Whee. More bullshit, man. You’re admitted purpose in being “ambiguous (which you weren’t,”) was to deliberately create an impression contrary to the truth. How do you define “misleading,” then.
Yes. Feeble point noted. Anal retentive point understood. Language deconstruction succeeded. Obfuscation achieved. Obtusity threshhold reached. Inanity quotient exceeded.
People I find mature, honest, and worth debating with attempt to make their points succinctly and clearly and don’t deliberately confuse the issue.
Unfortunately, you lacked the necessary skill to pull this off. You weren’t ambiguous. You strongly implied that as an adult you have had sex with underrage minors.
Take a cue from Spiritus Mundi, PLD, and Kabbes, honest debaters I frequently disagree with. If you wish to stand on semantics than it is incumbent upon you to be very precise and correct in your usage.
I was not deliberately implying anything at all. Perhaps you might notice the sentence construct of ambiguity in my incessent use of the word “maybe” and “perhaps.” I am not arguing semantics at all here. I mentioned I was a pedophile. That definition was accurate according to two dictionaries I checked before making the point. I applied all the stereotypes people mentioned in this thread to myself, deliberately mentioning that there was no reason that these things should be true or that there was no reason they should apply to me.
This is not a debate about semantics. At all. That you continue to name it so [seemingly] in order to evade the point that your opinions weren’t based on fact disappoints me.
I’m being disingenius by asking for a debate on the matter? I’m arguing semantics by following the definition of words? I’m trolling by calling people on misuse of terms and illogical connections? I’m misrepresenting myself by not letting people get away with stating assumed truths as universal facts? Please, Scylla, take me to the pit where you can get this off your chest. And since you won’t support yourself by reason here (some things are just inherently wrong; no explanation is necessary) in GD maybe you will do so in the Pit (note use of word “maybe” to show contextual lack of “me being sure”). Otherwise stop calling me names, stop insulting people who honestly find young girls attractive while respecting their right to develop free from molestation, stop twisting my arguments, and start acting like you do in other threads I’ve seen you in. There is no reason for this spat other than you are upset that I took offense to your offensive post.
Let me give you a hint on ambiguity: when I say, there is no evidence, though that means the situation is ambiguous. You cannot tell truth from fiction. It does not mean: You need to be pretty far from reality and be able to rationalize your fantasies to an astounding extent to be a pedophile, which is presented as a statement of fact. When I say things like: Maybe I’ve got kiddie porn on my computer, that is a statement of ambiguous and indeterminite truth, equivalent to maybe we really have no bodies at all, we only think we do. This is different from something along the lines of, Catering to pedophiles is wretched and inherently dangerous which is also presented as a statement of fact.
This is not a semantic argument where we wonder what we “really” mean when we say ambiguous. If it is, I certainly didn’t start it.
I called you on presenting opinion as fact without support. End of story.
It is unfotunate that this has degenerated into a argument of who said what and what they really must have meant. This seems to be a common theme in several threads that Erislover is part of. (note- I am not stating that he is intentionally causing such.)This particular issue does have associations with which are subjsets that most people (in my opinon, laudable) taboo reactions agaist. This does make debate difficult without conflict.
That said, I would like to inject my opinion on the actual subject of the thread. I am probably restating thing already said, but the focus seem to have left this debate. It is highly unlikely that at least a part of the audience of these website are not child molestors and/or pedophiles (by which I mean someone who has a clinical fetish- the inablity to achieve sexual pleasure without a given stimulation in this case children) Although the audience of anything involving children is likely to include such, these websites seem to be pandering to this segment- as they have no legitmate product except images of the children. I think this is very dangerous. I also think that specifically teaching children how to use their sexuality to sell is a very negative coping skill, which makes them more vulverable to potential abuse from child molestors. Yes there may(or may not, we do not know) be positive coping skills that are taught in addition to this- but it does not make it acceptable. Teaching a child the most likely succesful ways to commit suicide, and providing the means at easy access for example would be wrong, in my opinion. Other skills and knowledge might be also taught to help counter this, but that would not make it right. I think the situations are analogous (NOT equal mearly analogous)
You address each of my points, I’ll address each of yours. You do not ignore rebuttals and simply restate your thesis, you must address the actual rebuttal. I will do the same. The points I expect you to fairly address are labelled first through eighth.
