PA woman bought used tablet, found man molesting an 8-yr old girl video
Posted by UncommonSense 11 years, 10 months ago to News
This is disgusting, insult was added (at the little girls' expense) when the woman who reported it to the police was told they would get on it, after their Christmas vacation.
However, I don't think anyone would complain if people started debating about racism, on a page about economy, in case a user types some derogatory racial slur in the comments.
I'm sure Ayn Rand would agree with me here if my premises are indeed correct:
1- Pedophiles didn't choose their condition. It was not a result of their moral code, or actions.
2- The effects of this condition, pedophilia, are only related to what a person finds sexually attractive. It doesn't mean they have a tendency towards lack of moral judgment or psychopathy.
Therefore, it is not their moral fault for having these desires. They should not take the blame for having them (again: having). If a pedophile is good towards children or not, this depends solely on their personal moral code. Rational or well-meaning pedophiles wouldn't hurt kids.
"An ideal man would not act blindly and would not act on because he 'felt like it'. It's quite alright to feel, but feelings are not tools of permission, they're not guides to reality, and you keep your feelings to yourself. Feelings are the consequences of thought and action, not the guides."
It's quite alright for pedophiles to feel these things, even more if it's not their fault for feeling them. If they never act on these irrational desires, if they keep these feelings to themselves, then they're being absolutely moral and should not be criticized.
It's perfectly possible for the majority of pedophiles to be well-meaning people. We should not put all of them under the label of child molesters.
If you disagree with me, please tell me why. I'm just trying to have a polite conversation here, and as I'm an Objectivist, I'm just going to change my point of view in case I find that my premises or conclusions are incorrect.
Take care, Abaco.
No. I just thought you were a Conservative because of the way you talked about Cyrus, but that's actually irrelevant since you're a rational person. It's just that, I'd rather talk to other Objectivists if possible. They are the only people I know who use reason consistently in all areas of their lives. Even if I do disagree with one, we just let reason decide who's right. If one is found wrong, both learn from the experience.
We both value logic, of course, but as I'm apparently not able to provide you with enough information for this matter, then we can conclude that this conversation won't have a proper closure. Maybe we should drop this? ; )
DNA is irrelevant? Okay, we have a brain. But it isn't able to modify most of our inner workings, though. Try stopping your own heart at will, try feeling sexually attracted for a gender different of your original orientation. Doesn't work.
Their fault? Is it your fault that you've got black hair? That makes no sense. If a particular trait of yours wasn't acquired as a result of your own choices, then you're not morally responsible for it. If someone is a pedophile, but hasn't chosen that for his life, if he was locked in this biological position since birth, then no, that's not his fault.
The only thing that could be his fault is if he acts on his desire. That's evident. He's got a choice in the matter after all: to do it or not.
He's just not guilty of feeling these urges in the same way that a straight male can't help it feeling aroused by big breasts. That's as absurd as saying that gay people are to take the blame for being gay. Is it their fault that the god-who-doesn't-exist didn't ask for their opinion before making them attracted to the same gender?
Yes, it's a natural response. Since they have no choice in the matter, that's natural, not to mention that it was the norm for thousands of years.
Yes, you're free to support whatever you conclude is the rational thing. Still, why don't you think I would make a good parent? I'm an Objectivist, not a Democrat. Is it just because I'd rather be rationally compassionate of people who deserve such consideration, instead of joining the present lynch-mob mentality that tells us that all pedophiles are bad people and should be burned at the stake?
People who dismiss pedophiles right away are the same parents who wanted people with leprosy dead before they could infect their children. Brute people always try to solve problems through force and violence. The intelligent ones though, they found a cure for leprosy so that everyone could win.
Since there's no cure for pedophilia, all they ask for is a bit of understanding. Less ignorance, less hatred. They were born like this, and they are good people in general.
Peace, Madam.
P.S. I suppose that good people who have pedophilia are probably way less likely to abuse of their kids, physically or emotionally, than regular people are. They hate their condition so much, that they'd rather kill themselves before doing kids any harm. If you think it's OK to ostracize them, as you said, you're just making it easier for them to kill themselves over depression.
However. Maybe that's what you'd like, right? It doesn't matter to you that these pedophiles are good people who would never harm kids. You just want them dead.
I have nothing else to say to you, if that's your moral code.
*sigh*
And when did I mention 8 year-old girls? I said very clearly: fourteen year-olds who are able to consent to sex, rationally.
Of course any sane person will be against molesting prepubescent children who haven't matured sexually yet.
Enough of this subject. This probably won't go anywhere.
Moving on.
Yes, there is a natural and biological tendency to desire a 15 year old over a 22 year old.
