The friendly headcrabs >^:-^-:^<

Necro910 wrote:This:

Flying Dice wrote:@ Necro: I didn't really need any more reasons to hate reddit after I found out that there were pedophilia subreddits, however short-lived. That's one of the very few things that will actually piss me off.

Ah. See, I don't consider pedophilia to fall within the reasonable scope of sexual interests because harm is being done to individuals who are too young to consent, or to understand what consent really means. Remember what I've said? I'm fine with anything as long as everyone involved is sentient, consenting, and capable of understanding the concept of consent. I don't care about zoophilia. What I do care about is when someone is being taken advantage of. Even without the issue of consent/understanding consent, there is the fact that many abusers use positions of authority (teachers, priests, stepparents, other relatives, etc.) to force the issue, which is wrong in any context, but doubly so here.

Necro910 wrote:
2. Ah.

Exactly. No one cares about shock anymore, everyone on the internet's seen everything.

Now anything with a following devoted to hate on the other hand... That would incite much more raeghe :p

Like ponies.

What the hay is the point of this thread? Is this just another random posts thread?

Johuotar wrote:What the hay is the point of this thread? Is this just another random posts thread?

Random topics thread

Ah, I see. There's a HUGE difference.

Flying Dice wrote:See, I don't consider pedophilia to fall within the reasonable scope of sexual interests because harm is being done to individuals who are too young to consent, or to understand what consent really means.

Pedophilia is just another sexual preference. Sure, it's a sexual preference that can not be legally acted upon, but as it stands, thoughts never hurt anybody. I've read an article about that in a psychology magazine which was really eye-opening.
If you condemn pedophilia, you are no better than the homophobes of the past and present. Remember that back in the past, not only was homosexual sex illegal, just being homosexual was illegal. People condemning pedophilia is frighteningly similar to that.
I pity pedophiles. They have a sexual preference that is despised and frowned upon. That sexual preference can not be acted upon. And arguments like "Why don't they just stop being pedophiles?" make as much sense as "Why don't they just stop being homosexual?", i.e. none at all.

Johuotar wrote:Ah, I see. There's a HUGE difference.

Your sarcasm IS DELICIOUS <:£

MC Dirty wrote:

Flying Dice wrote:See, I don't consider pedophilia to fall within the reasonable scope of sexual interests because harm is being done to individuals who are too young to consent, or to understand what consent really means.

Pedophilia is just another sexual preference. Sure, it's a sexual preference that can not be legally acted upon, but as it stands, thoughts never hurt anybody. I've read an article about that in a psychology magazine which was really eye-opening.
If you condemn pedophilia, you are no better than the homophobes of the past and present. Remember that back in the past, not only was homosexual sex illegal, just being homosexual was illegal. People condemning pedophilia is frighteningly similar to that.
I pity pedophiles. They have a sexual preference that is despised and frowned upon. That sexual preference can not be acted upon. And arguments like "Why don't they just stop being pedophiles?" make as much sense as "Why don't they just stop being homosexual?", i.e. none at all.

I don't have a problem with people because they are pedophiles. I don't have a problem with people for their sexual urges and thoughts, whatever they may be. I have a problem when people hurt other people-regardless of the context. Pedophiles who act on their urges are hurting people who are not willing participants, and often use their position of authority to do so. I'm not arguing that people should stop being pedophiles, I'm saying that they should resist acting on urges which could lead them to mentally or physically harm other individuals. Your rights as a private individual end where they infringe on the rights of another.

That comparison to homosexuality is flawed, as well. Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, and asexuals, do not harm others when they engage in their prefered form of sexual activityu (presuming that the other person is consenting). Pedophiles do, because in the vast majority of cases the child has little or no concept of what happened, or was willing to participate. (Obviously there are differences between a 15 year old and a 9 year old, but that is a whole 'nother can of worms) If, hypothetically speaking, there was a young child who was mentally and physically mature, who understood the implications of sex and consented to having sex with a pedophile, that would be fine. However, that won't happen, at least not until we have some sort of drastic physical alteration procedure or long-life treatment that applys equally to all segements of the life cycle. The reason all cases involving a pedophile acting on their urges are automatically treated as rape is because in the vast majority of cases they are (again, difference between someone in their mid teens and a child, but that's a problem with people not knowing the difference between pedophilia and pederasty).

In short, pedophiles who act on their urges are not condemned because they are sexually attracted to children, but because they commit rape when they act on their desires. Any disgust beyond that is mostly emotional, based on the fact that they are raping children, rather than adults. In case you haven't noticed, quite a few societies view children as more worthy of protection than others, and rape as A Special Kind of Evil (not going to bother potholing the tvtropes link). Combine the two, and there is a negative reaction.

But anyhow, as I said: Pedophiles who act on their urges are not condemned because they are sexually attracted to children, but because they commit rape when they act on their desires.

You say "pedophiles who act on their urges", but you mean "child abusers".
Not all child abusers are pedophiles and a very small part of pedophiles are child abusers. So, talking about pedophilia in that context at all is misleading.

The comparison to homosexuality is flawed if you're talking about acting on those urges. However, that is not what I am talking about at all. What I am talking about is the condemnation of people based on their sexual preference, not based on their actions. And in that way, the comparison is very fitting.
Back then, homosexuality was condemned in much the same way that pedophilia is still widely condemned. The deletion of subreddits about pedophilia is just another sign of exactly that.

Flying Dice wrote:Pedophiles who act on their urges are not condemned because they are sexually attracted to children, but because they commit rape when they act on their desires.

