nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Scholar Calls Pedophilia 'An Unchangeable Sexual Orientation' that Should Be Accepted

sexmag

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/health/2018/july/scholar-says-pedophilia-is-an-unchangeable-sexual-orientation-and-should-be-accepted-by-society

Ehhhhhhh? We should accept diddlers now?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

nozzferrahhtoo

gozunda wrote: »

Who is this "we" you proclaim to be?

We who study the subject. We the society in which these issues exist. We the people who do not dodge hard but important subjects just because we do not like the feelz we getz.

The fact is WE as a society have people who abuse children. The fact is if WE as a society want to help those victims, both before and after abuse happens..... then WE as a society have to have hard discourse on hard topics.

If YOU do not want to, that is great. But you are projecting your personal emotional issues with it onto the discussion itself, where it does not belong. You rolled into a thread where you personally do not want to discuss the topic and started moaning people are discussing the topic. Which as I said, is weird.

gozunda wrote: »

Good to see you at least acknowledge what I postited from your comment that the victims of such abuse have no place in this thread

There is two different things in play there. One is speaking clearly about what the topic of the thread is, and is not. The other however is acknowledging that your accusation that the things we ARE talking about on the thread specifically sidelines victims is an empty, inaccurate and irrelevant one.

We are not talking about the victims specifically because that is simply not what the thread is about. However the motivation behind much of what is discussed here IS because of our concern for the victims. Inherently by definition. If we had no concern for them, then why would we even have concern for pedophiles or what they do or do not do in the first place?

Sorry if the thread is not about what YOU want it to be about. But that is no one's problem here but your own.

gozunda wrote: »

That is my opinion and I stand by it.

Clearly you do, that was never in question. What you have not done however is validated it, substantiated it, discussed it, defended it, or acknowledged responses to it. So in this case "Stand by it" just means "Repeat it and ignore anything said about it or against it".

gozunda wrote: »

I find it interesting that you refer to yourself again in the plural and if you take a comment as "lambasting people' - that's certainly unusual ....

Now you are getting petty and mangling words to mean what you want them to mean. If you need to pretend "people" means me personally just to manufacture a point that is not there, then that speaks volumes.

gozunda

Grayson wrote: »

Seriously, if you think there's a flaw in what I'm saying, point it out. You can even stick a rolleyes at the end. But at least point out something.

Believe me - if there was 'something' in what you were saying - I would

:rolleyes:
There you go....

gozunda

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We who study the subject. We the society in which these issues exist. We the people who do not dodge hard but important subjects just because we do not like the feelz we getz.

The fact is WE as a society have people who abuse children. The fact is if WE as a society want to help those victims, both before and after abuse happens..... then WE as a society have to have hard discourse on hard topics.
If YOU do not want to, that is great. But you are projecting your personal emotional issues with it onto the discussion itself, where it does not belong. You rolled into a thread where you personally do not want to discuss the topic and started moaning people are discussing the topic. Which as I said, is weird. There is two different things in play there. One is speaking clearly about what the topic of the thread is, and is not. The other however is acknowledging that your accusation that the things we ARE talking about on the thread specifically sidelines victims is an empty, inaccurate and irrelevant one.
We are not talking about the victims specifically because that is simply not what the thread is about. However the motivation behind much of what is discussed here IS because of our concern for the victims. Inherently by definition. If we had no concern for them, then why would we even have concern for pedophiles or what they do or do not do in the first place?
Sorry if the thread is not about what YOU want it to be about. But that is no one's problem here but your own. Clearly you do, that was never in question. What you have not done however is validated it, substantiated it, discussed it, defended it, or acknowledged responses to it. So in this case "Stand by it" just means "Repeat it and ignore anything said about it or against it".
Now you are getting petty and mangling words to mean what you want them to mean. If you need to pretend "people" means me personally just to manufacture a point that is not there, then that speaks volumes.

So to abstract from your first paragraph above you personally are taking ownership of the 'we? and the entire thread. Really?

Grand so I guess that excludes anyone else with a different opinion to 'you'.

It would appear that you are personalising this discussion just a bit too much. I repeat as you have clearly failed to understand that which was said. And I am talking about the victims. If you don't like that tough - pretending they are not part of the discussion or irrelevant is at best a fallacy. If you care to read my comment to 'you' you will observe that no where was it said that the issue was not to be discussed:rolleyes:

Whichever way you want to look at it - just because someone disagrees with you - does not validate your opinions

As regarding your accusation of 'lambasting people' - My original comment was in reply to yours - not 'people's'' - so yes it would appear
For some strange reason you are taking those comments personally

nozzferrahhtoo

gozunda wrote: »

So to abstract from your first paragraph above you personally are taking ownership of the 'we? Really?

