# Pedophiliacs: Should we feel sympathy for them? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 17, 2009, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462 "2009-09-17T17:19:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/141 "2009-09-25T12:34:32Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > And it’s not reasonable from a practical standpoint, or a moral standpoint? A practical one. If the distinction is relevant, which I suspect not. > [@](#): > > Your proposal for forced brainwashing requires that you secure the cooperation of 33% of the adult male population. Anyone you can’t convince to let you mind fuck them is going to resist. I don’t think you have a chance against those odds. I don’t recall making any proposals about forced brainwashing. What was that about reading comprehension again? > [@](#): > > And yet you’ve never met someone who wanted to force their views and opinions on others. Amazing… :rolleyes: Sure I have. Some of them want to force themselves on children. These are the ones we are talking about. > [@](#): > > If you want to call anyone who has any attraction to children a pedophile, you aren’t up against 33% of the population. You’re up against 85%. How did we get from 20-33% having a stress reaction to underage images to 85% of the population being pedophiles? > [@](#): > > Again with the putting words in my mouth. Are my actual words not enough reason for you to hate and fear me? You rather overstate how important I find you, but the basis for whatever distaste I feel is easily understood. You stated - > [@Cesario](#): > > The difference is who is threatened by the violation of that unjust law. I don’t give two shits what happens to me for violating an unjust law. Indeed, I consider it a moral imperative to violate unjust laws. [ul][li]You think that laws against child molesting are unjust.[_]You consider it a moral imperative to break an unjust law. And [_]You claim not to care what happens to you when you break the unjust law.[/ul]You have rather clearly announced that you will molest children if you think you will not be detected. [/li] I think I will forgo my usual sign off. ---
**Author:** ![Dusty\_Rose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ba8739/32.png) [@Dusty\_Rose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dusty_Rose)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/142 "2009-09-25T13:07:37Z")
> [@Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](#): > > I have issue with this ‘slippery slope’ argumentation. > > One might argue that I am a murderer. There have been many people I have thought I very much might like to kill. Getting rid of them from my life, release if you will, would be a pleasure. But I am perfectly capable of restraining myself. > One might argue that I’m into incest. My sister has grown up into quite a fine young lady. I can’t help noticing how attractive she has become. There’s definitely some sort of sexual attraction there. But I am perfectly capable of restraining myself. > One might argue I am a thief. There’s lots of things I’d want to steal and own for myself because I don’t have the money. But I am perfectly capable of restraining myself. > > What goes on in our minds is quite scary to suddenly reveal to people. You may be one of the lucky ones who has completely pure thoughts every second of the day, but I don’t think I’m alone when I say that I do have, what society would consider, dark fantasies. But how long will they stay thoughts? What if someone tips me over the edge and I want strangle them to death? What if my sister finds me attractive and seeks me? What if I come across a car with the keys still in its ignition, with no witnesses around? > Well, that’s where your restraint is tested, and I have never not passed. I see no reason why Cesario should be any different. I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree. I would argue that what helps you restrain yourself is knowing that murder, incest and stealing are wrong. Cesario has plainly said that he doesn’t believe his desires are wrong. That it is _society_ that is wrong. I would also add that pedophilia is a different animal. From what we know about them, our known cures aren’t all that effective and that recidivism rates are high. We also know that sexual urges to your primary orientation are notoriously difficult to master. Impossible? No. Further, I would argue that this analogy isn’t apt. You are arguing from the standpoint of a rational human being. To make it more applicable, you would have to argue from the standpoint of being a serial killer resisting the urge to kill, or a kleptomaniac resisting the urge to steal. A different animal. ---
**Author:** ![fuzzypickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9d8465/32.png) [@fuzzypickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fuzzypickles)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/143 "2009-09-25T13:10:33Z")
> [@Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](#): > > I have issue with this ‘slippery slope’ argumentation. > > One might argue that I am a murderer. There have been many people I have thought I very much might like to kill. Getting rid of them from my life, release if you will, would be a pleasure. But I am perfectly capable of restraining myself. The difference is that you don’t desire to murder every random stranger of a certain body type and age range (I hope!!!) – nor have you convinced yourself that these particular individuals actually _want_ you to kill them. Like everyone else, there’s a few specific individuals out there who, if I ever happen to meet in a dark alley someday, may quickly become non-breathing individuals. However, the chances of encountering any of them under those circumstances is vanishingly small. A better analogy would be an ex-alcoholic who spends lots of time in bars, clubs, and other drinking establishments, surrounded by temptations. Will he resist? Will he succumb? For what it’s worth, I’m willing to assume that our current Visitor From Planet Pedo is more bluster than bite; this is, after all, an extremely libertarian message board, and the ability to express your deepest darkest desires to people who will actually listen must be extremely powerful. That said, a few of **Cesario’s** comments have been rather disturbing in nature…but it’s hard to tell if he’s merely attention whoring, or so far gone that he’s not paying attention to the details he’s allowing to slip out. ---
