So, is that a bigger or smaller newsflash than “Pedophiles are nasty?”
Incidentally, please stop using the term “non sequitur.” At this point, it’s become abundantly clear that you do not understand what it means in the slightest, despite the definition being provided in this very thread. Nothing about matt’s post was a non sequitor. It was entirely on topic for the OP, and for the subsequent discussion about the dangers of overzealous prosecution of suspected pedophiles.
Alternatively, you could just stop posting in this thread altogether, before you make yourself look like an even bigger idiot, but I suspect that’s asking too much.
Not quite yet. Stereotype much? “Pedophiles are Nasty.” “Fags are Nasty.” “Niggers are Nasty.” “Broads are Nasty.” “Kikes are Nasty.” “Midgets are Nasty.” Keep going.
Ain’t prejudice fun? Makes you feel better, too; 'cause you’re better than those Nasty people that nobody likes.
See, the problem that I have here is that you aren’t just outraged over the conduct of the people in question (which I can join you in), but you want to hate them for who they ARE, not just what they DO. Fred Phelps does that. He hates gays because they all fuck each other up the ass, and that’s “Nasty!”
Nasty, Nasty, Nasty! Can I get an “AMEN!?” They’re not like us! They’s NASTY!
Condemn them for hurting someone, if you want (I will join you)…but advocate (and try to rally everyone around) hating them for who they’re attracted to? Bite me, motherfucker.
I don’t happen to share their preference in partners, either; but Fred Phelps is NOT MY role model.
The attack on matt_mcl was completely unwarranted. Either mean it as a joke, or be thoroughly ashamed of yourself, pinhead.
You know…I think I can safely say I’m ok with stereotyping child pornographers.
And in what bizarro-world is using bigotry against a person of a particular race or gay people equivalent to stereotyping kiddy porn peddlers? Wtf does being gay or a minority have to do with it?
Sorry, if it’s wrong to hate kiddy porn peddlers, I don’t want to be right. You think that makes me like Fred Phelps? Seriously?
Ok then…I think you’re a moron, but whatever you need to think to make it through the day…
Some groups, especially groups defined by evil behavior, should be hated as a group. Genocidal killers, child molestors, rapists and torturers are right at the top of the list. Note that by definition none of them are innocent people undeserving of hatred; if they’re innocent, they aren’t on the list.
One has to ask why one would hate gays and blacks and so on; they are not inherently guilty of anything wrong, after all. Such prejudice makes no sense, which is why it’s wrong. Does anyone need to ask why child molesters should be and are hated ? They are hated for what they have done; and that makes sense, and is not wrong.
Der Trihs, pedophiles are people who have an attraction to pre-pubescent children. Not all pedophiles are child molestors and not all child molestors are pedophiles.
In which case? The case linked in the OP, or the case in the post that I responded to? I see a difference there.
Fine, you can be okay with whatever you like. Personally, I don’t find stereotyping of any sort to be justified, but that’s just me. However, on this point, the stereotyping wasn’t directed at child pornographers, it was directed at pedophiles as a whole demographic. “These pedophiles did this, so ALL PEDOPHILES ARE NASTY!” kind of thing. Not logically justified, however much you may object to them.
Again, the complaint wasn’t “stereotyping kiddy porn peddlers”, it was stereotyping pedophiles as a group. What does it have to do with being gay or a minority? They get stereotyped, too, and that’s wrong, too. QED.
I didn’t claim it was wrong to “hate kiddy porn peddlers,” only that hating pedophiles because some of them peddle kiddy porn is wrong. Hate the ones who do, if you like. Hating them all is stereotyping and hatemongering. If you don’t want to be right, that’s your problem, not other peoples’. On Fred Phelps: Hating people for who they’re attracted to is hating people for who they’re attracted to. You decide if it makes you like him or not. Perhaps he can help you set up a “godhatespedos.com” site, or something.
Since you appear to have mostly misunderstood me, well then…duly noted. I’ll put your name on the list. :dubious:
I wish people could come to an agreement to not use “pedophile” unless they mean a generic term for someone sexually attracted to children. Then we could revile the kiddie rapists for what they are. Let’s face it, calling them “pedophiles” is just a euphemism.
I’m not saying that this is the case here, but a lot of the time they pedophiles too, or want to imply that all of them are child molesters anyway, so they don’t really care about their language.
And again, just as it makes pedophiles seem worse than they are, it also makes people who rape children or film them being raped seem more understandable in a clinical way. They’re more than just “sick”. Don’t label them with a disorder and be done with it.
Well, see, that may be where we miscommunicated. bonobo_jones used the article linked in the OP to justify a slam on pedophiles in general, which (IMHO) was stereotyping and hatemongering–which is what I was complaining about.
Your response to my post was about (as you state here) “pedophiles who peddle kiddy porn.” That was not the target of bonobo_jones’ attack, nor of my response to it. He did not say that “Pedophiles who peddle kiddy porn are Nasty,” he said, “Pedophiles are Nasty”. That’s what I was objecting to: extrapolating the actions of a few to an entire demographic for the purpose of inciting hate against the demographic.
Prejudice, in my opinion, is prejudice; and not to be condoned, regardless of the target.
It seems now as if you and I were talking past each other. So, you may have been talking specifically about pedophiles who peddle in kiddie porn, but bonobo_jones and I were not. Hence the confusion, perhaps.
Oh, and lest Der Trihs feel I was ignoring his/her point:
I pretty much agree with you on this. If you can group people by what they’ve done wrong, then sure. Go for the hatred if you like. But you will notice (I hope) that pedophiles don’t appear on your list, which is the point that I (as well as Ludovic and kimera and others) are trying to get across. As I said in my earlier post in this thread: if you want to condemn the people in the linked article for hurting children, I’m not going to argue with you(actually, after reading the article, I might a little bit…but not without more information).
But using it as an excuse to slam pedophiles in general is uncalled for.
Exactly my point. One has to ask why one would hate pedophiles; they are not inherently guilty of anything wrong, either.
WtF??? Who the hell do you think you are, deducing non-sequiatorial shit and all???
But seriously, there’s no excuse for relinquishing reason. Simply pointing out to **bonobo **that not all paedophiles follow their urges, and are therefore completely innocent, would’ve sufficed. IF he ignores the plight of paedophiles who have to live in a society that demonises them while they struggle to remain “normal”, then yeah, let him have it.
But then again, I would not be able to avoid feeling queasy if someone I knew told me they were attracted to children.
And suggesting that somehow rape justifies rape is, aside from morality, not a bright idea. This sort of thing does not carry a life sentence. They’re going to be back in society at some point. Better to have them rehabilitated by then.
