Pedo-scare

[poxpower]

So I was watching the Nostalgia Critic today and for like the 24234th time he makes a "joke" about how it's innapropriate for an adult to do anything that could even remotely be considered sexual to/around a kid.

Shit like just touching them, tickling, pushing, looking at them weird. That guy has a severe case of "everyone is a pedophile" and I think this is just the time we live in. Right now, there is nothing worse to be than a pedophile. You can murder your entire family and eat them but as long as you didn't fuck your children before you bleached their skulls to make a candy bowl, you're not THAT bad.

[Jon-86]

Spongebob Squarepants has had a few adult jokes that kids wouldn't even get. Dose that mean the writers are peados?

[KeithHybrid]

You ever think the Critic may just use pedo jokes because they're funny?

[Korriken]

you know, I was wondering why the cops pulled me off my motorcycle, clobbered the shit out of me, then put me in jail when i rode up to the elementary school naked and asked some kids if they would like to ride my rocket.

i mean seriously....

[poxpower]

At 11/9/09 07:08 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: You ever think the Critic may just use pedo jokes because they're funny?

They're not really jokes.
But he is slightly mentally retarded so that might be his idea of a joke.

But seriously it's become completely retarded. Just for possession of child porn ( wtf? ) you can get arrested and have your life ruined.

How does that even make sense? I can give you child porn and that will ruin your life if someone finds out. This is insane.

I can write a story where I murder a kid and draw a picture of the kid dismembered in a pool of blood with me pissing on him and that's fine, but if I have a drawing of what looks like a kid getting fucked in the ass, suddenly I should go to jail?

This is downright insanity. Who started this?
Probably more of those conservative retarded helicopter parents who are obsessed with jailing everyone on earth who doesn't live like them.

NUKE THE BIBLE BELT
THERE

[SmilezRoyale]

At 11/9/09 06:26 PM, poxpower wrote: So I was watching the Nostalgia Critic today and for like the 24234th time he makes a "joke" about how it's innapropriate for an adult to do anything that could even remotely be considered sexual to/around a kid.

Shit like just touching them, tickling, pushing, looking at them weird. That guy has a severe case of "everyone is a pedophile" and I think this is just the time we live in. Right now, there is nothing worse to be than a pedophile. You can murder your entire family and eat them but as long as you didn't fuck your children before you bleached their skulls to make a candy bowl, you're not THAT bad.

Societal customs are weird pox power.

Trying to use rationality to arrive at some sort of logical ethical code that is universally preferable (Like what guys like Augustine, Kant, Rand, and Molyneux have tried to do) is simply going to end up in you causing your head to implode.

It's my opinion that ethics is a product of human evolution. And the reason why people hate pedophiles so much is probably related to an intense sexual guardianship that parents have with their children that evolved over thousands of years.

There's also the 'innocence' factor with sexual predators. People aren't as emotionally outraged at the mafia 'whacking' somebody, because whoever the mafia killed probably wasn't very innocent. If there ever was a mafia that was targeted at little childeren, the reaction might be different.

________

On the other hand, i think you also need to consider that the reason Pedophiles make the news more often might be because of the fact that sexual predators are far more common than truly gruesome cereal killers.

You might be assuming people hate sexual predators more than cereal killers because they make the news more often.

just some possibilities.

[poxpower]

At 11/9/09 08:58 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

Trying to use rationality to arrive at some sort of logical ethical code that is universally preferable

Well the problem in that is not trying, it's getting people to listen to you.
Some things are less obvious than others, but in this case? Come the fuck on.
If I draw child porn you can arrest me?

Sorry, but fuck no.

I don't even need to explain that one, do I?

There's also the 'innocence' factor

Kids aren't innocent, they're IGNORANT.
Think of every instance you've heard about child innocence and you'll realize that they substitute the word "ignorant" for "innocent".

You might be assuming people hate sexual predators more than cereal killers because they make the news more often.

It's a serial killer haha. As in "kills in series" I.e. multiple people :p
I love how people spell it cereal killer. That's like...the Trix rabbit.

[SevenSeize]

At 11/9/09 06:26 PM, poxpower wrote: You can murder your entire family and eat them but as long as you didn't fuck your children before you bleached their skulls to make a candy bowl, you're not THAT bad.

Our society is full of double standards.

Same thing with race.