**Author:** ![Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8491ac/32.png) [@Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fake_Tales_of_San_Francisco)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/144 "2009-09-25T13:43:31Z")
> [@Dusty\_Rose](#): > > I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree. I would argue that what helps you restrain yourself is knowing that murder, incest and stealing are wrong. Cesario has plainly said that he doesn’t believe his desires are wrong. That it is _society_ that is wrong. I don’t know if they’re inherently (morally) wrong. I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to say that society is wrong simply because I feel differently. But I don’t think for example, my desire to kill the person who raped my best friend is particularly wrong. But it is according to society, so I would not do it. If I was starving I might steal food, too. > [@](#): > > To make it more applicable, you would have to argue from the standpoint of being a serial killer resisting the urge to kill, or a kleptomaniac resisting the urge to steal. A different animal. Well now I’m intrigued. What, fundamentally is the difference between myself and these two groups of people? Is it something to do with brain chemistry? Are they simply less capable of resisting their urges? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/145 "2009-09-25T16:05:42Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > . . . including this Caeserio pervert . . . You are permitted to express your views, but you will refrain from enagaing in personal insults. This is a Warning to watch your behavior. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/146 "2009-09-25T16:16:09Z")
That said, **Cesario** , you are way over the line on personal hostility in this thread, (and several others). If you really believe a lot of the stuff you are posting, then you ought to be trying to persuade others to your views. Attacking other posters, sneering at them, and making snide comments about their opinions will seriously fail to persuade anyone. At this point, you have utterly failed to persuade me of any opinions you have expressed, but you are very much catching my attention as an irritable poster who is more disruptive than I am inclined to tolerate in this forum. Calm down, A LOT, or back off until you can post without all the hostility. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/147 "2009-09-25T20:31:48Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > That said, **Cesario** , you are way over the line on personal hostility in this thread, (and several others). If you really believe a lot of the stuff you are posting, then you ought to be trying to persuade others to your views. Attacking other posters, sneering at them, and making snide comments about their opinions will seriously fail to persuade anyone. > At this point, you have utterly failed to persuade me of any opinions you have expressed, but you are very much catching my attention as an irritable poster who is more disruptive than I am inclined to tolerate in this forum. > > Calm down, A LOT, or back off until you can post without all the hostility. > > [/Moderating] What the fuck? Why don’t “the others” get called out by name? They’re being at least as hostile as **Cesario** , who is getting dogpiled on by about 10-to-1. Hell, at least point out exactly he’s being sneering in a way that nobody else is. AFAICT, he’s beating the mother-loving shit out of everyone in this thread, and doing so pretty dispassionately. He’s giving peer-reviewed cites for his claims, and person after person either misreprents or ignores his actual arguments. ---
**Author:** ![fuzzypickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9d8465/32.png) [@fuzzypickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fuzzypickles)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/148 "2009-09-25T22:13:29Z")
> [@furt](#): > > He’s giving peer-reviewed cites for his claims, and person after person either misreprents or ignores his actual arguments. O RLY? I’ve yet to see a single external link verifying that his cites are genuine. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/149 "2009-09-25T23:07:52Z")
> [@furt](#): > > AFAICT, he’s beating the mother-loving shit out of everyone in this thread, and doing so pretty dispassionately. He’s giving peer-reviewed cites for his claims, and person after person either misreprents or ignores his actual arguments. I have to disagree with your assessment. I don’t see his claims being backed by actual cites. He quotes a few studies here and there but they haven’t been available for peer review. There is misrepresenting and ignoring on both sides of the argument. As the thread is ‘Should we feel sympathy for them’ I feel he’s losing this debate as the more he responds in the manner he has the less sympathy I feel for a specific pedophile. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/150 "2009-09-25T23:44:25Z")
