I hate.... - Page 4

MitsyMayhem · 08-09-2008, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duane

Who is D******?

The person who committed all that awful shit.

Duane · 08-09-2008, 02:17 PM

Could you be more specific?

MitsyMayhem · 08-09-2008, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duane

Could you be more specific?

No, I inhered and used my knowledge of what Jaye had posted to figure out who
D******** was.

KontanKarite · 08-09-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MitsyMayhem

I don't think Jaye is saying that they can't, but rather trying to say that ********** can be. And yes, they can be, but so can anyone and anything.

The crux of it is, there's a prejudice against those who have that condition. Sure, they may need therapy for dealing with what they have, but what the thought pattern here is, people are preemptively incriminating someone for what they have.

If I were to say I was a pedo right now, just about everyone here would demonize me for my condition and accuse me right away for being a child molester despite the fact that I could very well never act on my tendencies.

We're talking about a prejudice here.

Duane · 08-09-2008, 02:22 PM

I just want to know his name... but whatever.

Jaye Jang · 08-09-2008, 02:31 PM

Duane, this is who the guy is. Mitsy, thanks for the input. Everyone else, just bear with me. Little stressed. He's coming up for trial, and it looks like he is going to win this round.

News > AP State > IdahoDuncan says attorneys can't ethically represent him

You'll find the articles in the Statesman.

MitsyMayhem · 08-09-2008, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

The crux of it is, there's a prejudice against those who have that condition. Sure, they may need therapy for dealing with what they have, but what the thought pattern here is, people are preemptively incriminating someone for what they have.

If I were to say I was a pedo right now, just about everyone here would demonize me for my condition and accuse me right away for being a child molester despite the fact that I could very well never act on my tendencies.

We're talking about a prejudice here.

Hell. I wouldn't. Me and my friend Allie already discussed this.
We're not close, at all.
But I wouldn't start to hate you, nor would I demonize you.
It's the same as me being bisexual.
Just because you're female and I'm female doesn't mean I sexually lust after your body and that I'm going to try and sleep with you.

Though you're right, absolutely.
It's not like they can 'help' being a pedophile.
At all.
And it's not fair.

coffy x · 08-09-2008, 08:39 PM

Did I read somewhere in here that being a pedophile is a "sexual preference"? Huh? Is it a mental condition or sexual preference?

Well, I say that anyone who "prefers" children as a sexual interest is sick and should be considered a threat. And please don't try to group that shit with being gay/lesbian/bisexual. Being lesbian/gay/bisexual is not a mental condition, nor is being heterosexual a mental condition. I'm bisexual and I am attracted to grown women and men, not 6-year-old girls or 6-year-old boys. I have been since I can remember; my attraction towards the same sex didn't just develop. I don't "prefer" both; I'm "attracted" to both.

gothicusmaximus · 08-09-2008, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coffy x

Did I read somewhere in here that being a pedophile is a "sexual preference"? Huh? Is it a mental condition or sexual preference?

Well, I say that anyone who "prefers" children as a sexual interest is sick and should be considered a threat. And please don't try to group that shit with being gay/lesbian/bisexual. Being lesbian/gay/bisexual is not a mental condition, nor is being heterosexual a mental condition. I'm bisexual and I am attracted to grown women and men, not 6-year-old girls or 6-year-old boys. I have been since I can remember; my attraction towards the same sex didn't just develop. I don't "prefer" both; I'm "attracted" to both.

Did you read the arguments that already established how wrong you are? I don't feel like reiterating them.

coffy x · 08-09-2008, 08:44 PM

How wrong I am about what?

gothicusmaximus · 08-09-2008, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coffy x

How wrong I am about what?

About the ideas articulated in the block of text that I quoted.

coffy x · 08-09-2008, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Well, I say that anyone who "prefers" children as a sexual interest is sick and should be considered a threat.

Are you referring to that sentence? If so, then yes. I read the entire thread.

gothicusmaximus · 08-09-2008, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coffy x

Are you referring to that sentence? If so, then yes. I read the entire thread.

In that case, you're just dense. No one can help but to be into whatever he or she is into, the only difference between a pedophile and a homosexual, or between a pedophile and a foot fetishist, or between a pedophile and a heterosexual, is that the former cannot act on his or her desires without committing what is rightly considered to be a crime. A pedophile whose attraction to kids compels him induce a child to sex is despicable and is a 'threat', but one who resists that compulsion is nothing but admirable in his ability to cope with profoundly shitty luck.
Saying that every person with this problem should be regarded as dangerous is equatable to saying that every heterosexual male should be regarded as dangerous because he could be a rapist.

