Now I see what your problem is: you're a complete irrationalist who can't stand it when he hears something he disagrees with. You point out no facts or logical conclusions, just rhetoric. All I'm saying is if being attracted to kids can be changed, then being attracted to anything can. That's simple logic.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Dear Abby Uses Column To Promote Radical Gay Agenda
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
Now I see what your problem is: you're a complete irrationalist who can't stand it when he hears something he disagrees with. You point out no facts or logical conclusions, just rhetoric. All I'm saying is if being attracted to kids can be changed, then being attracted to anything can. That's simple logic.
Quote from Haroki:
No, you spineless POS, he's a sick fuck when he said that some released pedos re offend, and his opinion of that is "so what?"
Haroki, before we get into this further, are you a native English speaker?
I'm trying hard not to take offense at your apparently willful, hateful distortion of my statements. Maybe this is just a misunderstanding of the language. Because I never said nor implied what you are claiming.
Martin
Quote from TheFinn:
All I'm saying is if being attracted to kids can be changed, then being attracted to anything can. That's simple logic.
So if I can find a single example of a pedophile who, through any treatment, genuinely lost his or her attraction to children... then all sexual preferences including sexual orientation can be changed at will?
I think you need to be a bit more specific with your "simple logic"...
Martin
Quote from Turok:
Why would a guy who get's a woody for 11yo girls be any different. I truly don't understand.
When I was 11 I got a woody for 11 yo girls. I don't anymore. I've never gotten a hard on for a guy though.
Some sexual preferences can change, others don't. It depends on the person, their circumstances, and the reasons for their preferences. Folks, how difficult is this to understand?
Martin
People should simply choose to abstain. I mean it's all a matter of choice right? No more relationship problems. No more divorce. No more unwanted pregnancies. No more STDs. All this for merely putting off sexual gratification. Looking at it objectively the list of benefits for the individual seem to greatly outweigh the downside. People who choose not to abstain therefore probably have something wrong with them. Remember it's a choice.
Quote from Turok:
Well we fundamentally disagree that they are "different behaviors".
Let's say a scientist is studying a group of people who are all homosexuals, but none of whom are sexually attracted to children. Then this same scientist published a paper based on their research, claiming to have discovered a genetic basis for pedophilia. You don't think there's anything wrong with that? If they really were the same behavior nobody would question that paper.
My point is that different human behaviors should be assumed to have different causes until they are proven to be the same. I really don't think I bear the burden of proof there, it's simple logic. But if you really want proof I can come up with numerous counterexamples from my own personal experience... some sexual preferences have changed, others haven't, hence logically they must not have the same cause.
Martin
Sparo:
>When I was 11 I got a woody for 11 yo girls.
>I don't anymore.
Not a relevant example for study as changes in the early part of our life are expected and well documented -- I think it's far more valuable to keep the discussion involving adults.
>Some sexual preferences can change, others
>don't. It depends on the person, their circumstances,
>and the reasons for their preferences.
I certainly agree that it depends on the 'reasons' for the preferences(see my previous comments on 'attention seekers', ect) -- bit I still say that the genetic basics in adults are wired pretty tight.
JB
>When I was 11 I got a woody for 11 yo girls.
>I don't anymore.
Not a relevant example for study as changes in the early part of our life are expected and well documented -- I think it's far more valuable to keep the discussion involving adults.
>Some sexual preferences can change, others
>don't. It depends on the person, their circumstances,
>and the reasons for their preferences.
I certainly agree that it depends on the 'reasons' for the preferences(see my previous comments on 'attention seekers', ect) -- bit I still say that the genetic basics in adults are wired pretty tight.
JB
Sparo:
>Let's say a scientist is studying a group of people who
>are all homosexuals, but none of whom are sexually
>attracted to children. Then this same scientist published
>a paper based on their research, claiming to have discovered
>a genetic basis for pedophilia. You don't think there's anything
>wrong with that? If they really were the same behavior nobody
>would question that paper.
You continue to confuse my argument with the one you apparently want me to hold. I have clarified my position once for you (in the following thread)
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1639967#post1639967
and I will now do it again.
A: My basic position (with previously mentioned exceptions):
Just like homosexuality, pedophilia is a genetical wired behavior.