> [@furt](#): > > What the fuck? Why don’t “the others” get called out by name? They’re being at least as hostile as **Cesario** , who is getting dogpiled on by about 10-to-1. Hell, at least point out exactly he’s being sneering in a way that nobody else is. > > AFAICT, he’s beating the mother-loving shit out of everyone in this thread, and doing so pretty dispassionately. He’s giving peer-reviewed cites for his claims, and person after person either misreprents or ignores his actual arguments. **Cesario** entered this thread in post #38 with several unprovoked, snide, personal remarks. He has continued, throughout. Note that my comments were not limited to this thread, but to all the threads in which he participates. I am “calling him out by name” because his behavior is the most overtly personal. I make no claims that he is losing any arguments, nor that he is trolling. I made a suggestion to him regarding the way he approaches debates because, having watched numerous passionate debaters over many years, I tend to recognize those who are most likely to blow their cool and start picking up Warnings. I used the specific approach regarding whether he wants to persuade other posters of his views on the grounds that that might carry more weight with him than simply citing all his personal remarks and telling him he was a bad poster. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/151 "2009-09-26T03:21:40Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I think I will forgo my usual sign off. Whoa! The gloves have come off! ---
**Author:** ![ToeJam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@ToeJam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ToeJam)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/152 "2009-09-26T05:04:58Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I think I will forgo my usual sign off. OH SNAP! This is what it finally takes to make the man stop using his sig?!?! :eek: Edit: DAMN YOU Pedoscribe! ---
**Author:** ![AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/153 "2009-09-26T07:25:04Z")
> [@](#): > > Once again, the study used penile response comparisons to stimuli of nude adults and nude prepubescents with basic landscape images serving as buffers and control cases. 33% showed as much or more sexual arrousal to preubescent nude images than they did to adult nude images. On the other hand…penis response IS rather notoriously unreliable. Say a boy got a boner in English class. Does that mean that he’s sexually turned on by " To Kill A Mockingbird?" And, sexual attraction is a lot more then thinking someone’s hot or not. I may think that Prince Eric in the Little Mermaid (animated version) is hot, but I wouldn’t want to have sex with him. Would that mean I’m a cartoonaphile? I may really really love my cat, and think they’re beatiful, handsome etc but that doesn’t mean I’m into beastiality. Ceserio…I honestly think you really cannot and do not understand that kids are at a stage in their lives where they cannot and do not understand the concept of sex much less consent. They know it exists yes…but they don’t understand it in the concept of a relationship. Look at adults with developmental disabilites. They are targets for sexual abuse b/c they think in very simple terms about relationships. I was talking to a girl with a developmental delay. She described a person (non special needs) from seventh grade who RAPED her, as her boyfriend. That wasn’t a boyfriend…It was a person taking advantage of a MR person. Kids function on that level…they’ll arbitraily chose “boyfriends or girlfriends” in jr high, but they don’t understand that a honest to god realtionship is so much more then just calling a good friend your boyfriend/girlfriend. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2009, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/154 "2009-09-27T01:19:29Z")
> [@Ro0sh](#): > > OH SNAP! > > This is what it finally takes to make the man stop using his sig?!?! :eek: > > Edit: DAMN YOU Pedoscribe! PEDOscribe? Freudian slip? ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2009, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/155 "2009-09-29T05:08:08Z")
> [@Dusty\_Rose](#): > > Cesario, YOU are the one that is unclear on normal child sexuality. I trust you have a cite of higher quality than the ones I’ve presented thus far. For the record, I’m refering to these: [http://ssw.unc.edu/fcrp/cspn/vol7\_no2/normal.htm](http://ssw.unc.edu/fcrp/cspn/vol7_no2/normal.htm) [http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/Haroian/body.htm](http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/Haroian/body.htm) > [@Dusty\_Rose](#): > > It is the moral equivalent if the intention is to ultimately have sexual relations with the child. It is also manipulative. I see, so you see no moral difference between raping a child, and not raping a child. Very interesting standards you have. > [@Dusty\_Rose](#): > > A prepubescent child does not have the capacity to consent to sexual relations with an adult. Not for any particular reason, mind you, but just because you say so. > [@Dusty\_Rose](#): > > The problem here is how long will it stay at “just thoughts”? How long until that special 6 year old “comes on to you” and you just can’t resist? How long until you decide that society deems you a molester, so you may as well do it? You mean like you’re contributing to right now with this paragraph? > [@Dusty\_Rose](#): > > You can not have sex with a prepubescent child without harming them. Period. Got any basis for this? Some study demonstrating the intrinsic harm? Some suggestion as to the mechanism of said harm? Anything resembling evidence or argumentation? > [@Dusty\_Rose](#): > > As a matter of fact, convincing her that she has consented compounds the problem. So you think it’s more moral to outright rape a small child than to talk to her and get her opinion on the subject. Again, I continue to be amazed by the mental hoops people will jump