A white man decides to stab another white man to death and then eat him, 1st degree murder.

A white man decides to stab a black man to death and then eat him, OMG RACE CRIME and nonstop coverage on CNN and Im sure Kanye west will have something to say about it.

A black man decides to stab a white man to death and then eat him, it's back to 1st degree murder.

Why can't we go back to just murder is murder, pedophiles are pedophiles, and good old fashioned domestic abuse on Jerry Springer???

[EclecticEnnui]

I dunno if society in general thinks pedophiles are worse than people who are both serial killers and cannibals. (I've never heard of them.) I get what you mean, though. It's like this thread where a user thinks he knows a pedophile just because of a photo of a guy sitting next to a young girl. It's stupid. Pedophilia is a mental disorder, but that doesn't mean pedophiles are all evil and heartless. Of course it's wrong to rape children and look at child porn, but again, that doesn't mean you're automatically worse than or as bad as those people I mentioned.

At 11/9/09 09:52 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/9/09 08:58 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: There's also the 'innocence' factor

Kids aren't innocent, they're IGNORANT.
Think of every instance you've heard about child innocence and you'll realize that they substitute the word "ignorant" for "innocent".

They're actually related, if you look at the 7th definition.

[Masterzakk]

Pedophilia is easily solvable if you just give them loli/shota -con. Really it's not hard yet people still ban it for whatever reason. There have been less rapes in countries with the interwebs so there.

[Bacchanalian]

At 11/10/09 12:00 AM, Masterzakk wrote: Pedophilia is easily solvable if you just give them loli/shota -con. Really it's not hard yet people still ban it for whatever reason. There have been less rapes in countries with the interwebs so there.

I'd like to see a study... you know...

... correlation vs causation and whatnot.

[poxpower]

At 11/9/09 10:51 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote: Pedophilia is a mental disorder

Ok someone explain to me why pedophilia is a mental disorder and homosexuality isn't.
Cause reading that wiki, I sure can't figure out how they decided this.

At 11/9/09 09:52 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/9/09 08:58 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

Kids aren't innocent, they're IGNORANT.

They're actually related, if you look at the 7th definition.

Yeah but no one wants to preserve a kid's ignorance and no one wants to remove a kid's innocence. Go figure :D

[Masterzakk]

At 11/10/09 12:13 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: I'd like to see a study... you know...

... correlation vs causation and whatnot.

They had a segment of that in Penn and Teller's bullshit. Although I am not entirely sure. I'm just going to assume XD. Anyways some lolicon would be bad for the pedos right?

Also I have a fetish for women with small boobs. I also occasionally like guro and rape hentai so does that mean that I have a mental disorder? The terminalogy can mean anything with your logic.

[Bacchanalian]

At 11/10/09 12:17 AM, Masterzakk wrote: They had a [and other such unrelated things].

That's nice. Back on topic. You said countries with internet connectivity have lower rape. You said that as proof that providing pedophiles with pedophilic pornography would reduce acts of pedophilia.

That conclusion relies on the assumption that pornography consumed via the internet causes a reduction in rape. That is a HUGE assumption. So... do you have ANYTHING to back it up?

[amaterasu]

At 11/10/09 12:00 AM, Masterzakk wrote: Pedophilia is easily solvable if you just give them loli/shota -con. Really it's not hard yet people still ban it for whatever reason. There have been less rapes in countries with the interwebs so there.

When Japan finally develops lolibots, the world will be saved from this controversy.

[Masterzakk]

At 11/10/09 12:23 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: That's nice. Back on topic. You said countries with internet connectivity have lower rape. You said that as proof that providing pedophiles with pedophilic pornography would reduce acts of pedophilia.
That conclusion relies on the assumption that pornography consumed via the internet causes a reduction in rape. That is a HUGE assumption. So... do you have ANYTHING to back it up?

I am merely assuming that would happen, not in the scale that you exagerate but atleast some rape would not happen. Infact pedophilies don't really rape children. Seeing as rape is usually done not for sexual pleasure but to dominate the victim and that 96% of all rapes are from people you know. Also this is merely an assumtion. Oddly enough this thread was about pedophilia is overexagerated but if you give pedophiles hentai then O NOEZ THEY WILL RAEP THE KIDZ.

[Bacchanalian]

At 11/10/09 12:29 AM, Masterzakk wrote: I am merely assuming that would happen, not in the scale that you exagerate but atleast some rape would not happen.

