Why are people "not allowed" to have opinions on taboo topics (sexual assault,pedophilia etc.)?

[nearwildheaven]

@Dangerosa

Try having an opinion inappropriate to your audience about young children - i.e. nursing, staying home, cloth diapers, center vs. home daycare, vaccinations.

There are some forums and some audiences where the community standard is strictly enforced about certain topics. Politics in the right forum can be that (didn’t we have someone start recently who got booted from a left leaning forum for saying that perhaps Bernie wouldn’t be able to follow through).

I heard about a forum aimed at teenagers where kids were not allowed to discuss sports teams, rock bands, or sexual experiences, real or imagined. Someone I told about it said, “So, what DID these kids talk about?” The discussion allowed things like “I’m a Christian” or “I like the Beatles” but couldn’t take stands on other people’s opinions.

[nearwildheaven]

@T.M

Two subjects that scare people is paedophilia and incest mainly because it involves children and their reaction when faced with the subject is to feel violence to a level they do not think they are capable. When I was a young lad I knew about funny feller and to keep away from him, but it was not until in my early twenties that I found out that some one I knew was interfering with young children that I knew, if I could have got my hands on him I would have killed him, luckily he went to prison before that happened. Around twenty years later I was having a drink in my local pub when he walked in, he spotted me and could not get out fast enough, the hatred and revulsion I felt for him was still there. As a volunteer youth worker I came into contact with victims of incest a subject that makes you want to throw up. Yes because I have some contact with the subjects I can discuss them rationally but only with people who have some knowledge of the subject

I started a thread along these lines a while back.

Has anyone else ever known someone who was a child molester?

[dracoi]

@Mithrander

Including you, apparently. Being a paedophile does not mean you’ve done something wrong. There is a distinct difference between being a paedophile and being a child molester. One is suffering from mental illness, the other is a criminal. There is overlap, but far less than you think. The majority of the time, sexual abuse of children happens at the hands of a non-paedophile. I’m not looking up the cites on my work computer, but if you go to the wikipedia page for Child Sexual Abuse you can find them in the references.

Yes, you’re right. I didn’t stop to clarify the terminology.

Wikipedia’s attempt to clarify terminology reads this way:

In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse.[4][5] This use conflates the sexual attraction to prepubescent children with the act of child sexual abuse, and fails to distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent or post-pubescent minors.[6][7] Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided because although people who commit child sexual abuse sometimes exhibit the disorder,[5][8] child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles unless they have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children,[6][9][10] and the literature indicates the existence of pedophiles who do not molest children.[4][11][12]

My father worked in a child abuse/rape hotline volunteer position for a while, and they apparently tried to separate “suffering from pedophilia” as just the attraction, distinct from “being a pedophile” meaning someone who has actually acted on it.

[nearwildheaven]

@Boyo_Jim

Pedophilia and spouse abuse is all well and good, but Og forbid if you step up in favor of declawing cats!

I post on another board where the most incendiary topic is - of all things - the minimum age for a child to have their own cell phone. It supersedes abortion, spanking, the Presidential race, etc. in that department.

[watchwolf49]

@Arkcon

I hate to threadjack,but could you give us some definite examples of media approved crack-pottery that is now regrettable? I don’t doubt you, but I would like a concrete example, as a cautionary tale. FWIW, the media may seem to humor some crack-pottery sometimes, but if it does, I don’t expect it to regret it in short or long term … [snip]

Is Iraqi WMD a fringe-theory? Or should I have even brought that up?

Sorry, didn’t mean to offend.

[DWMarch]

@T.M

if I could have got my hands on him I would have killed him, luckily he went to prison before that happened.

So wait a minute. Here you are writing down that you planned a murder and it was only lack of opportunity that prevented you from committing it. You are aware that murder is punishable by death in several states, right? No matter how much the sonovabitch might deserve it, murder is still illegal.

Now you might want to say something like “it would have been worth it.” Would it? I mean, obviously it wasn’t. Jails are really easy to get into. If you really wanted to kill this guy I’m sure you could have found a way to land in the same penitentiary he was in. Your casual willingness to murder suggests you could be in jail tomorrow if it meant that much to you.

And twenty years later this smoldering, murderous rage of yours is still there and you encounter this individual at a drinking establishment. That was your chance! With a sufficient blood alcohol level you could have made a plea that your drunken emotions got the best of you and you lacked the ability to distinguish right from wrong. And as long as that court never read your post on the SDMB where you admitted to preplanning this murder, you might have gotten away with a lesser sentence.