through to justify their preconceived notions. > [@Shodan](#): > > A practical one. If the distinction is relevant, which I suspect not. Quite relevent. Since if you have no moral objection to these things, then if practical matters are dealt with, you will find no objection to the implementation of these grossly immoral behaviors. > [@Shodan](#): > > I don’t recall making any proposals about forced brainwashing. What was that about reading comprehension again? Post 39 of this thread. I was responding to Gaffa’s thoughts on a mass, forced brainwashing campaign to handle “reorienting” us. You then picked up on this conversation thread, and started arguing against my objections to this proposal. So it wasn’t your proposal, just one you were defending. > [@Shodan](#): > > Sure I have. Some of them want to force themselves on children. These are the ones we are talking about. No they aren’t. We’re talking about the ones who want to force psychiatric “treatment” on unwilling subjects in order to make them conform to their idea of “normal” and “acceptable”. > [@Shodan](#): > > How did we get from 20-33% having a stress reaction to underage images to 85% of the population being pedophiles? By reading it backwards, presumably. It’s 85% who get the “stress reaction”, as you call it, and 20-33% who are actual pedophiles. > [@Shodan](#): > > You rather overstate how important I find you, but the basis for whatever distaste I feel is easily understood. You stated - > [ul][li]You think that laws against child molesting are unjust.[_]You consider it a moral imperative to break an unjust law. And [_]You claim not to care what happens to you when you break the unjust law.[/ul]You have rather clearly announced that you will molest children if you think you will not be detected. [/li] Yes, leaving out significant context (like the part immediately after the quoted section where I go on to explain why having sex with children in this society is wrong) will tend to do that. > [@Shodan](#): > > I think I will forgo my usual sign off. :rolleyes: > [@Dusty\_Rose](#): > > I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree. I would argue that what helps you restrain yourself is knowing that murder, incest and stealing are wrong. Cesario has plainly said that he doesn’t believe his desires are wrong. That it is _society_ that is wrong. Just because socety is in the wrong doesn’t mean they can’t make very effective threats on my loved ones (including said sexy five year olds) to motivate me to play by their rules. Just because I consider them morally bankrupt for making such threats doesn’t mean those threats aren’t effective. > [@Dusty\_Rose](#): > > I would also add that pedophilia is a different animal. From what we know about them, our known cures aren’t all that effective and that recidivism rates are high. We also know that sexual urges to your primary orientation are notoriously difficult to master. Impossible? No. And this is relevent how? You can’t cure it because there’s nothing to cure. > [@Dusty\_Rose](#): > > Further, I would argue that this analogy isn’t apt. You are arguing from the standpoint of a rational human being. To make it more applicable, you would have to argue from the standpoint of being a serial killer resisting the urge to kill, or a kleptomaniac resisting the urge to steal. A different animal. I just love how your argumentation style is to assume I’m an irrational psychotic, and go from there. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > The difference is that you don’t desire to murder every random stranger of a certain body type and age range (I hope!!!) – nor have you convinced yourself that these particular individuals actually _want_ you to kill them. Ah, so I’m a serial killer for thinking certain groups of people are more attractive than others. Fascinating. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > Like everyone else, there’s a few specific individuals out there who, if I ever happen to meet in a dark alley someday, may quickly become non-breathing individuals. However, the chances of encountering any of them under those circumstances is vanishingly small. So you aren’t just admitting to murderous fantasies, but murderous intent. To the fact that you would murder people with the only thing stopping you is that you haven’t got the oportunity. At least I’ve managed to formulate a moral argument for not fucking little kids. Not that I particularly disagree with this moral stance you’ve put forward about killing people, mind you, but it does seem to suggest a kind of double-standard at work. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > A better analogy would be an ex-alcoholic who spends lots of time in bars, clubs, and other drinking establishments, surrounded by temptations. Will he resist? Will he succumb? You aren’t an alcoholic if you’ve never consumed alcohol. Try again. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > For what it’s worth, I’m willing to assume that our current Visitor From Planet Pedo is more bluster than bite; In other words, you presume to give me benefit of the doubt by assuming I’m a liar. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > this is, after all, an extremely libertarian message board, and the ability to express your deepest darkest desires to people who will actually listen must be extremely powerful. Oh please. I’ve got plenty of other message boards I frequent where I suffer far less abuse than here over this subject. One of them was where another poster (teliophilic if you absolutely must know) helped me develop the RMSC. And by “helped” I mean “wrote the original draft of all the requirements and just asked me to put them together into a coherent format”. