dsayers

Typo? This is what studies of SEX OFFENDERS reveals. A person's orientation, preferences, and willingness to aggress others are all separate, unrelated characteristics.

Pact, spy, missile... I don't know what you're talking about. I'm a private investigator. Last night, I drove around, making some patrols, stopped in a shop to pick up a pizza. Night before that, I had stopped in a gas station to get gas. I passed by/interacted with a lot of people. Maybe it was the gun on my hip (I honestly don't know; been a feature of my life for a decade now), but I experienced no thoughts of pacts, spying, or missiles because nobody I came across behaved in an aggressive fashion. Given my line of work, I think I would be exposed to it more than most. So perhaps I am ignorant in this conversation. If I'm not, then I think either there's a breakdown in communication or you're hanging out in some seriously bad places. Could you elaborate on where these ideas are coming from?

@Flying: Another fine example or your bias tainting the "discussion." Whether or not somebody chooses to be a homosexual has no bearing of the fact that because they're homosexual, they would choose somebody of their gender. This still doesn't make orientation a behavior or answer whether you know what a behavior is. BTW, there are still many other occurrences of you putting words into my mouth that you have yet to account for. I too wash my hands of you due to your lack of integrity.

What does it matter what I say? You're just going to read whatever you want anyways. This doesn't define any terms, answer any challenges, or acknowledge that you continue to put words into my mouth. I never said that sexual orientations were choices. I don't get the last bit here though. A sexual orientation isn't a behavior. Do you know what a behavior is? You've consistently conflated it with non-behaviors.

You keep making this claim regardless of what takes place around you.

You're not addressing a single challenge offered, including to define your terms. I see no reason to take you seriously. The challenge was offered from the very beginning that pedophilia is not a behavior. Not only have you not addressed this, but here you are simultaneously claiming it is a disorder and a behavior. You just keep asserting that it is a disorder. How do you know? Maybe if you bothered to define what you mean by disorder, we'd be able to identify where you've gone astray. Theft is the result of a lack of respect for property rights. A lack of empathy and/or a willingness to override it. You could probably argue that this could be classified as a disorder. But "disorder" in the context you're trying to assert is defined as "a disturbance in physical or mental health or functions; malady or dysfunction." Pedophilia doesn't fit. Also, I'm not sure on what basis you continue to denote that it is a preference. Primarily because the only logic, reason, or evidence you've offered is that it doesn't fit your presumption that it is a disorder, which isn't logic, reason, or evidence at all. The Greek "philo" literally means love of. I've reference humans' empathetic nature twice as well as pointed out that any willingness to harm another person is the result of unprocessed trauma during the formative years. You have yet to address this while continuing to assert that we're talking about something that is present at birth, just like homosexuality.

I didn't want to chime in since "I can't believe this conversation is still going" is not an argument. But I have admired your commitment to it.

You should check out Civ 5 if you haven't already. The game strikes an amazing balance between complexity and approach-ability. I read about half of your post. I used to play Monopoly the same way when I was a kid. In fact, I won most of my games by not wiping people out, but gutting their resources instead, leaving them around to collect more resources for me. My family used to call me the slum lord because of this It just occurred to me that my father owns some rental properties that I work as agent/maintenance for. I'll likely some day inherit some of them. Self-fulfilling prophecy!

Des, I caution against using "NAP." NAP is just shorthand for "theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral." Stated as NAP, I've seen a LOT of people (including you here) refer to this as if it's some contract that needs to be signed, or other intangible force. We all "agree with the NAP" by simply making use of our own bodies. People who engage in theft, assault, rape, and murder are telling you with their very behavior that property rights are invalid, therefore force is justifiable in obstructing their aggression. I think you're taking something that is quite simple and obfuscating it.

