Then educate me. Beyond "telling truth" as you say so often, how should society have dealt with those pesky gays so that we didn't find ourselves on the cusp of mass pedophilia? Gays are either allowed to be open and equal in society or they're not. You're clearly unhappy that we mostly are now. So what specific things should we have done to make sure gays stayed nicely tucked away in their "perverts" box along with people who have sex with kids?Seamaster said:Quote:
Like I've said before, it is somewhat a sign of progress that these people "have gay friends" and talk about "loving" and "respecting" gay people while advocating for a return to a time when gay people were shunned and criminalized.
I've never said that.
Why do you have to put words in my mouth when arguing with me? I don't do that to you.
The Pedo Agenda
14,012 Views |
230 Replies |
Last: 6 yr ago by MemorialTXAg
Quote:
Again, transgenderism isn't a sexual issue.
That's some more orthodoxy that doesn't pass the smell test.
Look, I've said my piece on the original topic. Got to get back to life now.
I hope you boys are right. I hope its all just pearl clutching hysteria.
I'll be back on this thread if I start to see news that confirms my predictions (or I'll come back in 2028 if I was wrong.)
Torbush
The American College of Pediatricians isn't a legitimate source. They are a fringe, politically motivated group that isn't accepted by mainstream medical community.
No, sometimes it's enough to ad hom the source. If I told you that the dog turd on the sidewalk tastes like chocolate, and my source was the schizophrenic man across the street yelling at a squirrel about aliens, you probably wouldn't conduct any further tests on the turd.Seamaster said:
Its not enough to ad hom the source.
You have to demonstrate how their science is wrong - e.g. neuro plasticity and how our lived experiences alter our brains.
Goodness, you realize that trans people are trans regardless of who they have sex with, or if they're even having sex. My friend is married and trans. Nothing about her sexual orientation changed. She's always been attracted to women, regardless of whether she still lived her life as a man or now as a woman. She could be celibate, and it wouldn't change that she's trans. Just because it's lumped in with the LGB part of the community doesn't mean it's also a sexual orientation issue.Quote:
That's some more orthodoxy that doesn't pass the smell test.
That you can't grasp this simple concept is telling. You can disagree with how we approach the issue without illogical positions that being trans is an issue of sexuality. Again, you provide another example.
I'll check it out, thanks.Marco Esquandolas said:
I posted the article I'm referring to a couple pages back.
If I feel that after reading I have a thought that will add to this conversation I will share it.
But before I go, Beer Baron deserves a response.Quote:
Then educate me. Beyond "telling truth" as you say so often, how should society have dealt with those pesky gays so that we didn't find ourselves on the cusp of mass pedophilia? Gays are either allowed to be open and equal in society or they're not. You're clearly unhappy that we mostly are now. So what specific things should we have done to make sure gays stayed nicely tucked away in their "perverts" box along with people who have sex with kids?
First - I didn't say anything about pesky gays.
Secondly - My argument here (one that I didn't invent myself) is about the loose philosophical footing that we've placed ourselves in. By establishing various new rules about sexual orthodoxy we've cracked open the door to pedophiles and polygamists. Its just a matter of time.
Thirdly - I've never said that gays can't be equal and open or shouldn't be equal and open in society. The whole beef that you have with me started with a question about the definition of marriage. What is marriage? That was the question I was arguing a few years ago. It was never 'Let's lock up the pesky gays!' I personally have no problem with gays being open and equal. I think the lifestyle, based on studies and history, is a risky one. I don't think it leads to happiness. I think it hurts people. But its a free choice and I like living in a free society. That said, I do not believe that marriage can be contracted between two persons of the same sex - regardless of what the state says.
Fourthly - Maybe you haven't noticed but at various times I've been careful to couch heterosexual promiscuity and the destruction of marriage ahead of homosexual issues.
Finally - I've tried to be patient and compassionate. I am sorry if I've feel short of that goal. But I've never put words in your mouth like you seem to do constantly with me.
