Hooray For Pedophilia!

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
Bump @Skeeter understood if you have no answer. It's because your utilitarianism morality is wrong.
Statutory rape is the closest thing that law enforces as an absolute wrong. But, even in non-statutory rape, it must be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the victim did not give consent for the sexual act. This is hard to do in cases of date rape.

I hope you see that I have shown that the law does not and cannot support absolute rights, and by it's internal mechanisms of proof and the particular elements of crimes that allow exceptions and mitigation. I am not reacting to this like persons against gun control and just saying people are going to break laws and violate other's rights so you have none. I hope you see the distinction.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Statutory rape is the closest thing that law enforces as an absolute wrong. But, even in non-statutory rape, it must be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the victim did not give consent for the sexual act. This is hard to do in cases of date rape.
And this doesn't address what I asked at all. It's dodging. You're trying to change the subject.

What "limit" (your word) is there to the putatively absolute human right against being raped?

We'll wait ... for an eternity.
I hope you see that I have shown that the law does not and cannot support absolute rights, and by it's internal mechanisms of proof and the particular elements of crimes that allow exceptions and mitigation. I am not reacting to this like persons against gun control and just saying people are going to break laws and violate other's rights so you have none. I hope you see the distinction.
Well of course you hope that.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
And this doesn't address what I asked at all. It's dodging. You're trying to change the subject.

What are you talking about? I grant that you were right in a limited area, and it is off topic? You should bask in the glory because it is the only meager area where what you have said makes sense.
What "limit" (your word) is there to the putatively absolute human right against being raped?

The right of someone accused of rape to have a hearing and an opportunity to be heard limits your right not to be raped. There is a narrow range of situations when a person is actually raped and will not be able to get justice in our system. A husband and wife have been having difficulties but try to have a reconciliatory dinner and later begin making love. The wife changes her mind and clearly says STOP but the husband persists as he is seconds away from completion. The wife picks up the phone to notify police but instead of a dial tone, she hears a confession from the husband's lover. A jury will find reasonable doubt in this situation. Unfortunately, the woman's right not to be rape will be thwarted.
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Last time I checked it was 2022. Why do you think what went on half a century ago should somehow be controlling?

Have you already forgotten what has been said? Let me remind you.

I said:

ANY discussion of homosexual behavior should be prohibited, in ANY context. It should NEVER be brought up in discussion except as is relevant to a criminal guilty of such acts.

To which you responded:

How about love and affection?

So I said:

It is far more loving, rather, it IS loving, to deter people from descending into mental illness. If you hate someone, you wouldn't care, or you would even legitimize (to make legally valid) their illness.

To which you replied:

When one defines what constitutes an illness solely based on how his tummy feels when he thinks about something, he is being narcissistic. When one ignores several independent lines of research that have meaningfully described what constitutes a mental illness and what does not, he is being idiotic. When one tries to impinge on the rights of other solely based on how his tummy feels, he is being sociopathic.

As if to say that it's only me who is calling homosexuality a mental illness, which couldn't be further from the truth. And in fact, it was removed from the list of mental illnesses simply because the homo crowd started to take offense. So they simply changed the definition of "mental illness" so that homosexuality no longer fit the definition. There were no studies done, there was no evidence gathered, no argument presented, just "we don't like being called mentally ill."

or relevant?

It's relevant because it shows that at one point, homosexuality was considered a mental illness, not just by me, but by the entire medical community, because it is, in fact, a mental illness.

Don't do it then.

I'm not the one you need to be telling that to.

That would be the homos, you know, the ones who make me sick.

Why should your religion be binding on the conduct of people outside your religion?

Because Christianity is true.

Paul the Apostle gave a way to test this claim, saying that if Christ did not rise from the dead, then his (and my and all other Christians's) faith is vain. But that if Christ did rise from the dead, then Christianity is true, and all other religions are false.

I'll continue the rest of your post in a different thread, since it's not quite on topic for this one.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
Have you already forgotten what has been said? Let me remind you.

I said: To which you responded: So I said: To which you replied:
You do not need to help me track this conversation as if I am confused. You are the one who is confused - clearly.
As if to say that it's only me who is calling homosexuality a mental illness,
I never implied only you. I never mentioned you at all. People against homosexuality often provide no basis for it what-so-ever beyond matters of taste and the dictates of their particular religion.
which couldn't be further from the truth. And in fact, it was removed from the list of mental illnesses simply because the homo crowd started to take offense. So they simply changed the definition of "mental illness" so that homosexuality no longer fit the definition. There were no studies done, there was no evidence gathered, no argument presented, just "we don't like being called mentally ill."