"So what you are saying is...."

No, not what I said at all. Not even close. Try harder.

gozunda wrote: »

It would appear that you are personalising this discussion just a bit too much. I repeat as you have clearly failed to understand that which was said. And I am talking about the victims. If you don't like that tough

Who said I do not like it? It was you that came in complaining about what was being talked about and what not. If you dont like it tough.

gozunda wrote: »

pretending they are not part of the discussion or irrelevant is at best a fallacy.[/QUOTRE]

Great. Then take it up with someone pretending that. I think I was pretty clear in the last post where I believe they fit into the entire discussion and why.

It is you that claims, without a SHRED of substantiation, that the discussion here is "sidelining" the victim. And I have explained not only how there is no evidence for that evaluation, but why the EXACT opposite is in fact true. But you ignored all that.

You have simply asserted we are doing something you have offered no evidence or argument we actually are. And as I said the very reason I think we need to understand more about pedophiles and pedophilia is already very much because we have the victims in mind.

The victims OF the abuse. And the victims of being pedophiles who themselves have not harmed anyone and never will. Both of them are victims to me, and I have an interest in us as a society helping BOTH as best we can.

gozunda

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

"So what you are saying is...." (thems 'your' words btw')

No, not what I said at all. Not even close. Try harder.
Who said I do not like it? It was you that came in complaining about what was being talked about and what not. If you dont like it tough.
Great. Then take it up with someone pretending that. I think I was pretty clear in the last post where I believe they fit into the entire discussion and why.
It is you that claims, without a SHRED of substantiation, that the discussion here is "sidelining" the victim. And I have explained not only how there is no evidence for that evaluation, but why the EXACT opposite is in fact true. But you ignored all that.
You have simply asserted we are doing something you have offered no evidence or argument we actually are. And as I said the very reason I think we need to understand more about pedophiles and pedophilia is already very much because we have the victims in mind.
The victims OF the abuse. And the victims of being pedophiles who themselves have not harmed anyone and never will. Both of them are victims to me, and I have an interest in us as a society helping BOTH as best we can.

To "We"

Nope can't make sense of any of that ..

Bye!

Ps - take a look at the use of pronouns. It might help ...

nozzferrahhtoo

That much we certainly can agree on.

Cee-Jay-Cee

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

Aye, sweep it under the carpet. If we wish really hard it will all be OK. That has served us well with issues in Ireland's past.

That's not what I meant and if you had an ounce of common sense you would have realised that. I meant that one idiots ramblings with such a crass and twisted opinion don't deserve to be discussed.

Or did you actually realise what I meant but think that every comment from every brain dead crack-pot deserves discussion?

nozzferrahhtoo

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

I meant that one idiots ramblings with such a crass and twisted opinion don't deserve to be discussed.

Interestingly however, in the interim between your first post and your most recent one..... which you may not have read..... no one has managed to show anything about the speakers ACTUAL position is at all crass, twisted or..... to be frank..... in any way objectionable at all.

Your school yard evaluation of the speaker as "idiot" and "brain dead" and "crack pot" appear also to be unfounded. While I am not rushing to call them a major public intellectual or anything of the sort....... she seems to be every bit as much in the percentiles of education, articulation, study and intellect as the top tier of this forum.

So I am left with the nagging suspicion that the issue here is not actually that you think the topic does not deserve to be discussed.... so much as you are unwilling or unable to do so. But as I said to gozunda it is remarkably unusual behaviour to charge into a thread you do not want to discuss only to tell everyone you do not want to discuss it. Man I would have to post on 90% of the threads on this forum if I were to act like that.

gozunda

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Interestingly however, in the interim between your first post and your most recent one..... which you may not have read..... no one has managed to show anything about the speakers ACTUAL position is at all crass, twisted or..... to be frank..... in any way objectionable at all.Your school yard evaluation of the speaker as "idiot" and "brain dead" and "crack pot" appear also to be unfounded. While I am not rushing to call them a major public intellectual or anything of the sort....... she seems to be every bit as much in the percentiles of education, articulation, study and intellect as the top tier of this forum.
So I am left with the nagging suspicion that the issue here is not actually that you think the topic does not deserve to be discussed.... so much as you are unwilling or unable to do so. But as I said to gozunda it is remarkably unusual behaviour to charge into a thread you do not want to discuss only to tell everyone you do not want to discuss it. Man I would have to post on 90% of the threads on this forum if I were to act like that.