First, you have taken my quotes out of context. In each and every case what is being referred to is not an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old, but a fully formed and mature adult having sex with a prepubescent child. While both may be technically examples of pedophiliac molestations within rigid definitions, there is a world of difference between the two. I expect you to either recognize this difference and retract whatever point you think you were making, or succinctly explain what you find objectionable about my statements within their proper context that has now been explained to you.
**
Secondly. ::Smirks:: Uh, Yeah. I thought you had removed yourself from this “debate.” Stating now that you actually wanted one even though you said you didn’t is disingenuous regarding your first statement. Look it up.
Third. Yep. That’s semantics all right.
Fourth. When you intentionally create them? Yes. When you create a clear implication that as a 25 year old you have sex with 15-16 year olds but pretty much observe the law, you are not only creating a logical connections, you are making a statement. So, yes. It’s trolling. You’re being dishonest, or selective to intitiate a specific response rather than engage in honest discussion.
Fifth. You are going to have to be specific. No more generalizations. What assumed truths and what universal facts are you referring to in this instance that you were not letting people get away with?
No. Sorry. As much as you would enjoy the attention, you’re hardly worth it. My feelings towards you are more minor annoyance at your immaturity than anything else. hardly pitworthy.
Sixth. And you’ll notice that I later did provide explanations. Saying that no explanation is necessary isn’t the same as saying that I am unwilling to provide one. As one so sincerely interested in the accurate use of language, surely you’ll concede that. And as a point of fact, I did later provide explanation. I expect you to recognize that. Go and look for it. If you think it was inadequate, I expect you to address why. Failing that, I expect a retraction.
Seventh. No. That is not what ambiguity means. An ambiguous statement is one that can be interpreted more than one way. For example, the term pedophile could be applied to:
-an 18 year old having sex with with a seventeen year old in a state where it is not legal to do so.
-A thirty year old guy who thought Britney Spears looked hot, in a video
-A person who lusts after toddlers
-A person who lusts after toddlers and molests them
All those people could be labelled as pedophiles. If I simply call myself a pedophile, I am communicating poorly by being ambiguous. If I do so on purpose I am being an asshole. If I on purpose am referring to myself as in the second example, but leave cues to suggest it is the fourth example, I am no longer being ambiguous. I am being misleading and dishonest. This is what you have done. Clear?
Eighth. Actually it is, and you did. Immediately above this line is my rebuttal of your “meaning” of the term “ambiguous.” You posted it. Not me. Please get your facts straight.
Maybe that’s what you did. Beats me. You don’t make too much sense. I’ll take your word for it that that’s what you think your doing. I’m even sure that somewhere in this thread I presented an usupported opinion. I won’t make you look for it. So far though, your examples have sucked.
Finally it would be really nice if you would recognize that the definition of “pedophile” as one who is attracted to a child or children, is rather broad and encompassing. As such, seeing as it would apply to most everybody at some point in time, it’s not particularly useful.
We don’t use “pedophile” to mean everybody. We generally use it to mean someone who is unusually attracted and/or acts on that attraction. Sometimes we use it synonymously with “child molester.”
“Pedophile” evokes images of the dirty guy wit a closet full of kiddie porn, or the predator that lurks outside of the playground waiting for the opportunity to take advantage of a grade schooler.
This is a fairly common, understandable and unambiguous usage. Within the context of this debate the term also fits to describe paying customers jerking off to pictures of little Amber baking cookies.
I would like to know why it is that you think it forwards or adds to this debate in any way to deconstruct this usage.
As the trend of this thread was from irrational knee jerking to insults disguised as debates (not everyone here, of course), I find that my “being fed up” response is, while perhaps childish, at least justifyable by treating certain people as I have been treated, AKA do unto others.
