ChatterBank3 mins ago
Women, Blacks, Gays, Paedophiles
44 Answers
Okay, following on from the topic regarding the homosexuals and the B&B, this is purely for a topic of debate (please do not get heated)and I am playing devils advocate.
100 years ago, women had very few rights. Today they are seen as having equal rights.
70 years ago (more so in the US than here), blacks had very few rights - today they are seen as having equal rights.
50 years ago, homosexuals had no rights - today they are seen as having equal rights.
Indeed, it was indeed illegal to be gay, you were allowed to beat your wife as well as your (black) slave.
How long before paedophiles are seen as an 'acceptable' minority.
In fact there needs to be two separate sides to this as we need to define what a paedophile is (or rather the age of the victim)
1) consider a paedophile to be interested in girls who have not reached puberty
2) who have reached puberty - Since the law tends to deal with ages, let us say (for the purposes of argument) 13
Your thoughts?
100 years ago, women had very few rights. Today they are seen as having equal rights.
70 years ago (more so in the US than here), blacks had very few rights - today they are seen as having equal rights.
50 years ago, homosexuals had no rights - today they are seen as having equal rights.
Indeed, it was indeed illegal to be gay, you were allowed to beat your wife as well as your (black) slave.
How long before paedophiles are seen as an 'acceptable' minority.
In fact there needs to be two separate sides to this as we need to define what a paedophile is (or rather the age of the victim)
1) consider a paedophile to be interested in girls who have not reached puberty
2) who have reached puberty - Since the law tends to deal with ages, let us say (for the purposes of argument) 13
Your thoughts?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Oneeyedvic. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't usually back-up Oneeyedvic, but in this case I must jump to his defence.
He has just posted this question as an item to debate, there is no need for snappishness or other offensive attacks.
If you are not prepared to discuss the question in hand, then don't bother posting.
Who can say what might happen in the distant future, I have lived many years, and if someone had told me what would happen by the year 2000, I would have most likely have scorned them in the way some of you are scorning vic.
He has just posted this question as an item to debate, there is no need for snappishness or other offensive attacks.
If you are not prepared to discuss the question in hand, then don't bother posting.
Who can say what might happen in the distant future, I have lived many years, and if someone had told me what would happen by the year 2000, I would have most likely have scorned them in the way some of you are scorning vic.
I do not lose sleep over anyone slagging me off, but at least get your facts straight. I made a clear and unambiguous reference to "kiddie fiddlers", not to those ethnic groups mentioned in the header.
Who knows whether or not any of those are also kiddie fiddlers? They don't exactly advertise themselves, do they? It would make our law enforcers' jobs a darned sight easier if they did, though?
No, it stands to reason that those willing to stick up for any other sort of perv would also have similar sentiments and sympathy for another debased group in our society. Even at the expense of our most innocent and vulnerable citizens. Logical, innit?
Who knows whether or not any of those are also kiddie fiddlers? They don't exactly advertise themselves, do they? It would make our law enforcers' jobs a darned sight easier if they did, though?
No, it stands to reason that those willing to stick up for any other sort of perv would also have similar sentiments and sympathy for another debased group in our society. Even at the expense of our most innocent and vulnerable citizens. Logical, innit?
More than a bit puzzled here how can you equate the rights of consenting adults, that history denied thier rightful place with the debasement and use of children.
I question anyone states paedophiles in anyway or form should, no matter how hypotheticaly, have rights. The child is preyed on where are his/her rights.
The only "right" a paedophile should have is "which nut do you want cut off first" but in this day and age some you can't ask that because they don't have any.
I question anyone states paedophiles in anyway or form should, no matter how hypotheticaly, have rights. The child is preyed on where are his/her rights.
The only "right" a paedophile should have is "which nut do you want cut off first" but in this day and age some you can't ask that because they don't have any.
eyethenkyew - mayboe someone who stick up for a perv would also have similar sentiments and sympathy for another debased group in our society, but not necessarily the other way round which is the question being asked isn't it? I support racial and sexual equality, I don't support paedophilia. Just out of interest, which of those do you support and to which are you against?
I don't think paedopholes can ever have a place in a civilised society.
It is one thing to campaign and protest and eventually win in terms of colour, sexuality, gender, religion and so on - all of these are either inbuilt for the individuals concerned, or they are legitimate lifestyle choices which deserve to be protected.