Torbush
I think much of the problem is how our society views justice and the justice system in general. We see it in how other nations deal with rehabilitation-focused incarceration vs. our revenge-focused incarceration. We don't care about it's effectiveness. We don't care that our method results in higher recidivism rates. We want our "justice". We want our revenge. I think we face the same problem with addressing pedophiles. In general, we don't really care what works. We just have something inside us that demands they get what they "deserve", even if it's just attraction they've never really acted on.Marco Esquandolas said:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/16/how-germany-treats-paedophiles-before-they-offend
Wholeheartedly agree. It seems that those that are more religious are more inclined to believe that way as well.RetiredAg said:I think much of the problem is how our society views justice and the justice system in general. We see it in how other nations deal with rehabilitation-focused incarceration vs. our revenge-focused incarceration. We don't care about it's effectiveness. We don't care that our method results in higher recidivism rates. We want our "justice". We want our revenge. I think we face the same problem with addressing pedophiles. In general, we don't really care what works. We just have something inside us that demands they get what they "deserve", even if it's just attraction they've never really acted on.Marco Esquandolas said:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/16/how-germany-treats-paedophiles-before-they-offend
A big reason I think the notion of Hell is a major blight on religion.
7nine
https://www.upworthy.com/a-provocative-treatment-program-for-pedophiles-in-germany-is-raising-some-eyebrows
Quote:
According to Fred Berlin, director of the National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma (a private treatment center in Baltimore), "virtuous pedophiles," or people who are sexually attracted to children but have never abused and never intend to abuse a child, are out there. And right now, in the United States, they're not getting help.
"I think we have to encourage people who are undetected to come forward so that we can assist them before they cross the line," Berlin said.
"We have to get beyond this idea that sex offenders are monsters and recognize that they are among us, and that they can be helped," says Elizabeth LeTourneau, director of the Moore Center for the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse at Johns Hopkins University.
LeTourneau told Upworthy that after "This American Life" featured her Maryland center in a report, she received over 200 inquiries from people who struggle with sexual attraction to children and claim to have never abused a child.
They reached out to her for help despite America's mandatory reporting laws.
These laws require health professionals in most U.S. states to notify authorities if they suspect one of their patients is a danger to children.
LeTourneau supports those laws but believes states should take a more nuanced approach.
"Many, many people who are attracted to children do not want to hurt children, and people who have already done so really want to stop," she said. She says it's important to "give them a way to access services where they don't also have to face the decision to risk 15 years in prison."
Nuanced approach? This is America. We don't believe in nuance.Quote:
LeTourneau supports those laws but believes states should take a more nuanced approach.
Wait! You don't like the notion of hell?Texaggie7nine said:Wholeheartedly agree. It seems that those that are more religious are more inclined to believe that way as well.RetiredAg said:I think much of the problem is how our society views justice and the justice system in general. We see it in how other nations deal with rehabilitation-focused incarceration vs. our revenge-focused incarceration. We don't care about it's effectiveness. We don't care that our method results in higher recidivism rates. We want our "justice". We want our revenge. I think we face the same problem with addressing pedophiles. In general, we don't really care what works. We just have something inside us that demands they get what they "deserve", even if it's just attraction they've never really acted on.Marco Esquandolas said:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/16/how-germany-treats-paedophiles-before-they-offend
A big reason I think the notion of Hell is a major blight on religion.
I've thought about putting on a shirt and tie and going door to door to tell people about it.
7nine
Well, I can assure you that I'd listen more to that than the Ted Cruz campaigner that knocked on my door. Or the Beto text I got.Texaggie7nine said:
I've thought about putting on a shirt and tie and going door to door to tell people about it.
You didn't have to use the word. It's quite clear you're obsessed, and would be a much happier person if you didn't have to be aware that we were out there existing in the same country as you.Quote:
First - I didn't say anything about pesky gays.
Yes, this is insulting. "By letting you exist openly and equally we've opened the door for pedophiles to do so too." I venture to say any single group would find it insulting to be lined up in the same conversation with pedophiles.Quote:
Secondly - My argument here (one that I didn't invent myself) is about the loose philosophical footing that we've placed ourselves in. By establishing various new rules about sexual orthodoxy we've cracked open the door to pedophiles and polygamists. Its just a matter of time.