Unimatrix 00 · 08-09-2008, 09:04 PM

You're very wise, gothicusmaximus. That last post was food for thought.

gothicusmaximus · 08-09-2008, 09:07 PM

See that Jillian? When you say it, you're a jerk. When I say it, I'm wise.

coffy x · 08-09-2008, 09:08 PM

No, hon, I'm not dense. I said that they "should be considered a threat" to children because theye prefer helpless children; I didn't say that they are a threat because they prefer helpless children.

Unimatrix 00 · 08-09-2008, 09:10 PM

However, I don't agree with you being rude to coffy x.

*hug*. Welcome to gothic.net by the way. I'm Unimatrix 00, referred to as "Uni" here.

gothicusmaximus · 08-09-2008, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coffy x

No, hon, I'm not dense. I said that they "should be considered a threat" to children because theye prefer helpless children; I didn't say that they are a threat because they prefer helpless children.

What the hell is the difference?
"Should be considered a threat" indicates that everyone should regard all ********** to be a threat. Why 'should' they do so unless all ********** actually are a threat?
Moreover, despite claiming to have read the entire thread, you insisted that no comparison could be drawn between pedophillia and other sexual preferences, when clearly one can be. In fact, I already drew one:

Quote:

Originally Posted by My wisdom

No one can help but to be into whatever he or she is into, the only difference between a pedophile and a homosexual, or between a pedophile and a foot fetishist, or between a pedophile and a heterosexual, is that the former cannot act on his or her desires without committing what is rightly considered to be a crime.

coffy x · 08-09-2008, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

What the hell is the difference?
"Should be considered a threat" indicates that everyone should regard all ********** to be a threat. Why 'should' they do so unless all ********** actually are a threat?
Moreover, despite claiming to have read the entire thread, you insisted that no comparison could be drawn between pedophillia and other sexual preferences, when clearly one can be. In fact, I already drew one:

The difference is this: to be potentially dangerous is different than being dangerous. Why should I think of a pedophile as potentially dangerous? Because they "prefer" helpless children as a sexual interest and possibly could turn into a rapist against children who couldn't even fathom that such a person could exist and who had never been exposed to sex at all--who's innocent and naive to the world.

Now, you all are grouping gays/lesbians/bisexuals and black people into the same category as ********** and rapists. SURE, all these aforementioned groups could be potentially dangerous and dangerous/rapists. Hell, some of them (gays/lesbians/bisexuals and black people) could be **********, and I view them as potentially dangerous against helpless, innocent children, too.

If you can't comprehend that, then I am done typing. Goodnight. Off to bed I go.

Oh, thanks, Uni.

gothicusmaximus · 08-09-2008, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coffy x

The difference is this: to be potentially dangerous is different than being dangerous. Why should I think of a pedophile as potentially dangerous? Because they "prefer" helpless children as a sexual interest and possibly could turn into a rapist against children who couldn't even fathom that such a person could exist and who had never been exposed to sex at all--who's innocent and naive to the world.

Now, you all are grouping gays/lesbians/bisexuals and black people into the same category as ********** and rapists. SURE, all these aforementioned groups could be potentially dangerous and dangerous/rapists. Hell, some of them (gays/lesbians/bisexuals and black people) could be **********, and I view them as potentially dangerous against helpless, innocent children, too.

If you can't comprehend that, then I am done typing.

So, essentially what you arrived at is the idea that everyone is potentially dangerous? Congratulations, you've mastered the principle behind 'don't talk to strangers'. Next week we'll cover ROY G BIV.

gothicusmaximus · 08-09-2008, 10:05 PM

Also, note that, in that post, you agreed that people of any sexual orientation were as likely to be dangerous as **********. Originally, you demanded "DON'T DARE GROUP BISEXUALS LIKE ME WITH THEM". You're putting forth a statement exactly opposite to your initial contention, and asking "WHY CAN'T YOU COMPREHEND THAT"?

KontanKarite · 08-09-2008, 10:10 PM

Maximus is the dean of Gothic School Of Hard Knocks.

Duane · 08-09-2008, 10:14 PM

Yeah, and I'm the janitor...*cleans up spilt milk*

coffy x · 08-09-2008, 10:17 PM

Okay, let me the record straight.

There you go putting your ass where your mouth is and assuming things. I never once said that everyone is not potentially dangerous. But **********, whether female, male, hetero, gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc., are potentially dangerous against CHILDREN and are SICK in the head.

And I asked that you not group them with the LGB community and black men because not ALL LGB's and black men are **********. SOME, SOME, SOME of them are **********, honey. Some.

Duane · 08-09-2008, 10:22 PM

Dude, Gothicus is just telling it as it is.