Exaggeration? Fucking where?

You say: "SOME RAPE WOULD NOT HAPPEN"

Isn't that a "reduction in rape" ?

Infact pedophilies don't really rape children.

You didn't say that. And I didn't say that.

You cited the condition that increased-access-to-the-internet yields less-rape.
You cited that condition in order to conclude that increased-access-to-pedophilic-pornograp hy yields less-pedophilia.

1. Increased access to the internet does not necessarily cause less rape. Less rape and increased access to the internet may both be results of something else.

2. There is a very fuzzy line between a repetitive act that functions as an outlet and a repetitive act that functions as an escalating fix.

3. Pedophilia is a preference. Giving people material that suits their preference does not remove that preference. Giving pedophiles pedophilic pornography does not necessarily change their preference.

[Masterzakk]

I am very well aware that giving pedophiles, hentai (I for one is not in on "real child porn) of that sort of thing would atleast satify them for a little while. There hasn't really been any studies for my theory and I am sure as hell not going to do a damn survey. I am merely saying that giving porn would atleast stall the rape. Still your all mostly right. I guess.

[Bacchanalian]

At 11/10/09 12:59 AM, Masterzakk wrote: I am merely saying that giving porn would atleast stall the rape.

And yet again you say something with absolutely NO BASIS.

And stop saying merely. Because you're not MERELY saying that giving porn would atleast stall rape. Your argument is NOT simple, no matter how simple you think it is.

[genius21]

At 11/9/09 08:50 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/9/09 07:08 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: You ever think the Critic may just use pedo jokes because they're funny?

They're not really jokes.
But he is slightly mentally retarded so that might be his idea of a joke.

But seriously it's become completely retarded. Just for possession of child porn ( wtf? ) you can get arrested and have your life ruined.

How does that even make sense? I can give you child porn and that will ruin your life if someone finds out. This is insane.

I can write a story where I murder a kid and draw a picture of the kid dismembered in a pool of blood with me pissing on him and that's fine, but if I have a drawing of what looks like a kid getting fucked in the ass, suddenly I should go to jail?

This is downright insanity. Who started this?
Probably more of those conservative retarded helicopter parents who are obsessed with jailing everyone on earth who doesn't live like them.

NUKE THE BIBLE BELT
THERE

and what about us unlucky kids of the helicopter parents what you wanna nuke us? i agree it is blown way outta proportion but i wouldnt say nuke the south. at least make it some kinda misdemeanor to constantly hover over your fuckin kids. like hthis summer i was gonna have a couple of friends over for a party (some of them girls) and mom was like "if your gonna have a girl over im gonna be all over yall like white on rice" and i was thinkin WTF no girl would ever even wanna talk about me after shit like that.

[Ericho]

At 11/9/09 08:50 PM, poxpower wrote: I can write a story where I murder a kid and draw a picture of the kid dismembered in a pool of blood with me pissing on him and that's fine, but if I have a drawing of what looks like a kid getting fucked in the ass, suddenly I should go to jail?

Um, I'm not sure if you can go to jail for a drawing of that. You can not be arrested for drawing something as that is simply not real. I also appreciate you saying it's wrong to say it's worse than murder. People won't shut up about child molesters, yet pay little attention to murderers of children.

[JohnnyWang]

They're the last acceptable target. People need someone to be outraged about, and racism is kinda frowned on these days. No-one is really going to go public in defense of paedophiles.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 11/9/09 09:52 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/9/09 08:58 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

Trying to use rationality to arrive at some sort of logical ethical code that is universally preferable

Well the problem in that is not trying, it's getting people to listen to you.
Some things are less obvious than others, but in this case? Come the fuck on.
If I draw child porn you can arrest me?

Sorry, but fuck no.

I don't even need to explain that one, do I?

I'm saying that objective ethics is bullshit, and you're using an appeal to emotion here to avoid that. What you're doing here is complaining about the non-objectivity of societal ethics.

There's also the 'innocence' factor

Kids aren't innocent, they're IGNORANT.
Think of every instance you've heard about child innocence and you'll realize that they substitute the word "ignorant" for "innocent".

There you go with the objective ethics again. It's a truism that people REGARD children as being more innocent than adults. Whether they actually are or they actually aren't doesn't affect the way people think.