Then answer my question - this long, rambling response didn't, by the way. You constantly rant that gays are too prominent, too visible, and too free to do their gay things - to the point where in ten short years we'll all be celebrating child rape. So tell me, what specific things could we have done to stop this? The only ways I see are the things we did before gays were prominent, visible, and free.Quote:
Thirdly - I've never said that gays can't be equal and open or shouldn't be equal and open in society.
The time for this argument is passed. I'm married and I don't need your approval for it to be legal.Quote:
The whole beef that you have with me started with a question about the definition of marriage. What is marriage? That was the question I was arguing a few years ago. It was never 'Let's lock up the pesky gays!' I personally have no problem with gays being open and equal. I think the lifestyle, based on studies and history, is a risky one. I don't think it leads to happiness. I think it hurts people. But its a free choice and I like living in a free society. That said, I do not believe that marriage can be contracted between two persons of the same sex - regardless of what the state says.
Thanks?Quote:
Fourthly - Maybe you haven't noticed but at various times I've been careful to couch heterosexual promiscuity and the destruction of marriage ahead of homosexual issues.
I've tried to explain it from the perspective of a gay person. Retired, a fellow Christian, has tried to explain it from a religious perspective. Your statements/attitudes absolutely are not compassionate, nice, or loving, but you simply don't want to hear it.Quote:
Finally - I've tried to be patient and compassionate. I am sorry if I've feel short of that goal. But I've never put words in your mouth like you seem to do constantly with me.
So again, you didn't answer my question at all. What specific things should society have done to stem this tidal wave that we gays have unleashed on society? If you had a time machine and could go back to the 1950s and prevent us from being where we are now, a place that clearly terrifies you, what would you do? You've said you wouldn't lock us up (thanks!), but what would you do?
Re: Frok's comment about effectiveness, I realize I meant it in a very broad sense, i.e., that lots of people are taking advantage of it and that people from other countries are very interested in learning about it and how to replicate it. The narrower definition of success or effectiveness -- something like "how many crimes were avoided because of the therapy" is probably unknowable.
But I think the simple fact that such a therapy is really not even possible in the U.S. and other countries is enough to cause reconsideration of the whole thing.
But I think the simple fact that such a therapy is really not even possible in the U.S. and other countries is enough to cause reconsideration of the whole thing.
Quote:
But I think the simple fact that such a therapy is really not even possible in the U.S. and other countries is enough to cause reconsideration of the whole thing.
meh. I prefer the wait and see approach. There is no way to tell if it even works. That's not good enough to change laws.
I think seamaster would want to change how we fill out standard forms and govt documents.
When you fill out paperwork it should have a section for gender that only has male and female as options. then it needs a section for disorders where you can put gay, trans, pedo, furry, Muslim, liberal, etc. That section would have a big bold disclaimer that says you are very bad and need Jesus and that the govt doesn't support your disorder. The government could then take your information and mail you letters, possibly made of Scarlet, to wear on your person and put on your residence so people can be warned who the disordered people are and can make sure they hide their wife and hide their kids.
I suspect this would also help cps know which people need their children taken away and raised by govt to protect them from the disordered and help inform Christian business owners who they may not want to hire. This is all done with much love and attention. After all, we are all sinners. Some sins just need scarlet letters.
When you fill out paperwork it should have a section for gender that only has male and female as options. then it needs a section for disorders where you can put gay, trans, pedo, furry, Muslim, liberal, etc. That section would have a big bold disclaimer that says you are very bad and need Jesus and that the govt doesn't support your disorder. The government could then take your information and mail you letters, possibly made of Scarlet, to wear on your person and put on your residence so people can be warned who the disordered people are and can make sure they hide their wife and hide their kids.
I suspect this would also help cps know which people need their children taken away and raised by govt to protect them from the disordered and help inform Christian business owners who they may not want to hire. This is all done with much love and attention. After all, we are all sinners. Some sins just need scarlet letters.