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > That said, a few of **Cesario’s** comments have been rather disturbing in nature…but it’s hard to tell if he’s merely attention whoring, or so far gone that he’s not paying attention to the details he’s allowing to slip out. I don’t hide things online anymore. Too many lost years spent in the closet. I’m not “allowing things to slip out”. I’m making a consious choice to provide honest, complete answers to the questions I’m posed. So don’t flatter yourself for your cleverness of getting me to “slip up” and tell you things you assume I would want to keep hidden. > [@tomndebb](#): > > You are permitted to express your views, but you will refrain from enagaing in personal insults. > > This is a Warning to watch your behavior. > > [/Moderating] I wouldn’t call that a personal insult. I’d say it’s a perfectly accurate term to use. > [@tomndebb](#): > > That said, **Cesario** , you are way over the line on personal hostility in this thread, (and several others). If you really believe a lot of the stuff you are posting, then you ought to be trying to persuade others to your views. Attacking other posters, sneering at them, and making snide comments about their opinions will seriously fail to persuade anyone. I think you’ve mistaken hostility towards the opinions (and arguments demonstrating a lack of reading comprehension) for hostility towards the people arguing them. > [@tomndebb](#): > > At this point, you have utterly failed to persuade me of any opinions you have expressed, While I am sorry to hear you are finding my arguments unpersuasive, I feel the need to point out that the only reason I would need to persuade you specifically (especially with your moderator hat on) is so that I will be allowed to continue participating in the debate. And that is only really necessary if you are in the habit of banning people for holding contrary views to your own. I don’t get the impression that’s something you’re in the habit of doing, but I’m new hear, so I could be wrong. I do hope that, in time, you’ll come around, but again, you coming to agree with me, while desirable, isn’t strictly necessary. > [@tomndebb](#): > > but you are very much catching my attention as an irritable poster who is more disruptive than I am inclined to tolerate in this forum. > > Calm down, A LOT, or back off until you can post without all the hostility. > > [/Moderating] I think I’ve demonstrated quite effectively that I can be disruptive without actually doing anything at all. My mere presence is disruptive in that it causes certain people to lash out. No amount of calming down on my part is going to change that. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > O RLY? I’ve yet to see a single external link verifying that his cites are genuine. Was there a particular claim you want a link for? If you’ve missed it, I’ll be more than happy to repost it. > [@boytyperanma](#): > > I have to disagree with your assessment. I don’t see his claims being backed by actual cites. He quotes a few studies here and there but they haven’t been available for peer review. Did you have a better source you wanted to present? > [@boytyperanma](#): > > There is misrepresenting and ignoring on both sides of the argument. Please, what do you feel I’ve been misrepresenting? If you feel I’ve been characterizing you or someone else unfairly, please give me some details. It’d be tragic if I was fighting someone who ought to be an ally due to a misunderstanding. What do you feel I’ve been ignoring. Honestly, this posting style some people have latched on to as some source of terrible annoyance is designed to make sure I respond to everything, so as to deflect criticism about ignoring things. > [@boytyperanma](#): > > As the thread is ‘Should we feel sympathy for them’ I feel he’s losing this debate as the more he responds in the manner he has the less sympathy I feel for a specific pedophile. If you go back to the first sentence I wrote in this thread, you’ll find my answer to the title question is actually “no”, so I’d hardly consider this a loss for me. > [@tomndebb](#): > > **Cesario** entered this thread in post #38 with several unprovoked, snide, personal remarks. Ah, post 38. That’s specific. Let’s go over that and see what the problem is. Hm, it seems that the only things in that post that might be consider snide, personal remarks would be the comments on Freudian Slit’s impulse control problem. Hardly unprovoked, but also not nearly as personal as you seem to be interpreting this as. Freudian Slit has consistently been arguing that my mere presence around children is going to cause me to unconsiously “do something to make them uncomfortable”, and that this qualifies as me “acting on my deviant urges”. Since he’s admitting to acting on his urges in precisely the same way and making excuses for why he’s different and why it’s acceptable for him to make people uncomfortable with them, I hardly think it’s inappropriate to point out the conflict. > [@tomndebb](#): > > He has continued, throughout. Note that my comments were not limited to this thread, but to all the threads in which he participates. I’m just not reading the same hostility and anger into these posts that you are (if your post 38 example is anything to go by). > [@tomndebb](#): > > I am “calling him out by name” because his behavior is the most overtly personal. Because I quote specific posters when responding to their arguments? Because I am flippant when I “assume” they’re violent rapists by turning their exact arguments against me around on them? > [@tomndebb](#): > > I make no claims that he is losing any arguments, nor that he is trolling. It seems like that’s exactly what you were doing with this sentence: “At this point, you have utterly failed to persuade me of any opinions you have expressed, but you are very much catching my attention as an irritable poster who