You fail to address my point which is that your attempt to validate that homosexuality as a mental illness is outdated - and waaaay outdated. Do you often reach back half a century when contemplating other matters like your own medical care for instance? Why not?

Clinical and personal data of a subset of psychiatrists was used initially to persuade the APA to remove the diagnosis. They were persuaded by a compelling argument and their own observation of their own patients and colleagues. Homosexual individuals did not have anymore likelihood of corroborating signs of mental illness. Functioning in the work setting became a big thing in rendering a diagnosis. If the symptoms were not severe enough to impact ability to succeed in the workforce, (or in other major a areas), the diagnostic criteria for the illness is often not met. Such functioning is a specific criteria in many diagnoses and is used to rate severity in all disorders. Homosexuals to the contrary had average of higher capacity in the workforce. Many times there is greater level of achievement. No one has ever suggested gay people are unable to earn ample wage.

The homo crowd took offense to the notion that they were pathological because of their sexuality for centuries with varying degrees of certainty and varying degrees of internalized homophobia.

The fact that you had to reach so far back is solid proof that you are out of touch with the current data. You are grabbing at straws. Your ship has sailed long ago. Subsequent studies show that gay people fall in the typical range in regard to mental health symptoms. Often where there are signs of an upswing in symptoms in a subset of the gay population, it is clearly traceable to stigma rather than directly because of sexuality.
It's relevant because it shows that at one point, homosexuality was considered a mental illness, not just by me, but by the entire medical community, because it is, in fact, a mental illness.

So, is drilling holes in people's heads a good practice to treat schizophrenia? That was once standard medical practice. So, it is, in fact, good practice, right? Your claim is just as absurd.
Because Christianity is true.

The fact is most human beings on earth right now are not Xtian. Many people- not just you- believe their religion is the ultimate truth. Should one religion get to push their view on others by the force of law just because they are really really convinced?
I'll continue the rest of your post in a different thread, since it's not quite on topic for this one.
This is your first rational comment in our discussion.
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
What are you talking about? I grant that you were right in a limited area, and it is off topic? You should bask in the glory because it is the only meager area where what you have said makes sense.


The right of someone accused of rape to have a hearing and an opportunity to be heard limits your right not to be raped. There is a narrow range of situations when a person is actually raped and will not be able to get justice in our system. A husband and wife have been having difficulties but try to have a reconciliatory dinner and later begin making love. The wife changes her mind and clearly says STOP but the husband persists as he is seconds away from completion. The wife picks up the phone to notify police but instead of a dial tone, she hears a confession from the husband's lover. A jury will find reasonable doubt in this situation. Unfortunately, the woman's right not to be rape will be thwarted.
I cannot understand why a PhD of any discipline would be hesitant about declaring unwavering support for the absolute human right against be raped.

Why risk being seen as a rape apologist?

Why not instead just agree, there exists a universal human right, that all women everywhere possess inherently, against her being raped?
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I'd prefer to note that there exists a universal human right, that all people everywhere possess inherently, against being raped?
I'd prefer it as well, and I endorse it anyway.

But for some reason, it just feels right to point out to for example gun controllers, that their gun control laws deny the right to keep and bear arms from Blacks, and women, and Latinos, and homosexuals and LGBTQI+( ... ), not just everybody. When it's just everybody, then we lose something, we lose that there is racism and misogyny in denying fundamental universal rights.

It's not just a different view. It's misogynist and racist. I.e. hatred.
Especially in a thread about pedophilia.
Rapists.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
I cannot understand why a PhD of any discipline would be hesitant about declaring unwavering support for the absolute human right against be raped.
I, of course, unreservedly consider rape immoral. We are discussing whether the construct of human rights capture a practical way to address morality in law and in our larger understanding of how to understand morality. I congratulate you on not being a rigid thinker like many who post here. But, your style is actually too fluid and confused. Your unfocused treatment of issues creates a muddled mess, and its no fun.
Why risk being seen as a rape apologist?
I wouldn't be confused as an apologist, if you actually stayed on task.
Why not instead just agree, there exists a universal human right, that all women everywhere possess inherently, against her being raped?
I do not agree because that's not my view. I find fault in the construct of human rights. And, by that, I do not diminish the importance of the subject matter, however.
 