What's the alternative for people who have these problems but have not committed any crimes? The U.S. model seems to be "shun and deny treatment" + "wait for them to commit crimes and lock them up." What is the argument against preventative therapy for people who want it but have every incentive in the world NOT to seek it out? Is something not better than nothing in terms of decreasing the chances of child abuse?Frok said:Quote:
But I think the simple fact that such a therapy is really not even possible in the U.S. and other countries is enough to cause reconsideration of the whole thing.
meh. I prefer the wait and see approach. There is no way to tell if it even works. That's not good enough to change laws.
Quote:
What's the alternative for people who have these problems but have not committed any crimes?
Same way I approach things myself. It is wrong to do this so I will suppress the urge. If I lose control of myself and act on the urge then I am responsible for my actions.
Quote:
The U.S. model seems to be "shun and deny treatment" + "wait for them to commit crimes and lock them up."
This is every country but Germany right now. And they aren't even sure it works yet.
Quote:
What is the argument against preventative therapy for people who want it but have every incentive in the world NOT to seek it out?
I have absolutely NO issue with preventative therapy. I just think in order for it to work you would have to have 100% confidentiality which could be tricky legally speaking here.
so you're in favor of preventative therapy but also in favor of all the rules that make it impossible?
Marco Esquandolas said:
so you're in favor of preventative therapy but also in favor of all the rules that make it impossible?
Haha, I guess so. I don't know, thinking it out for the first time today.
I like the idea of them learning how to control themselves. But I guess I have similar concerns to Seamaster about removing the stigma. Yes I want you to get help but no I don't want to feel sorry for you for wanting to violate a child.
Edit: Not saying therapist should "shun" them. That's great if they can do their job and put those thoughts and feelings aside. But me personally, yes I will shun you if you think about my children in that way.
You laugh but I think there's some truth in that. I just don't understand why, if we're causing all these problems, they can't articulate a plan for addressing the issue beyond shouting "truth" at us. Clearly that hasn't been working.
Sorry, but every time you post this pops in my head.
Still my favorite episode.
An aside here, but, Christians can help the society- especially a society going down this strange path, by being consistent in their focus and correction.
It is like the outrage over homosexuality, but not pre-marital sex. Not masturbation. Not anal sex in marriage. Not non-coital sex in marriage. Not (list all other activities that are sexual inside or outside of marriage).
None of those are moral. This sets the broader consistent context for arguing effectively against things like bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, etc.
It is like the outrage over homosexuality, but not pre-marital sex. Not masturbation. Not anal sex in marriage. Not non-coital sex in marriage. Not (list all other activities that are sexual inside or outside of marriage).
None of those are moral. This sets the broader consistent context for arguing effectively against things like bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, etc.
So what you are saying is, in order to have an argument against sexual abuse of minors, you must also condemn married couples that like to play in the mud?
7nine
No. But intellectual consistency helps.Texaggie7nine said:
So what you are saying is, in order to have an argument against sexual abuse of minors, you must also condemn married couples that like to play in the mud?
It also protects souls.
Yes sir. Because God doesn't like you going to brown town.
7nine
I know you're joking, but this truth doesn't even need to get into moral theology, but just the faculty of reason to see this isn't ordered.Texaggie7nine said:
Yes sir. Because God doesn't like you going to brown town.
Are you joking or not though? I dont recall any absolute fundamentalists on here
7nine
Sorry- I'm confused.Texaggie7nine said:
Are you joking or not though? I dont recall any absolute fundamentalists on here
Can you ask the question a different way? I want to be clear, not misleading.
Do you actually think God cares how a married couple gets busy?
7nine
Featured Stories
See All
85:33
3h ago
3.0k
7:22
8h ago
5.7k
35:15
6h ago
627
Pick 'Em & Rip 'Em sponsored by PrizePicks: Week 14
by Matthew Dawson
tylhair
If Elko said "if you give NIL $30M I'll get a championship roster" would you give?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
114
Bunk Moreland
So texas is getting in the playoff no matter what right?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
63