Pedophillia (my two cents)

bittapudge
atheist
Posts: 8
Joined: 2010-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Pedophillia (my two cents)

 

pedophilia, we all know of it and none of us like talking about it, its creepy, disgusting and wrong and thats generally the opinion from society on the touchy subject.

But recently I came across a discussion on the Internet. a question that was an obvious attack on atheism, not by a respectable free thinker but a close minded person who obviously had a strong hate for atheists.

Let me give an example of the aim of the question.
As atheists we are constantly defending ourselves from ignorance and childish attempts to make us look bad.
If someone hates atheists one of the first things they will say to you to make you feel ashamed is 'Hitler was an atheist.'

first of all, he was not. He had close connections with the churches, he was into spiritualism and the occult, also he hated atheists as he associated it with communism.
It doesn't matter if he believed in God, Fairies or Batman, the point is anti atheists will go straight to him in an attempt to make us look bad for the simple reason that is
1. people do not like Hitler
2. A lame attempt to attack atheists is to say he belonged to that mindset
3. If Hitler is associated with atheism people may in turn hate atheists based on the accusation he was one because they hate Hitler.

Its the same as the schoolyard ideal that 'if you associate with the weird kid then you in turn must be weird'

(getting off topic there)

The point is a question asked by an obvious religious nut aimed at atheists was 'Atheists, you try and defend homosexuals by saying its not a choice so therefore you must be defenders of pedophiles as they don't have a choice either.'
As you can imagine this person went on to say how homosexuality is an abomination and is clearly linked to pedophilia and blah blah blah.

Everyone hates pedophiles right? So lets see if we can catch the atheist out with this controversial topic

Would you as an atheist know how to answer that question? maybe. Perhaps you never thought about it before.

Well here is my answer (technically it wasn't a question, more like an accusation)

As we evolved socially from our banana loving pals we understood basic morality and empathy. 
we dislike having our stuff stolen, others therefore must hate it as well (this is a basic example)
hence we know it is wrong to steal.

that is understood by societys but sadly not to individuals.

Therefore we know it is wrong in a natural sense for a people to rape and molest children as society establishes it as wrong

know look at homosexuality,

say i find the thought of a homosexual act as disgusting
but i also find the act of eating tomatoes disgusting. Do I bash and discriminate all tomato eaters? probably not. So why should homosexuality be any different. naturally it shouldn't, but as we all know religion is unnatural in evolution, although religion comes from natural thought process, religion itself is unnatural in evolution. 
most religions hate homosexuals and that unnatural opinion is passed down through the years.

so take the unnatural out of the system and by morality alone we can deduce that pedophilia is wrong and homosexuality is not
(homosexuality between two consenting adults of course)

So i established in theory (very basically) why homosexuality is not immoral (do i even have to mention the list of animals in nature known for performing homosexual acts?) whilst pedophilia is immoral.

(Now here comes the controversy)

Simply put i believe that pedophilia, just like homosexuality is not a choice. 
We don't choose what we find attractive
we don't choose to like blonds over brunettes
we don't choose to prefer the girl/guy on the left while our friend prefers the one on the right
we don't choose our fetishes

does that mean i feel sympathy for pedophiles? of course not.

I believe that murderers, rapists, and of course pedophiles deserve death and nothing less.

When a Dog catches rabies we don't assume that it chose to catch rabies. Does that mean we should let it run about and infect/kill others? NO, you have it put down for sake of society. Just because the poor Dog didn't want to get rabies means it should live.

If your not a fan of capital punishment thats fine, but i hope you still understand my point.

BTW

I love dogs.
I am not a supporter of ethnic cleansing.
capital punishment and criminal cleansing on the other hand then yes I am.

Sorry for the long read. please please tell me what you think.

 

 

Born again Atheist. My biggest fear (after insects) is that the atheist community will always remain small and quiet.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
bittapudge wrote: The point

bittapudge wrote:
The point is a question asked by an obvious religious nut aimed at atheists was 'Atheists, you try and defend homosexuals by saying its not a choice so therefore you must be defenders of pedophiles as they don't have a choice either.' As you can imagine this person went on to say how homosexuality is an abomination and is clearly linked to pedophilia and blah blah blah.

We "defend" homosexuality by pointing out it's not a choice, just like heterosexuality is not a choice, so if that's his reason for linking homosexuality to pedophilia, he's linking all heterosexuals to it as well.

These people are so eager to demonise, they don't even notice they're shooting themselves in the foot.


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Even if pedophilia is not a

Even if pedophilia is not a choice is it detrimental to at least one individual. So in order to fix this problem we eliminate the detrimental thing.  Homosexuality is not detrimental to either individual in cases where consent is obtained.

 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
I don't hate pedophiles.

I don't hate pedophiles. Yes, I think there is a genetic component to this. But an even greater issue is the societal conditions which make men more likely to commit these offenses. Just like with crimes like murder, people may be predispositions to violence more than others in the same environment. But more likely is the living conditions.