Last edited:

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I cannot understand why a PhD of any discipline would be hesitant about declaring unwavering support for the absolute human right against be raped.

Why risk being seen as a rape apologist?

Why not instead just agree, there exists a universal human right, that all women everywhere possess inherently, against her being raped?

I do not agree ....
Am I getting through to you sonny?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
You do not need to help me track this conversation as if I am confused. You are the one who is confused - clearly.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

I never implied only you. I never mentioned you at all.

I said "as if." Which shows you're not paying attention.

People against homosexuality often provide no basis for it what-so-ever beyond matters of taste and the dictates of their particular religion.

I provided a link that shows that homosexuality was considered by the medical community to be a mental illness at some point.

Meaning there are medical reasons for it to be a mental illness.

Medical reasons are not "matters of taste" nor "dictates of [a] particular religion."

It's the homosexual community (and their supporters) who have provided no basis for it NOT to be considered a mental illness, aside from that they're offended by it being one (which is no basis at all for removing it from the list of mental illnesses).

You fail to address my point which is that your attempt to validate that homosexuality as a mental illness is outdated

Outdated only in the sense that it has become common to accept homosexuals as normal, when in fact they are not.

- and waaaay outdated. Do you often reach back half a century when contemplating other matters like your own medical care for instance? Why not?

Don't change the subject.

Clinical and personal data of a subset of psychiatrists was used initially to persuade the APA to remove the diagnosis. They were persuaded by a compelling argument and their own observation of their own patients and colleagues.

And you can link to the data?

Because there's plenty of data that shows them to be mentally ill, but few to none that show the behavior to be normal.

Homosexual individuals did not have anymore likelihood of corroborating signs of mental illness.

They don't?

So, homosexual mass murderers aren't mentally ill?

How about the homosexual child molesters?

How about the homosexuals who seek out other homos to share sexually transmitted diseases?

How about the homosexuals appointed to government positions who actively promote pedophilia?

How about the depression that's prevalent in children who have same-sex parents?

Functioning in the work setting became a big thing in rendering a diagnosis. If the symptoms were not severe enough to impact ability to succeed in the workforce, (or in other major a areas), the diagnostic criteria for the illness is often not met. Such functioning is a specific criteria in many diagnoses and is used to rate severity in all disorders. Homosexuals to the contrary had average of higher capacity in the workforce.

So what?

Many times there is greater level of achievement. No one has ever suggested gay people are unable to earn ample wage.

Anyone can hide their symptoms, especially if people aren't looking.

It doesn't change the fact that they are mentally ill.

The homo crowd took offense to the notion that they were pathological because of their sexuality for centuries with varying degrees of certainty and varying degrees of internalized homophobia.

And what they should have done, rather than try to legitimize their wrong behavior, was to stop being a bunch of fags and dykes.

The fact that you had to reach so far back is solid proof that you are out of touch with the current data.

No, it's solid proof that we're a nation that is 50 years beyond the normalization of a mental illness.

You are grabbing at straws. Your ship has sailed long ago. Subsequent studies show that gay people fall in the typical range in regard to mental health symptoms. Often where there are signs of an upswing in symptoms in a subset of the gay population, it is clearly traceable to stigma rather than directly because of sexuality.

So the above homosexual criminals are a result of those who maintain the stigma?

You sure about that?

So, is drilling holes in people's heads a good practice to treat schizophrenia? That was once standard medical practice. So, it is, in fact, good practice, right?

Don't change the subject.

Your claim is just as absurd.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

The fact is most human beings on earth right now are not Xtian.

Appeal to popularity won't get you anywhere with me.

Many people- not just you- believe their religion is the ultimate truth.

Most are wrong.

Christianity is true because Christ did, in fact, rise from the dead. If He did not rise from the dead, then you might have an argument against Christianity, but since He did, you don no

Should one religion get to push their view on others by the force of law just because they are really really convinced?

I gave you a way to falsify my belief. How much someone is convinced of how true Christianity has nothing to do with it.

What matters is if it's actually true based on the evidence.

Christ did rise from the dead. Therefore Christianity is true.

OR

Christ did not rise from the dead. Therefore Christianity is false.

I can show you the former through the evidence. Until you show me the latter, through evidence, then you have no argument against what I believe, only waffling and handwaving.
 
Top