B: The position you seem to want me to hold:
Pedophilia and homosexuality have the same genetic basis.
I don't hold position "B", have never held NOR argued for position "B". If you continue to argue as if I hold position "B" (as you have in your above paragraph), it doesn't really lead us anywhere.
>My point is that different human behaviors should be
>assumed to have different causes until they are proven
>to be the same.
Look, as shown above, it seems that you and I are are slicing the word "causes" differently. We would probably agree that we can place an overwhelming number (if not all) of human behaviors into the category of "caused by evolution" -- and by that definition the ALL would have the same cause. Slice it thinner and thinner however and we find that the human desire for water (thirst) has a very different cause than the human desire for companionship (love). but, they BOTH are evolutionary.
Likewise, I find it incredibly logical that sexual preference behaviors are predominately driven genetically (meaning genetically caused).
>I really don't think I bear the burden of
>proof there, it's simple logic.
LOL -- that's not logic ... just opinion. I believe that logic would say that if EITHER one of us wants to claim that their opinion is something other than just that, they now have the burden of proof. You've made such an assertion, I haven't.
>But if you really want proof I can come up with
>numerous counterexamples from my own personal
>experience... some sexual preferences have changed,
>others haven't, hence logically they must not have the
>same cause.
Logically, no such thing. BOTH can still be caused by genetic wiring (demonstrating once again how you argue against a position I don't hold).
Let's get this strawman thing straightened out first (btw, I'm not accusing you of doing it intentionally), then if we want to go forward we can.
JB
>Let's say a scientist is studying a group of people who
>are all homosexuals, but none of whom are sexually
>attracted to children. Then this same scientist published
>a paper based on their research, claiming to have discovered
>a genetic basis for pedophilia. You don't think there's anything
>wrong with that? If they really were the same behavior nobody
>would question that paper.
You continue to confuse my argument with the one you apparently want me to hold. I have clarified my position once for you (in the following thread)
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1639967#post1639967
and I will now do it again.
A: My basic position (with previously mentioned exceptions):
Just like homosexuality, pedophilia is a genetical wired behavior.
B: The position you seem to want me to hold:
Pedophilia and homosexuality have the same genetic basis.
I don't hold position "B", have never held NOR argued for position "B". If you continue to argue as if I hold position "B" (as you have in your above paragraph), it doesn't really lead us anywhere.
>My point is that different human behaviors should be
>assumed to have different causes until they are proven
>to be the same.
Look, as shown above, it seems that you and I are are slicing the word "causes" differently. We would probably agree that we can place an overwhelming number (if not all) of human behaviors into the category of "caused by evolution" -- and by that definition the ALL would have the same cause. Slice it thinner and thinner however and we find that the human desire for water (thirst) has a very different cause than the human desire for companionship (love). but, they BOTH are evolutionary.
Likewise, I find it incredibly logical that sexual preference behaviors are predominately driven genetically (meaning genetically caused).
>I really don't think I bear the burden of
>proof there, it's simple logic.
LOL -- that's not logic ... just opinion. I believe that logic would say that if EITHER one of us wants to claim that their opinion is something other than just that, they now have the burden of proof. You've made such an assertion, I haven't.
>But if you really want proof I can come up with
>numerous counterexamples from my own personal
>experience... some sexual preferences have changed,
>others haven't, hence logically they must not have the
>same cause.
Logically, no such thing. BOTH can still be caused by genetic wiring (demonstrating once again how you argue against a position I don't hold).
Let's get this strawman thing straightened out first (btw, I'm not accusing you of doing it intentionally), then if we want to go forward we can.
JB
Quote from Sparohok:
Haroki, before we get into this further, are you a native English speaker?
I'm trying hard not to take offense at your apparently willful, hateful distortion of my statements. Maybe this is just a misunderstanding of the language. Because I never said nor implied what you are claiming.
Martin
10-12-07 03:15 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from Haroki:
You ARE aware that pedos have received these treatments, then gone on to offend again, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some have... some haven't. So what? That has absolutely zero bearing on the correctness of any argument I have made in this thread.
***Tell me where I have misinterpreted your meaning. Cuz to me, this says that you're more interested in winning an argument and being "correct" than you are about pedos being released and hurting kids.