Is this sensationalism? Let's look at the title. Made up word to poison the well that we're not talking about something ordinary? Check. Use of sensationalistic terminology such as "alarming"? Check. Claiming widespread behavior with no basis for determining that it's actually happening and not just somebody repeating somebody else's fantasy repeatedly, complete with natural embelishment? Check. I wonder how many people will go on to imitate the article only because they learned of it from the article. I can't believe that in 2015, there are still "journalists" that don't get that shining a light on something will increase its fame and popularity, not shame it or make it go away.

This is an appeal to authority, not an argument. Also, by banned, he means people should threaten you with violence for. This is not a rational prescription.

According to dictionary.com, the definition of disease is "a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment." The reason why categorizing pedophilia as a disease as problematic is because you'd basically be letting their abusers off the hook for traumatizing them during their formative years. YOU make it about you when you continuously misrepresent what was said. You reveal your bias as well as your willingness to resist anything that would interfere with your bias. I never said anything about "law." In fact, I specifically rejected in my first post the idea that the mafia's edicts are a method by which to accurately determine the truth. Where? When did this happen? In what way does saying "pedophilia is a preference" translate to "it doesn't exist"? More straw man.

You mean free market, right? I don't think there would be teachers in the free market as we think of them today. Say you wanted to be a mechanic. You would work under a more experienced mechanic and he would teach you by doing the work with you, first with you just observing, ending with them just observing you. If you were capable of teaching, you could just as easily take the time to write a book. Imagine it takes as long to write a book on a subject as it would to teach it for a 9 month school "year." By investing that time in writing a book rather than teaching, you not only reach a much larger audience, but you free up all your subsequent years to hone your craft, write about other things, etc. For interactivity, you could set up a web forum where people who wanted to ask questions or offer feedback could interact with you. Thinking of it like this, it's painfully obvious how inefficient it is to pay somebody to stand up and say the same shit year after year. "Teacher" present day is more of a babysitter than the imparter of knowledge.

I think the 2nd most important question anybody could be asked/answer is "How do you know?" Here, it would be a way of questioning the conclusions without actually expressing disagreement. If you can identify WHY they believe something, it can help you to decide how to proceed. If they want spanking to be righteous because it preserves the fantasy of who their parents are, pointing out its immorality or true identity as assault likely won't be accepted. In fact, challenging them in a way that they'll reject out of hand will actually serve to strengthen their belief. If they were to say something like they were spanked and they turned out fine, you could point out that more recent studies have shown that it leads to X, Y, and Z and that fine maybe could've been better. Maybe they say huh, mention it to their parents, and it starts a conversation. Also, I'd be a little slower to self-criticize. Did you not speak up out of cowardice or out of survival? The latter can actually be wise. Like if a bear raided your campsite. Sure that's YOUR sandwich, but what would standing your ground accomplish? I don't know the specifics of where you work, so discard whatever doesn't fit. A buddy of mine is an engineer at Ford. Most of what he's done there is software related. He's developed such a rapport he could work from home if he had to. He's also does his share of training, so ranking up could be an option, at which point you could say that work time isn't personal opinion time for example (not ideal, but hey). Maybe on your lunch break, you could fire up a relevant FDR podcast and if people ask what you're watching, let them watch with you. Maybe ease into a conversation by presenting it as somebody who has offered a dissenting viewpoint that you think is compelling. There's a lot of people running around with bad and even harmful ideas in their head. You can't let them ruin YOUR day. If you do end up deciding you might be ready to move on, and aren't afraid to be mildly antagonistic, if they talk about women's rights, repeat them but framed as men's rights. If they promote child abuse, reframe it as spousal abuse. Let them come to the realization that their conclusion is unprincipled.