Pedophile does not evoke that image unilaterally, and you continue to make my point even more clear. I do not deconstruct the usage. I use it honestly, without hidden implications or a priori assumptions. As you note such a term applies to all people, and all people aren’t molesters, perhaps it shows that people other than fucking molesters would pay for the site.
This “perhaps”, of course, means that one would have to recognize the words they are using in a consistent manner with, at least in some ways, the definition itself. Even the “unhealthy sexual deviation wherein children are the only means a pedophile has to achieve a hightened sexual state” definition of pedophilia still doesn’t include molesting. For god’s sake, if you say this site caters to pedophiles, and I show you, and stoid shows you, and the fucking DSM shows you
. But of course, that all depends on which DSM you happen to look at. The most recent version indicates the following which might interest you:
Interesing how even the fucking medical community can’t keep their definitions straight, and yet you seem to manage OK by calling them “sick.” The dictionary definition is an oasis of understanding and clarity compared to everything else.
Further searching on the DMV and how the APA defines deviant behavior turn up a wealth of controversy that you, apparently, have learned to deal with in an exacting and efficient manner. Perhaps you should discuss this with them, not me, and clearly show how they are “obviously” in error and that “we all know what pedophilia really means” or something to that effect. Could be a line of work for you.
The publisher’s note on this page is very interesting as well.
Of course, Dr. Laura was saying this as an attack on the APA.
I will address your most recent post in the following manner:
I did not deconstruct its usage. I found its usage inappropriate and contrary to the point many were making, which was that the girl is potentially being marketed to molesters. It is certainly not necessary to bring pedophiles into it at all to make such a point, whatever definition we choose to use, especially after I politely mentioned that I do not consider them as synonamous terms and could we please stop it.
Since the word pedophile was continuously being used anyway, I felt it would be constructive behavior to show the pitfalls of using the term in such a carefree manner. I will continue to do so.
If we can get back to the debate at hand I may even decide to join in again and ask my opponents some questions I’d really like an answer to, such as: “How is using ‘sexy’ to sell a CD and simply selling ‘sexy’ really all that different?” or “If it is that different and we admit that molesters are a part of both audiences, why does it matter if one also has a ‘normal’ audience?” or “Could someone please demonstrate that the lesson to be learned from this is necessarily a bad lesson?” or “Could someone please explain why this lesson should be more powerful than all the other lessons a girl might learn in her other ‘normal’ activities?” Perhaps I’ll even respond. There are many issues many people here can address to show the fundamental difference here where, when I reduce it to fundamentals, I actually see the same situation almost across the board.
I will continue to express my unease at what the parents are doing, but when I look for a good reason for that unease, I don’t come up with anything solid. I am looking externally to this board for something solid, and I come up with sand that slips through my fingers every time I pick it up. So so far I say, “Thanks for nothing.”
I will note though that the definition you picked up:
Fits excellently into the discussion of the OP.
The websites seemingly cater to people who desire sexual contact with children. These websites provide that. Therefore they cater to pedophiles according to a definition you so thoughtfully provided.
So the use of the term in this context is appropriate.
Scylla, I think you are wrong here. Who is “we”? It isn’t ** me ** and never has been.
The reason the usage you seem to prefer should be deconstructed is precisely what eris is trying to tell you: to use “pedophile” to casually refer to people who rape children is ignorant and unfair to the poor souls who have to deal with their unacceptable feelings and do so without ever harming a hair on a child’s head.
As I and others have said repeatedly in this thread: Not all pedophiles molest and not all molesters are pedophiles. By any stretch, and it seems really strange for you to be arguing ** for ** ambiguity on a topic that is so important.
There is absolutely nothing good to be gained by lumping every human being who has ever had a sexual response to the thought, image or presence of a child under the term “molester”. In fact, it is heartless and destructive.
I know you’re pissed off at eris, and I understand why. But I think you are letting it cloud your usually fair and clear judgment about what “fighting ignorance” constitutes.
