Pedophilia - The Next Taboo To Fall?

[Cow Poke]

my mom used to have those long calm talks with me when I did something wrong, explaining why it was wrong and all that. I would squirm and say, "just spank me already!"

Yeah, especially my Dad.... "Dad, could you just please whoop me and get it over with"? (I only said that out loud one time. )

[Mountain Man]

When my dad was really angry, his voice would become almost too quiet to hear. It was terrifying.

[seer]

When my dad was really angry, his voice would become almost too quiet to hear. It was terrifying.

You guys had good Dads! They probably didn't beat you enough though!

[Rushing Jaws]

The line right now is "two consenting adults." For pedophilia to be next would be to break two of those criteria at once when there are currently other movements to break only one of them.

Objections to pedophilia from people who embrace the "two consenting adults" line involve the observation that children are not capable of fully understanding what sex is or entails, and therefore cannot properly consent. To rewrite our understanding of consent when it's so key to the SJW* rhetoric r.e. rape is to invite far too much internal conflict in their camp

*I normally roll my eyes at complaints about SJWs, but making reference to them seemed like the easiest way to get the point across

The only reasons against that I can see, are religious ones. Objections based on reason can always be undermined. There are doubtless excellent reasons to revive Nazism, genocide and all - that is not, at present, socially acceptable, so people don't attempt it. There is no cruelty, no perversity of body or soul, no form of evil or inhumanity, that cannot be justified on some plea, with at least some show of reason. Only something far stronger than reason can overcome the plausible arguments offered by reason. The problem then is, that in a multicultural society arguments based on religion convince only those of the same or a similar religion - those who have a different or no religion, won't be convinced.

[NorrinRadd]

Ok, I'm on page 6 of this hilarious little slap-fight between dispassionate Vulcan atheists and frothing, head-exploding, hysterical fundies, and I don't have the inclination to wade through more at this time. I'll just note this:

I am able to understand that there is a definite qualitative difference between "actual" child porn and CGI child porn, and that that difference in nature may have concomitant significant moral, ethical, and practical differences.

Clearly, in terms of how a discussion should proceed -- in terms of style -- I side more with the infidel Vulcans here.

[lilpixieofterror]

Is it just nude pictures or them being violated?

Both are a violation (just read some of the stuff about when these kids become adults and what that stuff, being out on the internet, does to them).

[lilpixieofterror]

Why? Because you don't want people to know that your god's laws permit the enslavement and rape of children? Because you can't recognise that those same laws are the product of a misogynistic tribal society and not a benevolent deity? Because you want to hide from the reality of the OT laws and atrocity accounts?

Got to love those emotional buzz words that fundy atheist use when they have no arguments. Enslavement and rape of children? Too bad that post puberty wasn't considered 'children' to ancient people, but adults, eh fundy boy? Seriously, do atheism a favor Roy, stop talking. Seriously, these arguments have long ago been answered and while you're making up emotional buzz words, to avoid having to deal with the scholarship. There was no rape or enslavement going on, fundy boy. Just yet another desperate fundy atheist, who is way over his head and unable to admit to defeat.

You make excuses for murder and abuse, for rape and slavery. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Keep digging Roy and throwing out all of those emotional buzz words because you can't debate this topic logically. Remember though, when you can't refute things though logic, try throwing a bunch of emotional buzz words and hoping those emotional buzz words cover up the fact you're just a fundy atheist, who is arguing though emotion and not scholarship or facts. Here, let me help you out there with some real scholarship:

http://www.christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

You're so over your head here Roy, it's not funny, so please do atheism a favor. Stop talking and exposing that you're basing your arguments not on scholarship, but on emotion.

[lilpixieofterror]

Ok, I'm on page 6 of this hilarious little slap-fight between dispassionate Vulcan atheists and frothing, head-exploding, hysterical fundies, and I don't have the inclination to wade through more at this time. I'll just note this:

I am able to understand that there is a definite qualitative difference between "actual" child porn and CGI child porn, and that that difference in nature may have concomitant significant moral, ethical, and practical differences.

