Conference aims to normalize pedophilia

[Kimberlyd125]

It's time to separate the victims from the perpetrators. Children are the victims, the good guys while perverts (ie pedophiles) are the bad guys. We need to protect the good guys and punish the bad guys. Those in the psychiatric community are there to make money. Thanks to our over-generous government there are LOTS of free psychiatric help centers and many more with subsidized sliding scale fee services. I don't know one single person in the psychiatric realm who would turn down working with pedophiles. If someone has urges to have sexual contact with children and they don't, on their own, seek help, that's their problem.

Great post! ITA

 

[Nova]

Who cares about pedophiles’ incentives to control their urges!? ... WE/society should provide the incentives for them ... WE/society should stop “them,” cut them off, ISOLATE their thoughts as soon as expressed, make them pay dearly for any acting-out ... do them in – one way or another, the sooner-the better, early in their chain of conditioning.

I have no sympathy or interest in the agendas of pedophiles, but if I were in active practice, I would be more than happy to address their “treatment” needs (seriously), and protect society at the same time. I have no problem with habilitation or rehabilitation for pedophiles, but I do have a problem with any suggestion that they are “victims,” in any sense of the term.

Russell

To my knowledge, no one here has called them "victims."

The stated goal of B4U-act is to intervene with those who have certain tendencies BEFORE any children are actually victimized. If--big IF, I realize--they can effectively prevent pedophiles from acting on the urges, then more power to them.

 

[Nova]

you slam any and everyone associated with Liberty and say they "lie down with the dog"

yet - justify only showing part of the story of Harry Hays. He's important to teach to children ..we'll just ignore that he didn't mind advocating having sex with them.

So blinded by hatred of all things Liberty related you just don't see the hypocrisy.

I think you misread or misunderstood my point. I'll take the word of the people who were there and actually reported on it, what happened and what the gist of the meeting was. You're welcome to google the information and decide for yourself.

You are right that I misunderstood your phrase "I'll take with more than a grain of salt..." I thought it meant the opposite of what you intended. My bad.

There is nothing wrong with my vision when it comes to Liberty U. I see it all too clearly, thank you very much. Had the quote in the original article been neutral in tone, I would have overlooked the source; but it was not and so I did not.

As for historical figures, if you intend to eliminate everyone who favored sex with adolescent (and sometimes even younger) boys, you will have to eliminate not only Harry Hays, but Plato, Socrates, Michelangelo, Marlowe, Shakespeare and maybe even Abraham Lincoln.

This is NOT an attempt on my part to argue that adults should have sex with teenagers. Not at all. It's merely an acknowledgement of the fact that such behavior was the norm rather than the exception throughout most of history.

As for modern times, I think there are very good reasons why we protect minors from sexual exploitation by adults. And I don't think there's any likelihood we will change our attitudes based on the occasional conference exploring the subject.

 

[Nova]

You're kidding right? How about right from wrong and if that doesn't work how about much longer more severe jail terms? Life, death penalty? Sooner or later something will sink in.

Posters here seem to want people who even think about sex with minors to be subject to the same penalties as those who act out such thoughts. My point was that if the penalties are the same, then those who merely fantasize have no incentive to control their behavior.

But this is that hysterical territory to which I referred before. Reasonable conversation becomes impossible and I get bored very quickly.

 

[Charlie09]

You are right that I misunderstood your phrase "I'll take with more than a grain of salt..." I thought it meant the opposite of what you intended. My bad.


There is nothing wrong with my vision when it comes to Liberty U. I see it all too clearly, thank you very much. Had the quote in the original article been neutral in tone, I would have overlooked the source; but it was not and so I did not.
Yet, if someone spoke in general of all homosexual males in the way that you speak of all who have attended or taught at Liberty, I have a feeling you'd be the first to complain.


As for historical figures, if you intend to eliminate everyone who favored sex with adolescent (and sometimes even younger) boys, you will have to eliminate not only Harry Hays, but Plato, Socrates, Michelangelo, Marlowe, Shakespeare and maybe even Abraham Lincoln.
First, you've mentioned a couple that there is no proof, it's simply suspected. Regardless, we're not really talking about historical figures no longer able to stand up for themselves. We keep taking these little fishing expeditions to try to move the subject off track. We are talking about a current group who wish to remove the stigma of sexual desire of children. If any of the above mentioned were alive and advocating for sex with children I would hope they would not find much support.

This is NOT an attempt on my part to argue that adults should have sex with teenagers. Not at all. It's merely an acknowledgement of the fact that such behavior was the norm rather than the exception throughout most of history.

I'm not talking about teenagers. I'm talking about children. It's been defined several times in this thread.

As for modern times, I think there are very good reasons why we protect minors from sexual exploitation by adults. And I don't think there's any likelihood we will change our attitudes based on the occasional conference exploring the subject.

I think we've become quite accustomed to behavior based on a small group of people exploring and exploiting a subject and working towards acceptance - in all areas.

 

[Nova]

I think we've become quite accustomed to behavior based on a small group of people exploring and exploiting a subject and working towards acceptance - in all areas.

And now you're back to talking about something other than pedophilia, as I suspected was your intention in the first place.

You have misrepresented my remarks so many times in this thread, I can only assume you are doing so deliberately.

Liberty U. is a crappy school. That doesn't mean that some poor souls with triple-digit IQs haven't wandered through there by mistake.

But no, I feel no need to express "tolerance" for a so-called "university" that teaches magic in place of science.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Poor souls? By mistake?

GMAB

Many chose to go their because they WANT to go there.
Does NOT mean they are "poor souls" or that they are making a mistake.

Just because you don't believe in Creation does not make it some sort of laughable "magic". And just because Liberty's test scores do not meet your standards does not mean everything that comes from that university is useless.