I think some of the big reasons for molestation is the sexual repression our religious societies have, having prostitution be illegal, unrealistic expectation women have of men causing men to not want to pursue normal relations with women, demonetization of homosexuality, parents and society discouraging young women from having safe sex until way past puberty, the state taking on the role of protector and provider of women rather than individual men.

Why is there a high incidence of molestation among clergy members?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
That would be the

That would be the naturalistic fallacy.

 

 

 

 


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 462
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
So why are there atheist homophobes?

Of course, it has nothing to do with being atheist. So in the absence of religion, why are some atheists intolerant of LGBT? In former communist societies (eg. USSR, East Germany, etc...), homosexuality was considered immoral as it represented western, bourgeous, capitalistic perversion of sexuality. And this IMO is awfully paradoxical since LGBT often ally themselves with the Left. Is homophobia as with all forms of bigotry ultimately innate and justified by a particular ideology (religious or secular)? 


bittapudge
atheist
Posts: 8
Joined: 2010-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:Of course, it

ragdish wrote:

Of course, it has nothing to do with being atheist.

 

western Atheists are often stereotyped as Liberals and defenders of abortion, evolution and gay marriage . A stereotype nontheless i personally cannot think of many (non communist) atheists who wouldnt defend homosexuals. But of course its not the necessary duty of an atheist to defend those who need it but the duty of open minded individuals. Hopefully that is what most atheists strive to be.

 

ragdish wrote:

why are some atheists intolerant of LGBT?

 

I know its a rhetorical question. But to answer it, because atheism doesnt define them as people but its their personality that defines them as human

 

ragdish wrote:

 Is homophobia as with all forms of bigotry ultimately innate and justified by a particular ideology (religious or secular)? 

Well of course a minority is a minority, and almost all minoritys face bigotry whether at the hands of religion or other majoritys.

 

Perhaps the guy who made these assumptions thinks all atheists are either like Brian from family guy or Stalin, no inbetween.

 

Interesting stuff by the way

 

Born again Atheist. My biggest fear (after insects) is that the atheist community will always remain small and quiet.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13600
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I really hate that shit that

I really hate that shit that because we don't believe we advocate anarchy and lawlessness and have no morals.

CONSENT, is the key, and while individual humans develop at different rates, young people in general, have no adult understanding of consent or sex even when they want to think it is.

Child rape is the same as adult rape it is done through manipulation and or force. It is not about the person's sexuality, it is about power and control.

I can tell you that even as young as 10 I was horny and wanted attention and confused my hornyness and desire for atttention, for love. I was in love with the idea of love and had no clue that love and sex were much more adult and complicated than my 10 year old brain could comprehend. I look back at it now and realize it was merely hormones. So even if an adult woman had hit on me and I went "WOOPIE"  SHE still would have been manipulating me and using me, even if I "consented".

When I grew up and stopped throwing myself at women, I realized that love wasn't simply about saying " I am attracted to you, look how much attention I am showing you, why don't you love me?"

Pedeopiles are only natural like cancer is natural. A tornado is natural, but we certainly don't want it affecting us and we do try to avoid them.

I had a difficult time understanding the world at that age, much less sex. The only thing that makes consent credible is time and experience.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5099
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is onlineOnline
This a thorny topic but

 

I think the paedo thing is completely out there on its own. Consensual sex between men and women who are eager to jump into the sack together is fine. Whatever your sexual persuasion is, the fun is consensual. 

The kid thing - it's a kid thing. Kids are defenceless, helpless and have to be protected by adults at all times. They have no idea what's going on. The immorality associated with this stuff is failing to protect helpless kids.

No matter what the people who are attracted to kids feel, the protective thing takes precedence. So even if there's some genetic or learned predisposition to this behaviour, this is not an excuse for harming helpless kids.

This failure of duty of care is a separate thing from sexuality and rates alongside bashing the elderly and burning kittens for entertainment as a personal moral failure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Saw this steaming pile of

Saw this steaming pile of stupid give an interview on TV...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpBvzZE7WX4


Anonymous5684 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
bittapudge wrote: Therefore

bittapudge wrote:
Therefore we know it is wrong in a natural sense for a people to rape and molest children as society establishes it as wrong
But pedophilia is not about raping and molesting children, just like heterosexuality is not about raping and molesting women. Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children. That _attraction_ can be loving, platonic or can be purely sexual. But it can be anything. A normal pedophile does not want to 'rape' chilren but to have consensual sex with one, just like any normal heterosexual man want to have consensual sex with women.
bittapudge wrote:
So i established in theory (very basically) why homosexuality is not immoral (do i even have to mention the list of animals in nature known for performing homosexual acts?) whilst pedophilia is immoral.
Pedophilia is not inmoral. Is just an attration. Its meaningless to talk on an attraction in terms of 'moral' and 'inmoral'. Morality presumes choice. There is no choice in being a pedophile. So there is no morality involved there.
bittapudge wrote:
I believe that murderers, rapists, and of course pedophiles deserve death and nothing less.
Well thats just plain stupid. Do you think that a pedophile who has never touched a kid also deserves death? Pedophilia is a SEXUAL ORIENTATION, not an act. Is the attraction to children. So I ask you again: Do you think that a pedophile who has never done anything deserves death? http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=3347526