Clearly, in terms of how a discussion should proceed -- in terms of style -- I side more with the infidel Vulcans here.

Too bad they are not being logical at all, but illogical. Does wetting an addiction stem the addiction or cause the addiction to grow and become worse? How long will it take the person who is being 'treated' with VR child porn, to want to move onto 'real' child porn, and to perhaps even move on further to actually committing these acts?

[KingsGambit]

One caveat: I've heard about 16 year olds getting charged for child porn when they stupidly took cell phone pictures of themselves and sent them to a friend. I don't think prosecutors should be destroying their lives for that and I don't consider that "abuse" the way most child porn generally is.

I don't think that takes away from the point I've been making.

[Spartacus]

The only reasons against that I can see, are religious ones. Objections based on reason can always be undermined. There are doubtless excellent reasons to revive Nazism, genocide and all - that is not, at present, socially acceptable, so people don't attempt it. There is no cruelty, no perversity of body or soul, no form of evil or inhumanity, that cannot be justified on some plea, with at least some show of reason. Only something far stronger than reason can overcome the plausible arguments offered by reason. The problem then is, that in a multicultural society arguments based on religion convince only those of the same or a similar religion - those who have a different or no religion, won't be convinced.

I'd like to propose that we clarify what we mean by reason.

There are at least two different sets of meanings that I can see people using.

1. the rhetorical sense: in classical rhetoric, there are 3 kinds of arguments: logos, pathos, ethos.

2. the religious sense: reason vs revelation

You are arguing that we need to base this in revelation rather than reason; I have been arguing that arguments from pathos and ethos are not enough. Does this seem like an accurate assessment of our respective arguments?

[Jaecp]

Ok, I'm on page 6 of this hilarious little slap-fight between dispassionate Vulcan atheists and frothing, head-exploding, hysterical fundies, and I don't have the inclination to wade through more at this time. I'll just note this:

I am able to understand that there is a definite qualitative difference between "actual" child porn and CGI child porn, and that that difference in nature may have concomitant significant moral, ethical, and practical differences.

Clearly, in terms of how a discussion should proceed -- in terms of style -- I side more with the infidel Vulcans here.

Sorry I wasn't able to be more interesting Norrin :(

[rogue06]

By the way, in that subsequent talk, I found out that my Mom did, in fact, yell and scream and was very upset, but she called our Pastor for counsel, and he's the one who told her "you need to be 'prayed up' and have a calm discussion with your son, explaining why.......".

(yelling and screaming I could have handled!)

It's akin to the look my father would all too frequently give me -- that sad, disappointed look. Man, I would much rather take a whoppin' than face that.

[NorrinRadd]

Too bad they are not being logical at all, but illogical. Does wetting an addiction stem the addiction or cause the addiction to grow and become worse? How long will it take the person who is being 'treated' with VR child porn, to want to move onto 'real' child porn, and to perhaps even move on further to actually committing these acts?

You are using the term "logic" when you really mean "supposition." With the caveat that I have not yet read beyond page 6 because I "logically" expected the same content-lacking exchange of barbs to continue, I have not seen anyone cite evidence from which to derive "logical" conclusions. The closest thing I saw was assertions that current expert psychological opinion is divided as to the effects of pornography; e.g., is it more likely to be an outlet/substitute, or an appetizer?

[Sparko]

still waiting for Jaecp to show me that there is a "big controversy" between researchers and professionals regarding whether using porn to treat pedophilia is effective. this is the third time I have asked now,

[lilpixieofterror]

You are using the term "logic" when you really mean "supposition." With the caveat that I have not yet read beyond page 6 because I "logically" expected the same content-lacking exchange of barbs to continue, I have not seen anyone cite evidence from which to derive "logical" conclusions. The closest thing I saw was assertions that current expert psychological opinion is divided as to the effects of pornography; e.g., is it more likely to be an outlet/substitute, or an appetizer?

Than you didn't read very carefully because studies were presented that showed that giving a person porn, does not cure their addiction and the fact that there has not been any evidence presented, thus far, that proves the case. I'd have to say that is pretty damning. Let's start here:

Does giving a person the object of their addiction, cure their addiction?