But now that you’ve written on a public message board that you planned a murder, you’ve only ensured that you’d be subject to swift justice if you ever actually committed one. Good thing you didn’t go through with it.

[Trinopus]

@pool

NM too inflammatory

Grin! I’m sorry to say, but, I, too, had a comparison to make here, and decided to skip it, because I know I’d get peed all over for it.

Some subjects can’t be settled (.999~ = 1, Special Relativity, etc.) But, alas, some subjects can’t even be engaged upon. The rejection of one side by the other is so absolute, it shuts down dialogue entirely.

So… Shrug. We don’t go there. It’s a “human” thing, and we get used to it over time.

(I’m always proud, though, when we try to engage, say, creationists or Apollo program deniers, with reasonable arguments first, before getting into the dismissive phase.)

[T.M]

[quote=“DWMarch, post:26, topic:746546”]

So wait a minute. Here you are writing down that you planned a murder and it was only lack of opportunity that prevented you from committing it. You are aware that murder is punishable by death in several states, right? No matter how much the sonovabitch might deserve it, murder is still illegal.

Now you might want to say something like “it would have been worth it.” Would it? I mean, obviously it wasn’t. Jails are really easy to get into. If you really wanted to kill this guy I’m sure you could have found a way to land in the same penitentiary he was in. Your casual willingness to murder suggests you could be in jail tomorrow if it meant that much to you.

And twenty years later this smoldering, murderous rage of yours is still there and you encounter this individual at a drinking establishment. That was your chance! With a sufficient blood alcohol level you could have made a plea that your drunken emotions got the best of you and you lacked the ability to distinguish right from wrong. And as long as that court never read your post on the SDMB where you admitted to preplanning this murder, you might have gotten away with a lesser sentence. But now that you’ve written on a public message board that you planned a murder, you’ve only ensured that you’d be subject to swift justice if you ever actually committed one. Good thing you didn’t go through with it.[/QUOTE

I do not live in America and we do not have a death sentence. I do not go into pubs to get drunk and alcohol only has the effect of making me drowsy and every ones friend I would have been a far greater danger sober. I have heard on the grape vine that he re-offended and died in prison, thankfully he is no longer a danger
I agree with one of the other posters that that our sexuality is the way that we are wired, I also believe that paedophilia is a part of nature, saying this I offer no excuse to paedophiles who cannot control their urges that are an abomination to children and completely unacceptable to society. I believe that active paedophiles should receive whole of life sentences as a deterrent to others and to make sure that they will never be a danger to children again

[JRDelirious]

@Trinopus

Grin! I’m sorry to say, but, I, too, had a comparison to make here, and decided to skip it, because I know I’d get peed all over for it.

Some subjects can’t be settled (.999~ = 1, Special Relativity, etc.) But, alas, some subjects can’t even be engaged upon. The rejection of one side by the other is so absolute, it shuts down dialogue entirely.

Plus there’s the people who take the floor just to make it perfectly clear how furiously they are against whatever it is and against whoever does not feel the same as they (what do they want, an award?). Followed often by insinuations or outright accusations of being an apologist or enabler.

[watchwolf49]

There’s one part of all this that disturbs me … the vigilante attitude. Say Uncle Fred rapes your 11-year-old daughter, and you beat Uncle Fred to death. Not only has your daughter been raped, but now her papa’s spending the rest of his life in prison just when she needs him the most. Or worst, Uncle Fred beats you to death.

Maybe 11-year-old thinks she should just keep her mouth shut?

If parents want to protect their children, they should pour time and attention into them, as much as humanly possible … or Uncle Fred will …

[Trinopus]

@JRDelirious

. . . Followed often by insinuations or outright accusations of being an apologist or enabler.

And if you disavow those, the next accusations are of “Just Asking Questions” which are really reinstatements of the insinuations.

[T.M]

It takes a hell of a lot to shock me but this

Necrophilia and incest should be legal, says Swedish Liberal party youth wing, but are accused of being ‘laughable nitwits’ by party senior
Necrophilia and incest should be legal, says Swedish Liberal
Filed motion to push for legalize sex between consenting
Liberal Youth of Sweden are the youth wing of Swedish Liberal party
Senior party members lashed out, calling youth wing ‘nitwits’

By Sara Malm for MailOnline

Published: 17:11, 22 February 2016 | Updated: 19:21, 22 February 2016
Read more: Necrophilia and incest should be legal, says Swedish Liberal party youth wing | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Trinopus]

Well, necrophilia could be legal with the prior consent of the deceased.

We’re allowed to give our remains to medical schools for dissection; why not give 'em to the local perv for a couple nights of sick joy? Clearly, no one is being harmed…