I partially agree with that.
What should be added is that pedophiles who do not act on their urges are still condemned because of their sexual attraction. Which is a despicable state of affairs, indeed.

The problem is that when people talk about pedophiles, they more often than not mean "child abusers". That's like saying that everyone who isn't asexual is automatically a rapist. The distinction needs to be made, but more often that not it isn't.

Um... uh... I'm sort of... a pedophile.

I'd like to think that MC's right. As long as I don't actually do anything to anyone... Else, I'm just a scumbag. Although, sometimes I feel like a scumbag anyway...

I never said that pedophiles who don't act on their urges should be condemned.


Incidentally, the problem I had with the pedophilia subreddits was that they were sharing explicit images of children, which means that somewhere down the line a child was exploited to get each of those images. Or are you saying that sexual exploitation is okay as long as you are just enjoying the result? If someone drills a hole through a wall and records someone showering without their knowledge or consent, does it not matter if someone else enjoys it, as long as the second person didn't have any part in it?


Regarding 'abuse': I assume you're talking about child abuse in broader terms, which I very clearly wasn't, given the context. Not all child abuse is sexual in nature. I was talking specifically about sexual abuse. Obviously people who beat children don't do it because they're pedophiles (and to a certain extent, people who sexually abuse children aren't all pedophiles, in the same way that prison rapists aren't necessarily homosexual).

I don't see why you keep trying to put words in my mouth. I said that pedophiles who act on their urges to sexually abuse children should be condemned just like any other sexual criminal, and you claim that I'm saying "All pedophiles are child abusers, and all child abusers are pedophiles"? You were the one who brought up pedophilia, and I specifically defined the circumstances in which pedophilia should be frowned upon: instances where pedophiles sexually abuse children. I made no mention of other forms of abuse, and never made either of the above generalizations you apparently think I did. Did you misunderstand me, or are you trying to strawman?

Well, one thing is, not all child sexual abusers are pedophiles. They often don't abuse children because they're particularly attracted to them, but because the children are easy targets. One of the main reasons I don't hurt children is because I literally love them. The thought of doing something harmful to a kid makes me sick.

I never mentioned that at all, because the initial conversation was pedophilia. People who sexually abuse children but are not pedophiles are still rapists and should be treated as such; see my original point that pedophiles should only be condemned for their fetish when they act on it, as by default acting on it would constitute rape. Not exactly the fairest situation for them, as they can't help what they feel, and their sexual preference has a pool of roughly 0 eligable targets of romantic intent, but it would be far more unfair to let people commit rape because of sexual preference.

You have a point there. I could try to argue the possibility of a child being intelligent enough to understand the risks involved and consent, but that would probably be a waste of breath and just prolong the weird.

Flying Dice wrote:I don't see why you keep trying to put words in my mouth. [...] Did you misunderstand me, or are you trying to strawman?

Neither, actually. I'm sorry if it seemed that way.
I'm not trying to put words into your mouth and I know what you said and didn't say. In fact, I never did put words into your mouth. I just presented my rebuttals to common misconceptions. I didn't disagree with you, I just expanded upon your statement.

However, one point does still stand in relation to what you said and that is that people often say "pedophilia" when they actually mean "sexual child abuse" or "child pornography". You were talking about "pedophilia subreddits" when you actually mean "subreddits where child pornography is shared".

Also, I never said that you said that pedophiles should be condemned. I'm saying that they are generally condemned (not by you or me, just by a large part of people) and I'm saying that that is shameful. In part, that is because of people not discerning between thought, intent and action and that is something that needs to stop.

So basically we were arguing about two different things.

Isn't there some subtype of dwarfism that causes pertepual childlike looks?

Also, sexbots?

Japan. Easy solution.

Slag wrote:Japan. Easy solution.

Where everyone who looks like they're ten is centuries old, and everyone who looks like they're 22 is twelve.

Flying Dice wrote:

Slag wrote:Japan. Easy solution.

Where everyone who looks like they're ten is centuries old, and everyone who looks like they're 22 is twelve.

No wonder their age pyramid is all screwed up.

I'd say it's moreso a square than a pyramid.

Necro910 wrote:FFFFFUUUCCCCKKKKIIIIIIGGGGGG BBBBBEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEPPPPPPPPSSSSSKKKKYYYYYY

Google "Fucking Beepsky"
Find a game called Space Station 13
After about three days(?) decide that dial-up is the bane of my everything

Seriously, I don't even know if that's what you were referencing, but it looks pretty hilarious (at the compliance of fellow players) and there's an over abundance of players alluding to Dwarf Fortress.

Addendum: DIAL UP AURUGH

Edit: Also, Liberal Clown Squad

Kirbypowered wrote:Seriously, I don't even know if that's what you were referencing, but it looks pretty hilarious (at the compliance of fellow players) and there's an over abundance of players alluding to Dwarf Fortress.

That's exactly what he's referencing.
If you just wanna play and fuck around without anyone caring about roleplay, try out the SomethingAwful servers.
If you wanna go full-on roleplay, check out BayStation 12 (currently down).
If you wanna play something a bit in the middle on the fuck-around <-> roleplay scale, try out the /tg/ servers.

Probably one of my favorite games. Really good writing material, too.

Being a chemist after you find a utility belt, and stuff it with tools leads to an amazing round. AI gone rogue? Steal the intellicard and thermite your way through! Captain's a tyrant? Chloral Hydrate in a syringe gun, then force feed him narcotics and polycintric acid! Xenos? Napalm smoke! Revolution and you don't want to become one of them? Poly acid in a spray bottle, along with a few poly acid smoke grenades!