Homestar Runner Wiki Forum :: View topic - Pedophile Discrimination

The fact that we have to debate the social acceptability of pedophilia in this thread perfectly illustrates how I'm right.

Huge difference there, Mike.

Pedophiles are attracted to physically, mentally, and emotionally undeveloped persons, i.e., those who most certainly are not ready for sex.

Those other categories you mentioned are among consenting adults.

Unless I'm forgetting anything (I haven't been on here in a while) no one has said pedophilia is "OK", they're just saying that we shouldn't confuse the tendency with actual child molestation, and that you shouldn't automatically hate someone just because he's a pedophile. (some people hate any and all pedophiles, even if they're celibate.)

Author:	furrykef [ Fri May 11, 2007 2:49 am ]
Post subject:
Not all slippery slopes are fallacies. Slippery slopes where the conclusion relies solely on the premise are fallacies. "If X happens, this will lead to Y" is a slippery slope fallacy. "If X happens, this will lead to Y and here's why" is not a fallacy as long as the reason given proves the cause and effect. Also, when this argument is used fallaciously, and Y does happen, that doesn't validate the original argument. Y might have happened for different reasons. Or maybe Y was indeed linked to X, but the original statement still had a logic error because it was incomplete. I wouldn't really consider this thread to be a significant indication of anything, really. This thread does not indicate any sort of mainstream acceptance of pedophilia or some crazy left-wing agenda or, really, anything other than what it is: a simple debate over whether or not pedophilia is wrong. Heck, for all we know, MikeMcG could be doing nothing more than playing Devil's Advocate. Possibly not, but I don't really think that matters... a debate is a debate. shrug It's what we're here to do, right? lahimatoa wrote: The fact that we have to debate the social acceptability of pedophilia in this thread perfectly illustrates how I'm right. I think we should be free to debate anything here. Shoot, it'd be an interesting to see a debate about whether it's wrong to boil kittens alive and see somebody actually take the pro-boiling-kittens position. (Well, it would be if it wouldn't get flamed to the ground before the end of page 1.) I'm not seriously saying that I'm really entertaining the idea that it's OK to boil kittens, of course, but my point is I think we should be free to debate it. - Kef

Author:	sam3611 [ Sat May 12, 2007 2:05 am ]
Post subject:
I don't care if someone says he won't act upon his "pedophile" way. I will at the very least keep an eye on him when he is near young children. I can't believe we are debating whether it is right or wrong to view a CHILD as sex objects.

Author:	StrongRad [ Sat May 12, 2007 2:18 am ]
Post subject:
I must admit that I'm quite nervous allowing pedophiles around children and I see nothing discriminatory about keeping them away from children. People with drug problems are not allowed to work in pharmacies. People convicted of violent crime cannot sell firearms. I see nothing wrong with preventing people who want to have sex with children from working with children. Given the amount of litigation revolving around childhood sexual abuse, I think allowing pedophiles to work around children would be exposing a school to a liability that'd best be avoided.

Author:	MikeMcG [ Sat May 12, 2007 6:08 am ]
Post subject:
You could segregate everyone while you're at it. Put gay men with lesbian women, straight men with other straight men and other straight women with other straight women. You'd avoid all sorts of problems.

Author:	Didymus [ Sat May 12, 2007 6:40 am ]
Post subject:
Huge difference there, Mike. Pedophiles are attracted to physically, mentally, and emotionally undeveloped persons, i.e., those who most certainly are not ready for sex. Those other categories you mentioned are among consenting adults.

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Pedophile Discrimination http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=11389	Page 4 of 4

Author:	StrongRad [ Sat May 12, 2007 1:26 pm ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: Huge difference there, Mike. Pedophiles are attracted to physically, mentally, and emotionally undeveloped persons, i.e., those who most certainly are not ready for sex. Those other categories you mentioned are among consenting adults. Exactly, Dids. Thanks for beating me to that. Mike, the issue of gay adults being around other adults or straight adults being around other adults is very different from a pedophile being around children. People can call me a bigot if they want, but I'm not changing my stance. You can only be so "open-minded" before your brain falls out.

Author:	ed 'lim' smilde [ Wed May 16, 2007 10:33 pm ]
Post subject:
That's because 'pedophile' pretty much only refers to practicing pedophiles. If a person is sexually attracted to children for some reason, but doesn't actually act on those sexual feelings, a wouldn't call him or her a pedophile (because I probably wouldn't even know anyways).

Author:	furrykef [ Wed May 16, 2007 11:46 pm ]
Post subject:
Language seldom knows reason. The fact is, it's how the term is usually used. But, nonetheless, it isn't what this thread is actually about. - Kef

Author:	lahimatoa [ Fri May 18, 2007 6:27 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: Unless I'm forgetting anything (I haven't been on here in a while) no one has said pedophilia is "OK", they're just saying that we shouldn't confuse the tendency with actual child molestation, and that you shouldn't automatically hate someone just because he's a pedophile. (some people hate any and all pedophiles, even if they're celibate.) I don't promote hating anyone. I'm just saying anyone with this "tendency" is dangerous and should receive treatment.

Page 4 of 4	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/