Lastly, I would just like to reiterate: eris was deliberately ambiguous to point out that the lumping I refer to above is wrong. He was making a point, and you stepped right into it.
I can answer you, as I did earlier: they are singling their children out and very conceivably making them targets. In and of itself, I think there is no real harm. But considering who the audience is, there is a very real chance that they are dangling their children in front of someone who could develop a fixation or obsession on that kid and act on it. It just doesn’t seem like the really smart move. It’s like parading meat in front of tigers in a cage…one of them may break out.
Scylla, I’m sorry, but I have to ask - did you read the thread before jumping in on page 4? Because it had really been made pretty clear by erislover and Stoid that “pedophile” and “child molester” were being used in different ways in this debate, and in fact most others had acquiesced in the usage by the time you came along.
You can dismiss the matter as mere semantics if you like, but the fact is, semantics are never mere. All parties must use their words the same way for debate to occur. And when word definitions had already jelled by the time you came into the debate, it is irresponsible to misuse them and then try to bluster your way out of it based on popular usage. There should be a difference in this particular debate, even if the words are colloquially used interchangeably, because it really matters when we’re looking at the issue of the effects of these web sites on different people.
I understand this topic is really pushing your hot buttons, considering your parental status. And I think that some of erislover’s suggestions of how the parents may be mitigating some of the possible bad effects of their actions are pretty farfetched. It strikes me as most likely that the parents are idiots seduced by the possibility of a quick buck. But you’re really going overboard here.
I’m not sure why people think I’m particularly upset. I’m not.
I personally just find erislover’s little usage crusade to be both ridiculous in principle and poorly executed.
And yes, I read the thread before I entered it, and was aware of the different usages. I would disagree as to how much they had jelled though, and anyhow erislover went beyond the pale of ambiguity when he strongly suggested that he had sex with 15-16 year olds.
Oddly enough, I and the majority of posters I encounter and threads I read, generally have little trouble understanding one another’s meaning from the context of their posts.
When there is a misunderstanding, it’s usually cleared up quickly, when honest folk are involved.
erislover’s point seems to be that the term “pedophile” as it is being used specifically in this thread (but 'prolly nowhere else,) doesn’t necessarily imply actual molestation…
Simple enough to understand without the drama queen action methinks.
Who is being dishonest? Care to pit me for that, too? Of course not. Not worth the “trouble.”
I offered many sources which all provided different definitions of that word. The only thing common between all of them was “sexual desire for children.” The most current definition as released by the APA implies that the adult in question must suffer emotional trauma from the act of sex to even consider him a pedophile, which doesn’t fit your usage either, because if he experiences no trauma he isn’t “sick,” as you so eloquently put it.
As an obvious solution to such a convoluted term, I suggested repeatedly we quit using it. I hope the numerous sources I provided will, someday, show you that my “drama queen” act was actual frustration and light anger at having to restate a pretty simple point: we won’t agree on a suitable definition of pedophile unanimously in this thread (and not due exclusively to me, either); we can agree on a meaning for molester. Use molester if you mean “molester.” Shall I draw it with a single-colored crayon, or would that be too dishonest?
Stoid, you really created a good discussion here.
I was thinking about this last night.
What if it was the girls who thought this up? Just what if, I’m not saying they did.
What if they said, lets put sexy pictures of us up on the net. What if they knew pedophiles were viewing it, even?
Would it be wrong then?
Or do they not know enough to make a decision like that?
Your powers of observation leave something to be desired, erislover. ‘Jessi the Kid’ doesn’t have boobs, and most of the shots I saw of Amber, she didn’t either.
So of the handful of girls under discussion, one is prepubescent, and one was that way when her parents started her into this gig.
I’d just like to hijack this thread long enough to declare that that has got to be the worst word for a sexual body part in existance. Maybe it’s just because when I encounter an idiot, behave like and idiot, or someone I love is being idiotic, the first thing that pops into my mind is “You incompetent boob!”, which cracks me up. But definitely expresses what I mean. And I just don’t think of my darling. luscious, tasty, fleshy, yummy, friendly breasts as anything like boobs.