"Evolution has programmed humans to lust for pubescent youngsters--our ancestors did not get to live long enough to have the luxury of delaying reproduction. For hundreds of thousands of years, sex followed closely behind puberty. Only recently has society chosen to protect the moratorium of adolescence and to declare as inappropriate and illegal a sexual interest in the pubescent."
Changes in our DNA take thousands of years in order to take place. That's why some people still have attraction towards children or child-like traits, like lack of pubic hairs.
No, there's no crime if someone is watching child porn. Child porn is a real crime, the evidence of a real crime. Does watching the video of a crime make you a criminal as well? There are people who lust over real snuff movies, so, are they criminals themselves for supporting this market of gore and real assassinations by downloading videos? No. They can't be arrested for that.
Pedophiles who mean well also deserve our sympathy, and they should not be ostracized. If someone doesn't agree with that, then I can't consider them a moral human being.
The more hatred they get, the more children get abused anyway. So, that's quite stupid if we're trying to make a better world for the kids, right?
If we want to decide if kids are mature enough, age is not the best of the indicators. It's actually the laziest one, if anything.
When you say that 60 year-olds have at least had a chance to mature, I don't see your point. People evolve at various paces, and those who evolve faster should not be punished or slowed down because others aren't as capable.
"Let's make the drinking age 21 because some people younger than that wont know how to be responsible!"
Uh, excuse me? The legal drinking age here is 18, and we're not doing worse than you. When people get to drink moderately at younger ages, they're less likely to abuse of it than college students who drink furtively.
Are you a conservative?
That may be why we're disagreeing, I guess. o/
I suppose we can agree that Francisco d'Anconia was mature enough as a teen. Adults didn't want him to work at TT because he was too young, and that decision was a very important one. Adults could exploit him somehow, give him abusive tasks or something.
He did as he wanted, and advanced at his own pace. Why should he wait before making a decision? Just because most people of his age wouldn't be able to have the same level of maturity?
In the same way, if a 15 year-old d'Anconia wanted to have sex with an older 20 year-old woman whom he admired, do you think he would've waited until he was old enough? Why? He knew he was mature enough. If this age gap problem is one of emotional maturity, he was ready. I don't think he would've said:
"My dear, we can't really be together now. I'm not old enough, and that's against the law. Let's wait until I'm three years more older, okay? I probably won't be even more mature in a considerable way after that time, so I feel I'm already prepared to make such decision, but, you know, my age... This arbitrary number changes everything."
Hell no! That doesn't sound like him at all. =/
I knew I was gay since I was 10, I guess. My first ever sexual inclination was towards men, and it has been like that ever since. Women never had an effect on me.
See ya!
This reminds me of the young d'Anconia, in a way. People didn't want him to work at Taggart Transcontinental because he was still a kid, and wasn't mature enough to make a decision like that (in their eyes).
He worked there for as long as he could before being caught. The boy was damn mature for his age, and should not be prevented of advancing at his own pace.
"Why work now? What if they give you abusive tasks? What if they don't pay you enough? You're not mature enough to make such an important decison!"
Screw that. d'Anconia doesn't care. Francisco d'Anconia does whatever he wants! :D
"The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me." -- Ayn Rand
I still need to think more about this, but your response was actually good enough for me to consider a reevaluation of my premises. I still think that, on many occasions, the age gap doesn't have to necessarily be a problem for some teenagers. I don't think it's fair to prohibit those who are younger and actually emotionally mature enough to consent to sex just because the great majority of the teens aren't well developed emotionally enough.
I suppose the Law has to draw a line somewhere in order to make it easier for them to judge these cases. But I don't think that's a very elegant solution.
Is is intelligent to only make alcohol available for those who are 21 or older? No, that's stupid. Of course people below that age can be perfectly fine drinking alcohol. Not to mention that people will always ignore these laws and fight for their freedoms anyway, through the black market if they must.
Younger-than-21 people who drink alcohol moderately are less likely to end up abusing of alcohol than a college student who drinks furtively. Isn't the law having the opposite effect of what was intended? If a 14 year-old girl wants to date an older guy, she will. If anything, with it being illegal, she will only want it even more, and away from the eyes of her parents. Isn't it better to have her in this relationship, under her parent's guidance? Does that make sense at all or am I making an invalid comparison?
Where we probably disagree is when I say that, sometimes, I think the kid is actually able to give consent. I used to know a very mature 15 year-old girl, who looked like she was 18, and she was dating this 23 year-old guy. Their relationship was actually very healthy, I believe. Her parents were glad she was at least dating someone who was responsible, had a job, and actually treated her quite well. I don't think age should be a problem here, and it would be damn unjust to lock the guy up for that. I mean, the girl's fine. She's actually really happy. xD
Load more comments...