I see the pompous tone is back again.
Yeah good luck with that. I have no problem accepting you as a ‘dork’ but I do have a problem if you’re a pedophile.
Now do you consider that flaming? I hope you see the connection with your original flame.[/quote]
I repeat, you are seeing an insult were none exists.
[quote]Have you not heard the term ‘aint got the balls’ as a figure of speech? Rise up to the challenge. The way you interpreted it as a ‘flaming attempt’ was purposely manipulative and deceptive. [/quote]
You called me a liar. And a coward.
[quote] Yeah, last of the straight talkers. Sounds like you swallowed a dictionary.
See first reply.[/quote]
I am an English major, and in the top 2% of the United States in speech and comprehension. I will not apologize for having a better vocabulary than yourself.
[quote]I have; please don’t make me repost it again. Once again if someone ‘flames’ me I only fire back once. It is you that has continued the debate in this manner. And to be honest I find this behavior suspicious.[/quote]
It occurs to me that, through this entire time, you have been focusing this argument not on the actual topic, but specifically on me. Rapid, could it be that you are actually hesitant to speak about pedophilia and its place in society?
[quote]Yes because it is central to the argument. Seeing as you’re not a straight talker I was not prepared to risk debating with a pedophile. Normally I would agree with you and only attack the arguments; but I’m really not clear with whom I’m debating with?[/quote]
If it was not clear before, I will repeat it yet again. I am not a pedophile. Please proceed to attacking the arguments.
[quote]You have not made your position clear. A disclaimer means nothing. If fact you’ve done the opposite. It’s like me writing a disclaimer saying I’m not racist and then proceed to make racist comments for the next four pages of the thread. [/quote]
As long as you have made it clear that you are playing the devil's advocate and ir is clear that your racist comments actually have something to do with the topic, as opposed to being nothing more than personal attacks, no, there is no problem with that approach. It is a difficult and delicate one, to be sure, as it is a very touchy subject, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it.
And, once again, I am not a pedophile, since that seems so important to you.
[quote]Again no, you have not made it clear at all. Sounds like you’ve done a lot of research into the subject. [/quote]
Once more, I am not a pedophile. Clear enough yet? Probably not.
And yes, human sexuality is a subject of great fascination for me, and I have studied it extensively. I have quite a library on the subject, in fact
[quote]The first time I ever heard of pedophilia being considered as a legitimate human rights movement was by you. [/quote]
Okay. And what? That means it didn't exits before?
[quote]No doubt some people do consider homosexuals as being deviant. I’m not one of them and I’m not gay either. [/quote]
No one ever said, implied, or insinuated you were. I am not asking you about your personal stance on the subject, however. I am asking about the position you are taking in regardes to this argument. For the purposes of this discussion, do you consider homosexuality to be a deviant behaviour (and please define "deviant", so that we understand what your point of view is).
[quote]However it doesn’t bother me what two consenting adults do as long as they’re not hurting anyone.[/quote]
That's nice, but again, I'm more interested in your position in the argument, not your personal views.
[quote]Btw I believe the majority of homosexual men would be completely offended by your rather tenuous connection with pedophilia. The central point to the Gay rights movement was to convince people they were not threat to anyone. Eventually the silent majority agreed with them. You will not see this with pedophilia. Do you understand?[/quote]
I understand, and I even agree to the extent that many homosexuals would be offended, particularly since pedophilia was one of the first things that homosexuals were accused of simply by the fact of being homosexuals.
I will not, however, agree that pedophilia will never be mainstream. Or rather, will never be mainstream again. Far stranger things than that have happened.
[quote]I wouldn’t. I’d expect a pedophile to be evasive, muddled, manipulative, humorless and say things like ‘pedophilia should be considered a legitimate civil rights movement'. [/quote]
Of course you would. After all, it wouldn't occur to you that pedoiphiles might actually be ordinary people, people who can think, talk, reason, and joke around just like anyone else.
[quote]Sorry, you’re still coming across as confused. I don’t waste my time with devil advocate arguments (especially if it’s not clearly defined) if this is still your central theme.
I consider it nothing more than an attempt to try and impressive people with their ‘oh so clever’ debating skill. Looks like my ‘look at me’ comment was in fact an accurate assessment.[/quote]
Still confused, I take it? Once more then, I am not a pedophile.
And what's this about not wasting your time with Devil's Advocate arguments? Didn't you just say that "Now, don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the idea of arguing from an obscure point of view. I’ve had to this many times in my life. Not a problem."
It does seem that you do have a problem, Rapid. One one hand, you say you have no problem arguing the issue, on the other you say that you refuse to debate the opposite side. Granted, you said that you have no intention of debating with a pedophile, but I have repeatedly assured that I am not one, so unless you wish to once again call me a liar, "put up or shut up".
[quote]I call it ‘pseudo intellectual masturbatory logical exercise' ™
Again, I’m not flaming; that is my genuine opinion! [/quote]
You are doing both. Refering to someone else's argument as a masturbatory exercise would be considered flaming.
[quote]No offence but I prefer to debate with someone who genuinely believes their own arguments. It’s a waste of time otherwise; I prefer to know what the person would really do if they find themselves in that situation.[/quote]
The answer to that is quite clearly made in the very comment that you decided to take as a personal insult. To re-iterate:
1) I am not a pedophile.
2) I support the pedophile's right to not be ostrazised for his sexual preferences, nor to be judged on the basis of popular conception of pedophilia, but as an individual person.
3) If anyone, pedophile or otherwise, rapes a small child, they should expect the full force of the law to be brought down upon their heads.
[quote]I do not advocate the killing of non practicing pedophiles because to the outside world they would be considered asexual.
mmmh Looks like Mullen also agreed with me and made sure his targets were level III sex offenders. [/quote]
Do you agree with Mullen that a criminal who has been lawfully tried, sentenced, and punished should also expect to be executed in his own home?
[quote]Our system is based upon reform. Even the parole board made the assessment they were unreformable(sic). [/quote]
Our system is based on penitence, meaning that our punishments are meant to invoke in the punished a feeling of regret for their wrongdoing (hence, "penitentiary"). The government isn't interested in whether your personal feelings have changed, but rather that you don't commit your crimes again. Because of this, people who are considered high risk are released; they are sentenced
[quote]The amount of political pressure and internal pressure from the justice system not to categorize sex offenders as level III is amazing. Why? Because it is a statement our justice system is not working. When the justice system fails you get vigilantes.[/quote]
Can you support this? How do you conclude that the pressure you speak of exists, and how do you conclude that the cause of this pressure is a fault in our justice system?
Edited by aquatus1, 24 April 2006 - 05:36 PM.