That amounts to another wall of waffle
There's only one reply possible...
:rolleyes:

[Deleted User]

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Accept that they feel this way and treat them/ monitor them, or accept that they are the way they are and allow them to have sex with pre pubescent children? 2 very different things there.

I think this is very important.

There are many pedophiles out there who have never acted on it and never will, because they know it wrong to do so.

I think fear keeps a lot of paedophiles from acting on their desires. Fear of physical harm as well as fear of the justice system.

Quite rightly the idea of sex with children is so taboo, so disgusting in society that it keeps some paedophiles from "doing the deed". I fear that if this becomes "de-stigmatised" then it could lead to more child abuse. I could be wrong on this and it could go the other way, but there's no doubt that this is the next battle in the culture wars, along with the drive to normalise polyamorous relationships.

nozzferrahhtoo

gozunda wrote: »

That amounts to another wall of waffle
There's only one reply possible...
:rolleyes:

Not entirely sure why you waited weeks to necro-thread this and say precisely nothing? The waffle is not coming from me here. This is all on you.

Would you like to return to the subject of the thread at any point or did you revive the thread to do precisely the opposite?

Deleted User wrote: »

I think fear keeps a lot of paedophiles from acting on their desires. Fear of physical harm as well as fear of the justice system.

I dunno. I suspect also basic morality keeps them from doing it too. I suspect we are all confronted with temptations every day that we resist because we know it is the right thing to do. Why suspect this is any different?

Deleted User wrote: »

along with the drive to normalise polyamorous relationships.

Is that a thing now? Only I know a couple of people in such relationships and they have no desire to change anything about it. There's a user around here for example in such a relationship who openly says that he and people he knows in similar relationships, have no desire to change anything. They are not seeking marriage equality or any kind of formal recognition for example.

seamus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I dunno. I suspect also basic morality keeps them from doing it too. I suspect we are all confronted with temptations every day that we resist because we know it is the right thing to do. Why suspect this is any different?

One thing that would probably surprise people are the amount of people wandering around suppressing thoughts and tendencies that would cause massive harm.

Not just intrusive thoughts - these are a normal part of how the brain operates - but active, and ongoing awareness of a desire to be violent, but suppressing it because they know the harm it would cause is wrong.

We all even do more mundane stuff; spot money on the ground that the guy in front of me dropped, do I pick it up for myself or give it to him? I can cheat this line of traffic by driving up the bus lane, but I won't because that's not fair. Mightn't seem like "suppression", but it is - you recognise a course of action with high personal gain, but that will result in "harm" to another. So you suppress the desire for personal gain.

gozunda

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not entirely sure why you waited weeks to necro-thread this and say precisely nothing? The waffle is not coming from me here. This is all on you.
Would you like to return to the subject of the thread at any point or did you revive the thread to do precisely the opposite?

Well if you are counting the days in anticipation - what can I say? Re. 'returning to the subject' - It's the walls of inane and loosely connected dialogue in the comments that's the thing. Little if any makes any sense tbh.The redirection comment is deserving of kindergarten btw.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

... I suspect also basic morality keeps them from doing it too. I suspect we are all confronted with temptations every day that we resist because we know it is the right thing to do. Why suspect this is any different

Conflating either paedophilia or child abuse with 'everyday temptations' shows how low down on a morality scale such comments are - Truely deeply darkly worrying...

Billy86

Bit of a thought experiment that seems to throw up a lot of different answers: if a pedophile goes through their entire life never acting on their urges in any way (so no abuse, child porn, etc) are they a disgusting piece of filth all he same for having those urges, or highly honorable for denying themselves one of the most primal urges any human gets for their enire life so as not to harm others?

nozzferrahhtoo

gozunda wrote: »

Well if you are counting the days in anticipation

Quite the opposite that is my point. I had entirely forgotten about it and moved on. Clearly it was festering for you to the point you had to revive the thread to derail it even more than before. Which is.... just a strange thing to do to my mind.

gozunda wrote: »

It's the walls of inane and loosely connected dialogue that's the thing.

Except you have not shown it to be any such thing. Unless you are referring to your own posts which have been not EVEN loosely connected to the thread. They have been entirely avoiding the content of the thread.

But suffice to say....

gozunda wrote: »

Little if any makes any sense tbh.