What totally arrogant comments to make.

From someone who screams tolerance so often?????

To each his own NOVA.

JMO

 

[Nova]

Poor souls? By mistake?

GMAB

Many chose to go their because they WANT to go there.
Does NOT mean they are "poor souls" or that they are making a mistake.

Just because you don't believe in Creation does not make it some sort of laughable "magic". And just because Liberty's test scores do not meet your standards does not mean everything that comes from that university is useless.

What totally arrogant comments to make.

From someone who screams tolerance so often?????

To each his own NOVA.

JMO

Sorry. As far as I'm concerned, reading Genesis as a literal scientific account is indeed laughable. I won't pretend to respect such a viewpoint.

But we can retire the "tolerance" jabs. I have never suggested that those who attend or teach at Liberty U. should be denied their civil rights. It's a tempting proposition, I admit, but I have never seriously advocated such a position.

I'm sure some very bright people do go to Liberty for religious reasons. I can defend their right to make that choice without pretending to respect it.

 

[Charlie09]

And now you're back to talking about something other than pedophilia, as I suspected was your intention in the first place.

You have misrepresented my remarks so many times in this thread, I can only assume you are doing so deliberately.

Liberty U. is a crappy school. That doesn't mean that some poor souls with triple-digit IQs haven't wandered through there by mistake.

But no, I feel no need to express "tolerance" for a so-called "university" that teaches magic in place of science.

You do realize I'm sure, there are groups other than homosexuals who have made huge gains both in organizing and becoming a voice for those who didn't feel they had a voice to begin with. All it took was a spark to get a movement going. I'm actually being very neutral in my remarks - the world does not revolve around homosexuality.

No one is misrepresenting anything. If one can't justify a position, it shouldn't be out there.

This thread is not about evolution's missing pieces, again, this thread is about a special interest group interested in mainstreaming their sexual attraction to children.

 

[Charlie09]

Sorry. As far as I'm concerned, reading Genesis as a literal scientific account is indeed laughable. I won't pretend to respect such a viewpoint.

But we can retire the "tolerance" jabs. I have never suggested that those who attend or teach at Liberty U. should be denied their civil rights. It's a tempting proposition, I admit, but I have never seriously advocated such a position.

I'm sure some very bright people do go to Liberty for religious reasons. I can defend their right to make that choice without pretending to respect it.

Can't stay on the subject, have to keep jabbing at religion.

 

[Nova]

Can't stay on the subject, have to keep jabbing at religion.

Not all religion. Just that which keeps Liberty from being a "proper university."

 

[Nova]

You do realize I'm sure, there are groups other than homosexuals who have made huge gains both in organizing and becoming a voice for those who didn't feel they had a voice to begin with. All it took was a spark to get a movement going. I'm actually being very neutral in my remarks - the world does not revolve around homosexuality.

No one is misrepresenting anything. If one can't justify a position, it shouldn't be out there.

This thread is not about evolution's missing pieces, again, this thread is about a special interest group interested in mainstreaming their sexual attraction to children.

I do realize that other groups have agitated for and gained civil rights. But the language used to describe them is usually somewhat different.

I'm not sure what we're arguing about any more, but I've seen nothing to suggest that anyone is proposing child molestation be made legal. Nor is there any way it is going to happen even if it were proposed.

At most, a few people are suggesting that those who have successfully resisted acting out on their pedophiliac tendencies be treated as human beings in the context of therapy. And that suggestion is consistent with long-standing principles of effective treatment.

 

[Charlie09]

Not all religion. Just that which keeps Liberty from being a "proper university."

Again, don't go there, don't recommend it to people, but to dismiss everything from there over something that isn't provable is absurd.

 

[Charlie09]

I do realize that other groups have agitated for and gained civil rights. But the language used to describe them is usually somewhat different.

I'm not sure what we're arguing about any more, but I've seen nothing to suggest that anyone is proposing child molestation be made legal. Nor is there any way it is going to happen even if it were proposed.

At most, a few people are suggesting that those who have successfully resisted acting out on their pedophiliac tendencies be treated as human beings in the context of therapy. And that suggestion is consistent with long-standing principles of effective treatment.

I've just seen that people would like sexual attraction to children viewed with less stigma. A proposal I'm not willing to agree to disagree.

 

[Nova]

I've just seen that people would like sexual attraction to children viewed with less stigma. A proposal I'm not willing to agree to disagree.

Like I said, not a proposal likely to gain much support.

 

[Nova]

Again, don't go there, don't recommend it to people, but to dismiss everything from there over something that isn't provable is absurd.

Once again, had the quote been neutral I would have ignored the source.

But that sort of fear-mongering is a Liberty U. speciality.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Do we really HAVE to keep bashing this university?
I mean really????

What is the point?

There has been more negative posts here about Liberty than about pedophiles.

:waitasec:

 

[Charlie09]

.

Like I said, not a proposal likely to gain much support


Once again, had the quote been neutral I would have ignored the source.

But that sort of fear-mongering is a Liberty U. speciality.

I don't care if it doesn't receive much support. ANY support is too much.


Again, the world doesn't revolve around homosexuality Nova. It just doesn't. No one cares if you're gay or not. At this point the only point being made is a petulant pity party because a Christian Conservative College has not yielded to the politically correct acceptance of all things alternative.

So to spite a college and a philosophy that is vehemently disagreed with - there is an active attempt to try to make it sound like there could POSSIBLY be a level headed reason for any sized group to attempt to take the stigma out of sexual attraction to children, even though, all evidence points to it being innate and incurable - possibly controllable, but an always present danger to any child.

 

[Nova]

Knock

it

off

, I don't know what you what "knocked off." Honestly I don't.

I have questioned a source and provided reasons for why I don't think it's a valid source. That's it.