Locked threads

UnluckyPaladin wrote:Isn't it better that pedophiles can post their beliefs here and have them challenged, instead of posting them on an all pedophile site, and having them reinforced by an echo chamber?

To a large extent, yes. That's why I've let some of these recent discussions go on (probably longer than I should have). They've been really good discussions.

BUT

I'm just trying to give you the bigger picture that it's not the purpose of this site to host these sorts of discussions. Under the rules here we are not neutral arbiters...we have already picked a side. We have no interest in having this debate over and over (and over) again.

WichitaLineman wrote:

UnluckyPaladin wrote:Isn't it better that pedophiles can post their beliefs here and have them challenged, instead of posting them on an all pedophile site, and having them reinforced by an echo chamber?

To a large extent, yes. That's why I've let some of these recent discussions go on (probably longer than I should have). They've been really good discussions.

BUT

I'm just trying to give you the bigger picture that it's not the purpose of this site to host these sorts of discussions. Under the rules here we are not neutral arbiters...we have already picked a side. We have no interest in having this debate over and over (and over) again.

Okay, I understand. You don't make the rules, just enforce them. And sometimes it really gets to the point where the rules do need enforced. Thanks for tolerating the discussions to the degree that you do.

Ar Ciel wrote:I'll use Naxal as a example. He posted, and argued, exactly the same thing in, like, every thread. And if one tried to talk to him, he would just ignore it and proceed to post his "scientific researchs" like a irrefutably fact. I'm not saying we shouldn't had those discussions, I just don't think we should have it in every topic created. Why in every possible thread? Even when a user posted a opinion about it, he would come and start the whole thing again.

Few myths have caused as much damage as the notion that any sexual activity is inherently, inevitably, and irrevocably harmful to children. Why should anybody not contest extremely harmful falsehoods discredited by the entirety of the scientific literature on the subject?

Naxal321 wrote:Why should anybody not contest extremely harmful falsehoods discredited by the entirety of the scientific literature on the subject?

A few suggestions:

1. As per Wichita Lineman's post, it's not in line with the rules or aims of the forum.

2. It doesn't encourage understanding or support.

3. If the scientific literature was so compelling on its own, there would be no reason to argue for its acceptance.

4. The issue has never been that all sexual activity is harmful, but that it can be harmful. Harm doesn't need to occur 100% of the time for it to be considered 'harmful'. The oldest recorded person who ever lived was a smoker. In my country, we don't sell cigarettes to children because cigarettes are considered harmful, but it doesn't sound like they did much harm to Jeanne Calment. "Harmful" doesn't equal "inherently, inevitably, and irrevocably harmful". The absolutes you bring to discussions are unhelpful and of your own creation.

Platypus wrote:A few suggestions:

1. As per Wichita Lineman's post, it's not in line with the rules or aims of the forum.

They are in line with the rules of the forum. I am neither condoning nor encouraging sexual activity with children, and I repeatedly state that it is immoral.

2. It doesn't encourage understanding or support.

If posting scientific research doesn't encourage understanding, I don't know what else would.

3. If the scientific literature was so compelling on its own, there would be no reason to argue for its acceptance.

Absolute nonsense. The scientific literature for evolution is extremely compelling, yet millions of people refuse to believe it.

The notion that sex harms children is a psuedo-religious dogma that cannot be swayed by evidence. Harvard PhD Susan Clancy, author of "The Trauma Myth", had to flee to South America for her safety after receiving numerous death threats for her research, and the U.S. Government threatened to cut off aid to the APA after it endorsed the Rind study. Rind himself also received numerous death threats, which scared off any future researchers from further studies.

4. The issue has never been that all sexual activity is harmful, but that it can be harmful. Harm doesn't need to occur 100% of the time for it to be considered 'harmful'. The oldest recorded person who ever lived was a smoker. In my country, we don't sell cigarettes to children because cigarettes are considered harmful, but it doesn't sound like they did much harm to Jeanne Calment. "Harmful" doesn't equal "inherently, inevitably, and irrevocably harmful". The absolutes you bring to discussions are unhelpful and of your own creation.

I bring no absolutes to the discussion- rather, I contest the absolute claim that sex inherently, inevitably, and irrevocably harms children. It would be ludicrous to claim that sex never harms children.

Naxal321 wrote:They are in line with the rules of the forum.

I'm not sure about that. Check out this thread: paraphilias/topic70728.html
Either way, that's something you can work out with the mods.

Naxal321 wrote:If posting scientific research doesn't encourage understanding, I don't know what else would.

What about connecting with people? Understanding them and letting them understand you. Sharing experiences and personal knowledge. People have learnt from each other since as long as we've existed as a species.

Naxal321 wrote:The scientific literature for evolution is extremely compelling, yet millions of people refuse to believe it.

In other words, it is not extremely compelling.
Compelling: adjective, Tending to persuade by forcefulness of argument

Naxal321 wrote:I bring no absolutes to the discussion- rather, I contest the absolute claim that sex inherently, inevitably, and irrevocably harms children. It would be ludicrous to claim that sex never harms children.

Awesome. So let's all agree that sexual acts can but don't "inherently, inevitably, and irrevocably" harm children. Now there's nothing to argue about or prove/disprove.

Naxal...
But you have affirmed before that:
Children can consent and they can enjoy it. Do you really think this helps a pedophile and a children? If you think, then in what ways it can help someone?
The probability that a children WON'T enjoy is higher than the probability she will. And, if it's a fact it's harmful, then why you keep arguing and saying that childrens can enjoy and consent? If the act is not harmful and a children can consent it, then why wouldn't I try? Why would I came here seeking answers on how to not act it/control myself, in the first place? Since I'm getting exactly the opposite answers I was expecting to get, there's no point to be here at all.

I've been here long enough to have seen people come and go who espoused what can broadly be described as pro-paedophile philosophies. I agree that discussing theoretical matters is supportive to some and unsupportive to others. The way we dealt with this in the past was to say that such discussions should be limited to certain threads which are clearly marked with a trigger warning. And that policy worked for a long time. I appreciate seeing references to scientific papers, as I do think society in general has a tendency to ensconce itself in comfortable orthodoxies, some of which may be harmful. Nonetheless, I don't think it's helpful to have these plastered over every second thread.

GinaSmith wrote:I've been here long enough to have seen people come and go who espoused what can broadly be described as pro-paedophile philosophies. I agree that discussing theoretical matters is supportive to some and unsupportive to others. The way we dealt with this in the past was to say that such discussions should be limited to certain threads which are clearly marked with a trigger warning. And that policy worked for a long time. I appreciate seeing references to scientific papers, as I do think society in general has a tendency to ensconce itself in comfortable orthodoxies, some of which may be harmful. Nonetheless, I don't think it's helpful to have these plastered over every second thread.

Totally agree with this. It got to be too much. But I would like to be able to discuss even some of the extreme beliefs that some of us have. How else will anyone be able to help us change them?

In any discussion wherein demonstrably false notions are assumed to be true, to not point out their demonstrably falsehood does a great disservice to the discussion at hand.