YOU not seeing connections and YOU not understanding things.... does not mean the connections are not there, or that it does not make sense. Rather than throw out petty insults and disinterest therefore you might try something revolutionary like.... oh I dunno..... ask questions.

I can not even imagine what is not making sense to you though. Either in what I have said, or what the original speaker the thread is about has said. It makes clear sense to me to the point I can not even identify a single data point where your confusion is likely to lie. And you do not appear inclined to discuss the topic so that it can be identified.

If you change that dynamic and engage with the topic more maturely, and actually ask questions, point out what exactly does not make sense to you, or offer counter points..... rather than this off behavior of investing time in the thread only to tell us how little time you want to invest in the thread..... some progress is likely to be made.

gozunda wrote: »

The redirection comment is deserving of kindergarten btw.

Exactly, because I can only work with the material I am given. And if you throw kindergarten level stuff out, then you will get kindergarten level responses. The fault however lies with you in that equation.

gozunda wrote: »

Conflating either paedophilia or child abuse with 'everyday temptations' shows how low down on a morality scale such comments are - Truely deeply darkly worrying...

Yet no one here is actually doing that. Least of all me. Rather what I am doing is comparing, not conflating, our RESPONSES to temptations. Comparing a response to X, and a response to Y, is not the same as comparing X and Y. You might think it is the same, but you would simply be wrong.

All of us, as Seamus points out above too, have temptations and urges and compulsions. Some not very insidious, some more so. But we often find genuine good reasons NOT to pander to them. Reasons of personal health. Reasons of morality. Reasons of compassion. Reasons of altruism. And so on.

So GIVEN that human dynamic, if you wanted to create a narrative that distinguishes pedophile urges from all the rest and declares it to be entirely different..... you would need more than mere assertion to do so.

gozunda

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Quite the opposite that is my point. I had entirely forgotten about it and moved on. Clearly it was festering for you to the point you had to revive the thread to derail it even more than before. Which is.... just a strange thing to do to my mind.

If that's your logic - why bother replying to the comment? You appear to have been on the watch either way lol. The walls of text are back I see ...:rolleyes:

Just because you believe you are 'the' authority here is irrelevant even if that was true. Thankfully it's not. I just love the inference above that no one understands you lol. My point stands.

nozzferrahhtoo

gozunda wrote: »

If that's your logic - why bother replying to the comment? You appear to have been on the watch either way lol. The walls of text are back I see ...

I reply to anyone who writes anything to me. That is what I have done since my first day on boards.ie and is likely to what I continue doing until I leave the forum.

As for being "on watch" perhaps you do not use it, but I use the feature on boards.ie where when you reply to a thread it "subscribes" you to that thread. So if at any point a new reply appears on a thread, I am instantly altered to this fact.

Which is a much different thing than having a dead and inactive thread fester inside my head for weeks to the point that weeks later I suddenly have to rush back into it and revive it to say precisely nothing except personal attacks on another poster. That is.... weird.... behavior and at this point if you do not want to engage with the topic of the thread and wish to instead make it about me I will have to step away and let the moderators take care of it.

gozunda wrote: »

My point stands.

You have not made one, that is the point. How a point that has not been made "stands" is beyond me.

nozzferrahhtoo

seamus wrote: »

One thing that would probably surprise people are the amount of people wandering around suppressing thoughts and tendencies that would cause massive harm.

Not just intrusive thoughts - these are a normal part of how the brain operates - but active, and ongoing awareness of a desire to be violent, but suppressing it because they know the harm it would cause is wrong.

Yea, one common one I have heard in life is the one of wanting to hit your boss. Seemingly this is a common desire or compulsion. But very few people seem to act on it.

Violence based approaches to child discipline is another one. Many people seem to move away from that approach to correcting children. Yet I think we would be safe to assume they are damn tempted at times. I know I have never lifted a hand to my own children, even though there have been occasions where you really think they deserve it.

So it seems to me the onus of evidence lies ENTIRELY on someone who wants to take one compulsion, desire, temptation out of the set of all compulsions, desires, and temptations and automatically assume peoples reasoning for suppressing it is different to the rest.

I suspect the majority of pedophiles who do not in any way engage sexually with children do so for no other shocking reason than they know it is the right thing to do. There is no need to invent extra narratives of fear of violence to explain it.

But even if we do invent such a narrative there is no reason to limit it to pedophilia either. There are many cases where many people do not engage in bad activity solely because of their fear of reprisal or fear of the law. Take the Canadian Riots for example. The police go on strike, and suddenly there is looting and violence everywhere.

gozunda

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I reply to anyone who writes anything to me. That is what I have done since my first day on boards.ie and is likely to what I continue doing until I leave the forum.