I cannot imagine paedophilia ever to be seen as acceptable, given that by definition, it confers abuse and harm upon an innocent child.
It is one thing to campaign and protest and eventually win in terms of colour, sexuality, gender, religion and so on - all of these are either inbuilt for the individuals concerned, or they are legitimate lifestyle choices which deserve to be protected.
I cannot imagine paedophilia ever to be seen as acceptable, given that by definition, it confers abuse and harm upon an innocent child.
pa___ul3
There may well have been a woman who has preyed on someone, a black person who has and a gay person that has, but as a whole you wouldn't say that that group of people prey on others, paedophiles, on the other hand, do!
Groups of women have been know to prey on others, take the recent paedophile ring of four females and one male.
Groups of blacks have been known to prey on others, take the recent gangs in London.
Groups of Gays have been known to prey on others, Homosexual activists recently attacked a Michigan church during its worship service.
There may well have been a woman who has preyed on someone, a black person who has and a gay person that has, but as a whole you wouldn't say that that group of people prey on others, paedophiles, on the other hand, do!
Groups of women have been know to prey on others, take the recent paedophile ring of four females and one male.
Groups of blacks have been known to prey on others, take the recent gangs in London.
Groups of Gays have been known to prey on others, Homosexual activists recently attacked a Michigan church during its worship service.
it's to do with protection of the vulnerable. Children are seen as needing protection; therefore paedophilia is illegal and likely to remain so. For the same reason as theft will remain illegal, in other words.
But homosexuality came to be seen as a victimless crime - that is, nobody needed protection from gays (except children; but that is still covered by paedophilia laws) - so they were eventually given full civil rights.
The laws covering blacks and women were on a different basis: mainly, I think, that civil rights since antiquity had been extended chiefly to property owners, and women and blacks seldom owned any. But this came to be seen as inadequate: poor people (for instance) might not own property but laws still affected them, so they were entitled to vote for those who passed laws. The same thinking came to be applied to women and blacks.
But homosexuality came to be seen as a victimless crime - that is, nobody needed protection from gays (except children; but that is still covered by paedophilia laws) - so they were eventually given full civil rights.
The laws covering blacks and women were on a different basis: mainly, I think, that civil rights since antiquity had been extended chiefly to property owners, and women and blacks seldom owned any. But this came to be seen as inadequate: poor people (for instance) might not own property but laws still affected them, so they were entitled to vote for those who passed laws. The same thinking came to be applied to women and blacks.
but is it the 'act' of being a woman, or having darker skin, or being attracted to someone of the same sex that is wrong? (I know being a woman isn't an 'act' unless you're Paul O'Grady but seeing as the argument's getting daft I may as well play along!) The act of having sex or grooming a child for sex or receiving some kind of sexual gratification is wrong.
I really cannot understand the attraction paedophiles feel for pre-pubescent children but if they were born that way it must be a living hell.
Let's make one thing very clear. Not all paedophiles act on their impulses and some do try to live a 'normal' life without causing harm to anyone. They cannot get support or advice for their problem because admitting it opens a whole can of worms that can never be put back in the can. Additionally, any charitable organisation would find it impossible to raise funds.
I cannot believe that paedophilia is a lifestyle choice for any although I suspect there are some wicked deviant people who carry out such attacks to satisfy a sadistic nature, rather than a sexual inclination.
I see exactly the point the OP is making. It is true that homosexuality was considered as repellent and evil as paedophilia. In my opinion a paedophile is interested in pre-pubescent children. Don't forget there are paedophiles that are solely interested in boys, not all victims are girls.
Let's make one thing very clear. Not all paedophiles act on their impulses and some do try to live a 'normal' life without causing harm to anyone. They cannot get support or advice for their problem because admitting it opens a whole can of worms that can never be put back in the can. Additionally, any charitable organisation would find it impossible to raise funds.
I cannot believe that paedophilia is a lifestyle choice for any although I suspect there are some wicked deviant people who carry out such attacks to satisfy a sadistic nature, rather than a sexual inclination.
I see exactly the point the OP is making. It is true that homosexuality was considered as repellent and evil as paedophilia. In my opinion a paedophile is interested in pre-pubescent children. Don't forget there are paedophiles that are solely interested in boys, not all victims are girls.
Latest Posts
Are We Heading Towards Another...
Politics4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Film, Media & TV9 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