It's a serial killer haha. As in "kills in series" I.e. multiple people :p
I love how people spell it cereal killer. That's like...the Trix rabbit.

I'm usually good with spelling.

[Figter]

Ah, that guy with the glasses almost fogot about that guy.
He just does the jokes trying to be funny but since almost all of his clips contains some kind of sexual/adult/pedo joke.....well..i guess he got a fetich for those jokes?

[poxpower]

At 11/10/09 03:06 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

I'm saying that objective ethics is bullshit

We're not talking about ethics, we're talking about laws.
And laws are based on objectivity as much as possible and this is objectively retarded not only as a breach of personal freedom but as a completely unfounded measure.

Where's the evidence to show owning drawings of porn/child porn/ animal porn/ rubik's cube porn
is somehow SO dangerous and undesirable that it demands hard jail time?

Whether they actually are or they actually aren't doesn't affect the way people think.

The law shouldn't be made in accordance to how people are currently being stupid.

[Ravariel]

At 11/10/09 05:43 PM, poxpower wrote: We're not talking about ethics, we're talking about laws.
And laws are based on objectivity as much as possible

They are? News to me.

The law shouldn't be made in accordance to how people are currently being stupid.

Welcome to the world where people are not emotionless, bias-less robots. Enjoy your stay!

Your very idealism about how things SHOULD be runs counter to your claim that everything should be perfectly rational. Nevermind trying to figure out exactly what "rational" is.

[poxpower]

At 11/10/09 06:07 PM, Ravariel wrote:

They are? News to me.

er SHOULD be.
Only people who desire to exploit the law would want it to be based on anything else.

Nevermind trying to figure out exactly what "rational" is.

An informed decision.
A proportional response.
Evidence-based.

It's hard to juggle all the laws to they're all equivalent when compared to each other, but first you start with the extremes, i.e. the laws that are self-evidently retarded and work from there.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 11/10/09 05:43 PM, poxpower wrote:

We're not talking about ethics, we're talking about laws.
And laws are based on objectivity as much as possible and this is objectively retarded not only as a breach of personal freedom but as a completely unfounded measure.

Where's the evidence to show owning drawings of porn/child porn/ animal porn/ rubik's cube porn
is somehow SO dangerous and undesirable that it demands hard jail time?

Well, people are stupid and need to be controlled by higher powers right?

I just find it fascinating that you have this sudden shift to a hard core civil libertarian when the topic is sex and not cash. One COULD argue that throwing these people in jail protects them from their 'stupid' sexual choices. And you couldn't be so inconsiderate to societal needs if you were to argue that people have a RIGHT to be stupid.

No we have a government to protect people from their stupid mistakes and self-destructive sexual preferences.

_______________

of course I would never argue along these lines.

Whether they actually are or they actually aren't doesn't affect the way people think.

The law shouldn't be made in accordance to how people are currently being stupid.

And how should laws be made? According to what the Fabian society wants it to be? According to the oracle at Delphi?

The rule of law, in complex times,
Has proved itself deficient.
We much prefer the rule of men!
It's vastly more efficient.

[poxpower]

At 11/10/09 09:57 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 11/10/09 05:43 PM, poxpower wrote:

Well, people are stupid and need to be controlled by higher powers right?

The only time a higher power should trump what the people want is when what the people want is not based on facts.
Democracy should dictate leadership, not reality.

I just find it fascinating that you have this sudden shift to a hard core civil libertarian when the topic is sex and not cash.

Whut?

And you couldn't be so inconsiderate to societal needs if you were to argue that people have a RIGHT to be stupid.

You can be stupid all your want as long AS I DON'T GO TO JAIL BECAUSE OF YOUR STUPIDITY.
If your stupidity costs me nothing, be stupid all you want.

No we have a government to protect people from their stupid mistakes and self-destructive sexual preferences.

The point is that you've yet to prove that jailing people who own cartoon child porn protects anyone or anything.

It's about as stupid as jailing people who like avocados because IN THIS CULTURE, BOY, WE DON'T TAKE KINDLY TO NO AVOCADOS.

[Bacchanalian]

At 11/10/09 11:15 PM, poxpower wrote: The only time a higher power should trump what the people want is when what the people want is not based on facts.
Democracy should dictate leadership, not reality.

I'm sorry but those two statements seem absolutely contradictory to me.