And yet you would deny the same to other posters lol. And I note others are on necro watch but you get 'alerts'. Lots like a bad case of lastcommentitus tbh.

Perhaps some of us have a better use of time than sniping and minutely watching threads. As detailed my point stands. I would suggest you return to the comments previously posted. I know you've variously replied but obviously not read or understood them ...

nozzferrahhtoo

I will reply to your ninja edit separately....

gozunda wrote: »

Just becaude you believe you are 'the' authority here is irrelevant even if that was true. Thankfully it's not. I just love the inference above that no one understands you lol. My point stands.

Again there is no point TO stand. Nor have I claimed at any point that I am the authority on the issue. I am however more than informed on it. I certainly do not think "no one understands" me. I purely think YOU do not understand the subject.

As I said though, if you do not want to engage with the actual topic of the thread that is fine. But do not pretend that that is somehow my fault of failing. It is all on you. And rather than derail this thread any further I am happy to turn it over to moderator consideration rather if that is required.

To return to the topic of the thread however, you could perhaps try and articulate what it is you do not understand. What makes no sense? The speaker referenced in the OP is basically suggesting we stop thinking of pedophilia as some crazy anomaly that is somehow "other". But is in fact an entirely normal thing. That does not make it a GOOD thing, or one we want to welcome into our society. But it means we should treat it for what it is, not for what we want it to be.

I think we can all agree that we want to treat and help pedophiles as best we can. Especially those who have never, and will never, harm anyone. And the way to do that is to understand who and what they are, and why. And investigate all methods, even ones distasteful to us, of treating and helping them.

What part of that does not make sense? I genuinely do not see how it could be clearer or more straight forward.

gozunda

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I will reply to your ninja edit separately....
.

'Necro' and now 'Ninja' comments lol ...

Perhaps if you were not so trigger happy with the walls of text - then it wouldn't be necessary no? Back to the issue detailed previously re. the verbage of your comments being all over the place and vacuously absent of any beginning middle or end.

Frankly I've detailed my responses to the main points you have kept making ad nauseum and without reflection. There is little if any reason why I would keep having to go over the same ground with you because either you don't or can't understand what has been said.

To recap I've noted your ideas on paedophilia and paedophiles- I don't agree with any of them

Go ahead and get another wall of text in another brave effort at lastcomnentitus if you want or better even you could save time and I'll just read the previous one twice ....

nozzferrahhtoo

Theres nothing there to reply to. Again. Just personal comments about me. Again.

You are just dodging the thread, the content, and my points. If you want to return to any of it at any time, I am here for you.

gozunda

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Theres nothing there to reply to. Again. Just personal comments about me. Again.You are just dodging the thread, the content, and my points. If you want to return to any of it at any time, I am here for you.

Comments about content are not 'personal' btw. But do try and realise that barrage style. argument never works. 'here for you' - ya you do that lol ...

nozzferrahhtoo

Again since you have decided to edit your post AFTER I replied to it, I will deal with the new material in a separate post.

gozunda wrote: »

To recap I've noted your ideas on paedophilia and paedophiles- I don't agree with any of them

That is abundantly clear. What is not clear, because you run away every time I rebut you, is what you do not agree to exactly and more importantly WHY. Just asserting disagreement reveals nothing.

In post #141 above I detailed a summary of my position on this thread. You have replied to NONE of it.

Since you struggle with longer than twitter text I can frame this as bullet points for you to help you along. What exactly do you not agree with?

That pedophilia is a naturally and probably unchangeable orientation?
That we need to understand it in order to treat it?
That there is good reason to want to alleviate the suffering of people who have done no wrong?
That we actually want to help and treat pedophiles?
That we should investigate treatments even if the treatment itself is distasteful to us?

gozunda

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again since you have decided to edit your post AFTER I replied to it, I will deal with the new material in a separate post. That is abundantly clear. What is not clear, because you run away every time I rebut you, is what you do not agree to exactly and more importantly WHY. Just asserting disagreement reveals nothing. In post #141 above I detailed a summary of my position on this thread. You have replied to NONE of it. Since you struggle with longer than twitter text I can frame this as bullet points for you to help you along. What exactly do you not agree with?
That pedophilia is a naturally and probably unchangeable orientation?

That we need to understand it in order to treat it?

That there is good reason to want to alleviate the suffering of people who have done no wrong?

That we actually want to help and treat pedophiles?

