (I'll leave the definition of that term to the experienced mental health professionals).

Originally Posted by Vector1

Even worse, children under 18 need a parents permission to do just about everything on earth when it involves their health and well being. Yet liberals think it is ok for a girl, say 14 years old to be able to get a dangerous medical procedure without their parents consent to abort a child.
This is ok with them because it mirrors their political/ideological beliefs, nothing more. Plus they only tihnk of it in the abstract. Yet if it were their daughter who was able to do it and died as a result, they would be screaming bloody murder.

Parents are responsible for the well-being of any under 18 children they have. Also, abortion these days (and even a generation ago, if not two) is no more dangerous than any other kind of surgery. And no, if a "liberal" parent had their daughter die of an abortion, they'd likely see it as tragic inevitable rarity, even if highly devastating to them personally.

Originally Posted by Vector1

But as you say, if they are old enough to get their rear end shot off in defense of our country (which I would argue is one of the most important things for our culture/society to survive), then why are leftists trying to prohibit their constitutional right to own a gun?

See above.

Originally Posted by Vector1

As it relates to this discussion, clearly many on the left feel as if 18 is not old enough, yet the movement to allow minors (even 17 years and 364 days old) to have sex with adults is real. You and I both know it, so why deny reality.

Just because perfection is unrealistic doesn't mean we should stop trying to strive for it. At any rate, the law does allow for some leeway on this matter. In some states, 18 and 19 for sure can't be accused of statutory rape of girls 16 and 17 (the laws can vary greatly by state, I have to warn). Still, the average 20 year old, even an immature one, should easily be able to find an equally immature 18 year old to have sex with. No need for him or her to go below that age.

Originally Posted by Vector1

As I said in another post, left up to liberals/progressives, this country would devolve into any type of pervert sex imaginable, total drug use, total disarmament of the populace, subordination of rights to the tender mercies of a "benevolent government", etc. By their very nature, they are malcontents looking to always change improve things, even what they demanded and were given in previous generations.

Child/Minor-with-adult sex aside (which I do agree should be kept illegal, and highly so)... how is any kind of consensual sex between adults a perversion? And even if it is a perversion, how do those kinds of perversions hurt you or anyone else. As for drug use, I don't know of any liberal calling for *total* drug use. True, most do favor legalizing marijuana, and similarly non-addictive drugs. BTW, alcohol is a drug, and it causes more problems per 100,000 users or so than marijuana ever did. Even what problems marijuana causes are more an artifact of arbitrary restrictions on marijuana that don't apply to alcohol.
Conservatives by their very nature look to preserve traditions, normalcy, and stick with proven methods to keep a society intact. Also, the "malcontents" are sometimes not content because they accept a present "loosening" as not a final end-game, but a reasonable compromise for the moment, until social attitude change more (see "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for details).

Originally Posted by Vector1

I'd be willing to bet if we could look into the future and see what a liberal or conservative dominated America would be like, we would more readily recognize the conservative America over a liberal one.

Recognizability does not mean correct or right. Someone yanked from even 1988 would not recognize today's America, let alone 1868 (or choose any year prior to that, for that matter). I hardly think you would be willing to accept most things people of that time period had accepted for thousands of years prior to that one. The same principle works in a future-ward direction. Who knows? By 2100 people in small town Mississippi may be attending church naked for all we know (Were I yanked to that year 5 minutes from now from my subjective perspective, I'd be taken aback, but not offended. It may even be kind of fun . But then again, I'm intrigued by "wacko" stuff, "immature" as I am -- subject to my old cliché of ...yep, you guessed it "No HHDD))