is more disruptive than I am inclined to tolerate in this forum.” > [@tomndebb](#): > > I made a suggestion to him regarding the way he approaches debates because, having watched numerous passionate debaters over many years, I tend to recognize those who are most likely to blow their cool and start picking up Warnings. Likely to blow my cool and **start** picking up warnings? It seems to me that a moderator has specifically called me out by name and stated in no uncertain terms that he is not inclined to tollerate how “disruptive” I supposedly am. Are we using a different definition of warnings? > [@tomndebb](#): > > I used the specific approach regarding whether he wants to persuade other posters of his views on the grounds that that might carry more weight with him than simply citing all his personal remarks and telling him he was a bad poster. I don’t actually see any advice on persuading people. Some mention that you yourself weren’t persuaded, and that you think I’m being too “hostile” (as though rolling over and playing dead were a valid debate strategy), but not a lot of actual advice on persuading people, or even any indication that you feel any approach would be effective in your case (which you seemed to be emphasising). > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > On the other hand…penis response IS rather notoriously unreliable. > Say a boy got a boner in English class. Does that mean that he’s sexually turned on by " To Kill A Mockingbird?" > And, sexual attraction is a lot more then thinking someone’s hot or not. I may think that Prince Eric in the Little Mermaid (animated version) is hot, but I wouldn’t want to have sex with him. Would that mean I’m a cartoonaphile? I may really really love my cat, and think they’re beatiful, handsome etc > but that doesn’t mean I’m into beastiality. So you’re saying that you might randomly get harder from looking at your cat than a naked adult of your prefered gender? Remember the random erection stuff is accounted for in “the 85% of people showed a response to prepubescent kids” part of the statistics. The 33% figure is about people who showed as much or more response to nude children as they do to nude adults. While it’s true that in individual cases penile response is a poor indicator, taking a larger sample size and controling for the general arrousability of the participants (which this study did) makes it far more valid for describing populations. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Ceserio…I honestly think you really cannot and do not understand that kids are at a stage in their lives where they cannot and do not understand the concept of sex much less consent. > They know it exists yes…but they don’t understand it in the concept of a relationship. Well, since you understand these concepts, and you assume that I’m superior to children due to being an adult (the justification for letting kids fuck eachother, but keeping adults out of that sphere), why don’t you understand the concepts of sex, consent, and relationships to me? Then you can go ahead and explain why it’s impossible for any child (of whatever arbitrary age you preffer) to understand what you wrote. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Look at adults with developmental disabilites. They are targets for sexual abuse b/c they think in very simple terms about relationships. > I was talking to a girl with a developmental delay. She described a person (non special needs) from seventh grade who RAPED her, as her boyfriend. > That wasn’t a boyfriend…It was a person taking advantage of a MR person. > Kids function on that level…they’ll arbitraily chose “boyfriends or girlfriends” in jr high, but they don’t understand that a honest to god realtionship is so much more then just calling a good friend your boyfriend/girlfriend. You call someone who rapes you a good friend? ---
**Author:** ![AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2009, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/156 "2009-09-29T07:14:40Z")
> [@](#): > > No they aren’t. We’re talking about the ones who want to force psychiatric “treatment” on unwilling subjects in order to make them conform to their idea of “normal” and “acceptable”. Oh give me a break. You’re acting like our society is the one in " A Wrinkle In Time" where every single person is the same. Our society accepts difference. It’s just that pedophiles are so fucked up with " distorted thinking" that they don’t realize that kids aren’t emotionally mature enough to understand the ins and outs of being in a realtionship. The treatment is basicly trying to get rid of something that’s bad, rather then normalizing the person. > [@](#): > > You can not have sex with a prepubescent child without harming them. Period. > > Got any basis for this? Some study demonstrating the intrinsic harm? Some suggestion as to the mechanism of said harm? Anything resembling evidence or argumentation? Post tramatic stress disorder? A lot of the kids who are druggies or in behavoiral treatment programs are there b/c they are fucked up about something someone sexually did to them. > [@](#): > > As a matter of fact, convincing her that she has consented compounds the problem. > > So you think it’s more moral to outright rape a small child than to talk to her and get her opinion on the subject. Again, I continue to be amazed by the mental hoops people will jump through to justify their preconceived notions. Ummm NO. Dusty Rose is saying that it messes her up psychologially b/c then she has to go through shit thinking that SHE caused it. And a little kid cannot consent. They are not psychologially able to do so! > [@](#): > > Well, since you understand these concepts, and you assume that I’m superior to children due to being an adult (the justification for letting kids fuck