Ah, the reason you are proceeding is because you need for a child molester to not have chosen their aggression. Who in your history would benefit from being relieved of responsibility for molesting a child? "normal person" undefined aside, going by your contextual use, I would say you don't know your history very well at all. Sexual assault, including of children has been a part of war from ancient history all the way up to 2015. You're forgetting that people who do the assault and killing in wars have accepted that they and/or their leaders exist is a separate moral category and/or that the people they are harming aren't actually people and/or deserve it. So either the distinction you've made is flat out false or your classification of "normal person" is erroneous, which means the distinction is meaningless. After this, you went on to describe that the way to identify somebody as homosexual is by way of their preference. No, what I said was that voluntary behaviors are a choice. Why would you misrepresent what I've said in such close proximity of what I've actually said? In a climate where it's VERY fashionable to conflate pedophilia with child molestation, I have repeatedly taken the position that pedophiles are not predators even though child molesters are, because preferences aren't the same as behaviors. In light of this, how have you arrived at the conclusion that "PC" is of any interest to me? You're bringing a LOT of baggage to the topic. I think you're not being completely honest about what it is we're talking about. Perhaps not even with yourself. I think this would literally be a life-changing source of self-knowledge for you and I hope you'll experience enough cognitive dissonance regarding the errors I've pointed out that you will be motivated to pursue that.

Both Wuzzums and I have pointed out that being homosexual is not harming people. Is there a reason why you proceed as if this has not been pointed out?

This was the only thing you said that even considers an external source. Elsewhere, you said "self-attack" and "self-erase." Even here, it seems only chance and insignificant. For a member of a social species to experience anxiety around other people is gene death. I wouldn't regard this insignificant or unimportant. Self-knowledge. Which begins with being honest about your feelings, where they originate, and why. So who erased you and why? How do you feel when you realize the truth? What you describe as self-erasure is just you recreating past trauma. Which is normalizing and/or internalizing that trauma instead of processing it. I think this is another missed opportunity to be honest as well as trying to fix a misunderstood problem with problematic behavior. Allow me to clarify. I think your conclusion that you need to be all you all the time isn't realistic. There are other people, so you want to do things like keep your voice down in public places for example. Also, because there's other people, you don't walk around with your home address and credit card numbers in plain view because of the ways some people might misuse that to harm you. In the same way, discretion is not a vice. By taking this all or nothing approach, you're allowing your abusers to re-victimize you. You're essentially saying to yourself that your abusers wanted to erase you, so you'll just go around totally uninhibited. Even though that approach would be in defiance of your abusers, it's a decision directly for the sake of your abusers. As opposed to thinking about various scenarios and choosing what to release and what to hold onto based on your feelings and desires in the moment. Do you accept your own capacity for error as a human being? I found that once I did, this was a huge burden lifted from my shoulders. It's good to be mindful of how you land for others and review your own behaviors to look for ways you can improve. However, there is such a thing as too much, which is usually what happens when it hasn't been modeled for somebody that failure is natural, acceptable, and in fact how we're able to improve in the first place. Again, this comes from without, so you need to be honest about who did this to you and go from there.

I believe the point Matthew M. was making is that what you posted here is different from Which does nothing to explain why it is all the things you say that it is.

You're collectivizing again. I never claimed "they" were normal because I never referenced "them." I referenced a preference they possess. How can you say that somebody that prefers purple over red or italian food over mexican food isn't normal? It's just a preference. If by "normal" you mean "undamaged," then I would argue that somebody who is attracted to or aroused by the pre-pubescent form and doesn't molest children IS normal. Because it would indicate empathy. Anyways, this quote confuses me. Are you saying there's NOT a difference between somebody who has a rape fantasy and a rapist? Again, homosexuality refers to a preference/attraction, not a behavior. There's no such thing as a homosexual act. I'm not gay, but my first sexual experience was from a same age male friend, who also wasn't gay (I knew of him for many years after). I would bet money that almost every instance of prison rape was not perpetrated by people who identify as homosexual. There's nothing really to gain from likening "a homosexual act" and child molestation. Presumably, a "homosexual act" is between consenting individuals. As a child is not able to consent, the act of child molestation is predatory. At which point, we begin to get to the heart of your question as to why society treats somebody capable of child molestation as a scourge. A child might not be able to recognize a behavior as sexual assault and if they did, would not conceivably be able to stop it. I encourage you to check out Alison Gopnik's work, including her book The Philosophical Baby. She's done a lot to prove that humans are naturally empathetic (which makes evolutionary sense). I think that your assertion that child molesters are born that way is false. People will not speak the language of aggression unless they are exposed to it. Child molesters are victims of abuse, usually sexual abuse. This cycle is another reason why I think society shows pronounced hatred for child molestation.