That we should investigate treatments even if the treatment itself is distasteful to us?

You must have not read my comment again - if you missed the detail lol.

Nope. Your doing it again :rolleyes: see above ...

nozzferrahhtoo

What detail? You are claiming to disagree with my position, but refuse to even remotely answers questions about what the disagreement is, where it lies, and what form it takes. And then acting like somehow it is the fault of my posts that you are unable to understand, or engage, with the issue.

Also waiting until people have replied to you, and then editing your post minutes later, is not helping. Putting things into your post AFTER I reply to them and then pretending I missed or ignored it..... is not my failing here.

If you can explain what you disagree with and why I can work with that. If you just shout "disagree" at things, then not so much.

gozunda

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What detail? You are claiming to disagree with my position, but refuse to even remotely answers questions about what the disagreement is, where it lies, and what form it takes. And then acting like somehow it is the fault of my posts that you are unable to understand, or engage, with the issue.Also waiting until people have replied to you, and then editing your post minutes later, is not helping. Putting things into your post AFTER I reply to them and then pretending I missed or ignored it..... is not my failing here. If you can explain what you disagree with and why I can work with that. If you just shout "disagree" at things, then not so much.

This detail that you missed whilst you were being so trigger happy with the flowing walls of text ..

To recap I've noted your ideas on paedophilia and paedophiles- I don't agree with any of them.

And now I suggest you take a read of previous posts to save waste of any further white space ...

nozzferrahhtoo

Billy86 wrote: »

Bit of a thought experiment that seems to throw up a lot of different answers: if a pedophile goes through their entire life never acting on their urges in any way (so no abuse, child porn, etc) are they a disgusting piece of filth all he same for having those urges, or highly honorable for denying themselves one of the most primal urges any human gets for their enire life so as not to harm others?

I do not see why it needs to be either myself. Though certainly some level of respect for their resisting their urges is warranted.

For example I am a heterosexual male. I am in a relationship. However there are other women in the world and some of them are tempting. And I am far from the only heterosexual male that notices that. And many of us resist those temptations because it is the right thing to do.

Or if you are in work and someone you are in some form of "competition" with makes an error you could save them by pointing out the error. But there is temptation to let the error slide, so that it causes problems and they are reprimanded or fired for it later. I still choose to save them, and help them spot and fix their error.

Having those temptations does not make me a bad person. Resisting them does not make me some kind of paragon of honor. It is, to my mind, the absolute baseline at which I should be operating.

I have a lot of sympathy for people who have compulsions or urges they do not want or understand. And I think we should help them as best we can.

And I do respect them for resisting them. But I do not see it as "highly" honorable. In much the same way as when an alcoholic stay off the beer for a few years. We can offer them congratulations and respect. But lets not over do it either.

gozunda wrote: »

This detail that you missed whilst you were being so trigger happy with the flowing walls of text ..

Ehh

1) I did not miss it I replied DIRECTLY to it, check post #145 again as it is exactly what I was reply to in that post. How can I miss it when I replied specifically and solely to it? Are you even trying to make sense anymore?

and

2) that is an example of a detail you added AFTER I replied to your post in this constant tactic you are using to pretend people missed things that were not in fact even there when they replied to you.

gozunda wrote: »

And now I suggest you take a read of previous posts to save waste of any further white space ...

I replied to all previous posts, much of which you have ignored since. So no need to read them again, as my rebuttals of them stand unaddressed. And seemingly will continue to do so.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Does the conversion therapy paedophiles receive at treatment centres while incarcerated have any affect?

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think fear keeps a lot of paedophiles from acting on their desires. Fear of physical harm as well as fear of the justice system.

Quite rightly the idea of sex with children is so taboo, so disgusting in society that it keeps some paedophiles from "doing the deed". I fear that if this becomes "de-stigmatised" then it could lead to more child abuse. I could be wrong on this and it could go the other way, but there's no doubt that this is the next battle in the culture wars, along with the drive to normalise polyamorous relationships.

I believe you may have hit the nail on the head at least in relation to the detail of the OPs post. The other question raised which is evident in its absence here - are those paedophiles who make such claims or others claim don't 'harm' anyone. Herein lies the problem with such deliberatly obtuse thinking. Whose definitions of harm are they using? Their own? Child abuse is often indirect through porn and other forms of exploitation. And then there is the problem of those that do but dont get caught. Again there is a noticeable absence of any mention of those who are most at risk here - children. But then its frequently those who scream the loudest who believe they should be listened to for any other reason that they can ...