eachother, but keeping adults out of that sphere), why don’t you understand the concepts of sex, consent, and relationships to me? Then you can go ahead and explain why it’s impossible for any child (of whatever arbitrary age you preffer) to understand what you wrote. Huh? Kids can engage in sex play with each other yes… but it’s NOT the same as sex between two consenting adults. > [@](#): > > Look at adults with developmental disabilites. They are targets for sexual abuse b/c they think in very simple terms about relationships. > I was talking to a girl with a developmental delay. She described a person (non special needs) from seventh grade who RAPED her, as her boyfriend. > That wasn’t a boyfriend…It was a person taking advantage of a MR person. > Kids function on that level…they’ll arbitraily chose “boyfriends or girlfriends” in jr high, but they don’t understand that a honest to god realtionship is so much more then just calling a good friend your boyfriend/girlfriend. > > You call someone who rapes you a good friend? No. Not at ALL. I really didn’t get the details or anything like that. But the fact is …that MR folks function on a kid level. …including realtionships! Therefore, a kid cannot consent to sex with an adult. An older teen MAYBE (especially if they are very mature) but certainly not a kid. Oh and that simply illustrates how kids think. They don’t think that the person was bad or evil…They function on such an unsophsiticated level that attention is good…And you know…most active pedos prey on kids with very poor self esteem. …a population where almost any kind of attention is good. For example, a few years ago there was a rape case in Glen Ridge NJ involving a retarded girl and some jocks.The jocks raped her with a bat and broomstick… The retarded girl thought that the jocks were still her friends even after THAT! And no…I don’t call someone who rapes me a good friend…but someone who’s MR or who doesn’t have a sophisticated understanding of realtionships might…espeicaly if it was a “grey area” rape…or one of those rapes where the predator convinces the kid that “they want it” ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2009, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/157 "2009-09-29T07:31:09Z")
> [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Oh give me a break. You’re acting like our society is the one in " A Wrinkle In Time" where every single person is the same. > Our society accepts difference. It’s just that pedophiles are so fucked up with " distorted thinking" that they don’t realize that kids aren’t emotionally mature enough to understand the ins and outs of being in a realtionship. The treatment is basicly trying to get rid of something that’s bad, rather then normalizing the person. Ah, so disagreeing with you is grounds for being “fucked up with distorted thinking”. And that’s why you’re justified in mind raping anyone who falls into that category. Also of note, thinking kids are hot and thinking kids are “emotionally mature enough to understand the ins and outs of being in a relationship” (whatever that load of nonsense actually means) are two different thoughts, and one need not imply the other. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Post tramatic stress disorder? A lot of the kids who are druggies or in behavoiral treatment programs are there b/c they are fucked up about something someone sexually did to them. Which is a long ways away from the assertion we’re actually dealing with here, which is that it is impossible to ever have sex with a prepubescent without causing harm. Universal assertions are funny like that. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Ummm NO. Dusty Rose is saying that it messes her up psychologially b/c then she has to go through shit thinking that SHE caused it. Which must mean it’s more moral to violently rape her, yes? > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > And a little kid cannot consent. > They are not psychologially able to do so! You are aware this is a point in contention, right? You just stating it as fact doesn’t make it so. Can you even define what makes someone “psychologically able to do so” or not? > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Huh? Kids can engage in sex play with each other yes… but it’s NOT the same as sex between two consenting adults. And while this is a complete non-sequitor to what you quoted, why don’t you go ahead and explain exactly what the difference is between the exact same act performed by a child versus performed by an adult. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > No. Not at ALL. I really didn’t get the details or anything like that. But the fact is …that MR folks function on a kid level. …including realtionships! And yet we still treat them as adults when they pass the magic age line. What a wonderful system that magic age line, allowing people to take advantage of slow people to their heart’s content so long as they’re chronologically adults. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Therefore, a kid cannot consent to sex with an adult. An older teen MAYBE (especially if they are very mature) but certainly not a kid. Again with you just declaring stuff and providing no argument or justification for it whatsoever. As though your word were divine gospel. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Oh and that simply illustrates how kids think. They don’t think that the person was bad or evil…They function on such an unsophsiticated level that attention is good… Whereas we can improve their lives so much by convincing them that what they explicitly wanted was evil and wrong, and that no matter what they think of the matter, they’re a victim and should damn well start acting like one. :rolleyes: > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > And you know…most active pedos prey on kids with very poor self esteem. …a population where almost any kind of attention is good. “Active pedos” is a made-up term that means nothing. You’re thinking child molesters. Learn the difference. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > For example, a few years ago there was a rape case in Glen Ridge NJ involving a retarded girl and some jocks.The jocks raped her with a bat and broomstick… > The retarded girl thought that the jocks were still her friends even after THAT! And you’re asserting that every human being under 18 years of age is operating at the same mental level as this? You do grasp that I’ve been advocating screening people for basic levels of education and reasoning ability so as to separate out people who are genuinely endangered from the ones who are perfectly competent to make their own decisions, yes? > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > And no…I don’t call someone who rapes me a good friend…but someone who’s MR or who doesn’t have a sophisticated understanding of realtionships might… Doesn’t sound like most kids I’ve ever run across. Generally they tend not to like people who violently attack them. What exactly is your basis for claiming that MR people are identical to children. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > espeicaly if it was a “grey area” rape…or one of those rapes where the predator convinces the kid that “they want it” I’m disinclined to see “grey areas” in rape. Natural side-effect of needing to actually think about the subject at length, I suppose, since I’ve managed to categorize a good number of behaviors into the “black” and “white” category. ---
**Author:** ![NineToTheSky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5a626/32.png) [@NineToTheSky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NineToTheSky)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2009, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/158 "2009-09-29T09:29:33Z")
I think \*\*Cesario \*\*is (probably not willfully) missing the point of some other posters’ claims. For example, here, **AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet** says: > [@](#): > > _And you know…most active pedos prey on kids with very poor self esteem. …a population where almost any kind of attention is good._ \*\*Cesario \*\*replies > [@](#): > > _“Active pedos” is a made-up term that means nothing. You’re thinking child molesters. Learn the difference._ I think that if you held a poll, the general public would define an ‘active pedo’ as someone who molests children. But - and this is an interesting aspect of Cesario’s posting style - he ignores what I take to be the main thrust of **AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet’s** argument, which relates to ‘kids with very poor self esteem’. Cesario doesn’t address this point at all. \*\*Cesario \*\*has said that thinking kids aren’t “emotionally mature enough to understand the ins and outs of being in a relationship” is nonsense, and he doesn’t understand what it means: > [@](#): > > _(whatever that load of nonsense actually means)_ If he doesn’t understand it, then he’s not in a position to call it nonsense. I think it’s very significant, and indicative of the problem that he faces that he claims he has no understanding of children’s emotional maturity when it comes to relationships. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2009, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/159 "2009-09-29T13:35:05Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > Post 39 of this thread. I was responding to Gaffa’s thoughts on a mass, forced brainwashing campaign to handle “reorienting” us. You then picked up on this conversation thread, and started arguing against my objections to this proposal. So it wasn’t your proposal, just one you were defending. No, unfortunately this is not true. I made no reference to any such campaign. That reading comprehension thing you get so het up about seems to have struck again. A persecution complex can do that. > [@](#): > > By reading it backwards, presumably. It’s 85% who get the “stress reaction”, as you call it, and 20-33% who are actual pedophiles. Well, somebody posted this under your name - > [@](#): > > If you want to call anyone who has any attraction to children a pedophile, you aren’t up against 33% of the population. You’re up against 85%. This as well - > [@](#): > > I go on to explain why having sex with children in this society is wrong As well as > [@](#): > > Just because socety is in the wrong doesn’t mean they can’t make very effective threats on my loved ones (including said sexy five year olds) to motivate me to play by their rules. So, it’s wrong in this society, but society is wrong. This is what I meant by "You have rather clearly announced that you will molest children if you think you will not be detected. " Since you claim > [@](#): > > Since if you have no moral objection to these things, then if practical matters are dealt with, you will find no objection to the implementation of these grossly immoral behaviors. Your only objections to molesting children are practical - you don’t want to get caught. If you can deal with the practical matter of getting caught, you find no objection to the implementation of this grossly immoral behavior. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2009, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/160 "2009-09-29T17:17:36Z")
Wow, I haven’t read through the whole thread but my initial thought is. Just because we can have sympathy doesn’t mean we have to approve or allow something. Not everything that is beyond a person’s control should mean that they face no consequences. So yea, sucks to be you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462.md?page=9)