Great point. Even if the claim of predicting a crash "to the day" was accurate, it's not proof of skill. One could not skillfully predict such a thing because an economy is the sum of transactions between hundreds of millions of people. If it cannot be skillfully predicted, then what is to gain by citing it as an accolade? It would be like a lottery winner claiming to be a master statistician for guessing something right that one time.

You've used the words raped, molested, and pedophilia as if they're interchangeable. For the sake of precision, rape and molestation are behaviors. Pedophilia is a preference. I'm sure there are tons of pedophiles that have never acted out on their fantasies just as I'm sure there's tons of Corvette lovers that have never stolen a car. Likewise, I'm sure there are tons of child molesters that aren't pedophiles. Sexual assault is more about wrath, vengeance, and control than sex. Also, you used the words media and crime. It's important to understand, as I'm sure that you do, that what the media and mafia say is no measure for what is true. That said, the media works for the mafia, so of course they want you to hate the bank robber (person rather than behavior), child molester, pedophiles, corporations, and so on. Anything to keep you distracted long enough to not focus on the institutionalized coercion of the State.

You're having a different conversation now. The article referenced "rational commands backed by threats of violence," which I pointed out is irrational. You would have to make the case for "commands backed by threats of violence" being rational at all before you could make the claim that there's a gradation.

"There are worse places to be living, so I'm automatically right" is not an argument. I won't share it and for the reasons I've explained. Threatening me with life someplace less pleasant (which you can't deliver anyways) won't change this. There's a reason why people say words like objective and morality when they don't apply. It's because they wish to persuade you without the rigor of making a case. If the author says morality and means a willingness to donate to charity, then I'm not interested in what he has to say because he's referring to preferences and voluntary behaviors of others, which is none of my concern.

Are you saying that you are unable to differentiate between rape and love making? Saying the opposite of what I've said and prefacing it with "it seems" is neither honest, nor an argument. When person A attacks person B, person A is consenting to being attacked. You typed a question without the initiation of the use of force to ask how we can not initiate the use of force. You would not run up to somebody and say, "No law shall create victimless and/or consensual crimes" because the act of communicating also demonstrates that you wish for your communication to be received, and there is no circumstance where "No law shall create victimless and/or consensual crimes" could be expected to be received.

You mean besides the reasons already given? I had already pointed out that "A baseball game is a bad analogy because everybody at a baseball game is there voluntarily. You are part of society just from being born, so you cannot ethically organize society." Here, you are moving the goalposts by no longer talking about society, but groups within society. The people who worked on the USB standard didn't organize anything externally. People adopted that standard because it was beneficial to do so. Specifically known as "spontaneous organization," the phenomenon by which organization happens from within even when there's no organization from without. Which brings us back to the question I asked before that you didn't answer: How did you arrive at the conclusion that society needs to be "organized"? Your continued willingness to ignore challenges and pick and choose which you address is a confession that you're not interested in the truth. According to FDR, this thread was started by you. Therefore the onus for defining terms is upon you. Communication is the responsibility of the communicator. You don't get to walk into a room where there's no expectation that people speak German, speak German to them, and then accuse them of confusing what you said with what you meant to say. This is another example of you moving the goalposts. You mention conventions and baseball games, but these are the organization of THINGS. Society isn't things, is an aggregate of PEOPLE. Organize is an active term, so "organize society" means acting upon people. In order to ethically propose this or morally do this, it comes down to consent. But the moment you secure consent, it's now an internal process, meaning there's no sense in asking others how we should make these decisions for individuals.