How to advocate for pedophile acceptance?

[Princess Arabia]

If they have never committed crimes or don't intend to commit crimes against children, why is this a concern then. Why would they even need to make themselves known. 

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Princess Arabia said:

Oh, well this is a whole new ball game in my eyes. Thought you were actually speaking about people that have already sexually abused children.

Still, I don't see the need for comparison as so many things could be potentially harmful and be considered threats if the right arguments are given.

 

I'm just saying that we should not use "potential slippery slope" arguments to justify current, actual abuse of individuals. It has always proven to be unwise in the past.

 

1 minute ago, lostingenosmaze said:

Lmao people always keep conflating people who desire children with people who already committed acts against children. It happens everytime with this pedophile discourse. All child molestors are pedophiles but not all pedophiles are child molesters. @Scholar has already clarified this in the original post (didn't even mention child molesters at all) and yet people still make this mistake. The bias here is just supporting @Scholar's points

The interesting thing is that, most child molestors are not actually pedophiles. They are mostly opportunistic or sadistic abusers. They don't have any particular sexual attraction to children, rather they get pleasure from the abuse itself, independent of who they abuse. Children being the most vulnerable means those are the ones they tend to abuse.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/most-child-sex-abusers-are-not-pedophiles-expert-says/

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Princess Arabia said:

If they have never committed crimes or don't intend to commit crimes against children, why is this a concern then. Why would they even need to make themselves known. 

To not feel incredibly ashamed about something that part of who they are, sadly. And if they do get exposed, they shouldn't feel like they are monsters who should get killed.

[Princess Arabia]

1 minute ago, Scholar said:

To not feel incredibly ashamed about something that part of who they are, sadly. And if they do get exposed, they shouldn't feel like they are monsters who should get killed.

Ok

[lostingenosmaze]

7 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Ok

Ok

[PurpleTree]

tell them sam harris said we have no free will

so they can’t choose to have pedophile thoughts and such

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

That was a sarcastic post to illustrate why such attitudes in other contexts are barbaric.

I don't see any compelling argument for how it would lead to the normalization of pedophilia. How else are these things going to progress but by having conversations about them?

Remember, this isn't a neutral issue. People suffer from unjust stigmatization. The harm to pedophiles might actually outweigh the harm to children caused by child predation that is being prevented by this stigmatory stance.

And I don't even see a compelling reason for how the stigma does anything but increase the instances of child abuse.

I don't think it is serving the function you think it is serving. This just seems like very vague allusion and potential, abstract threats to justify the concrete rights violations against innocent individuals. Yes, any taboo in the past that was lifted initially lead to problems, but the entire point is to learn from the problems such that we can progress as a society.

Most child sexual abuse is not committed by pedophiles in the first place. We could have justified stigmatization of homosexuals and transsexual on the basis of vague allusions about the risks of society not being able to handle such conversations and enabling dysfunction and abuse. This is just not the case with attitudes that are highly, highly ingrained in humans to be biased against.

The most compelling argument here is that you are actually not showing how isolating and shaming individuals leads to less child abuse, instead of more. You are basically just fear-mongering about potential problems if we don't continue to commit contrete rights violations against individuals. If those problems occur, we will solve them once they do. This doesn't give us a right to perpetuate barbarism.

First off, harm to pedophiles won't ever outweigh harm to children because children are in a far more powerless position. And issues that impact children are wise to give a greater weight to compared to issues that impact adults because children are in a very vulnerable state.

But overall, I think you're over-estimating the level of moral/ethical development that humanity has, at present. We're still operating off of a rewards and punishments paradigm, and we haven't collectively transcended that idea.

So, we haven't realized the paradigm of justice in its highest form... which is about serving everyone, including the criminal. And ultimately, stopping a criminal from committing crimes and helping them get into alignment with the law is the best way to serve them.

And because humanity hasn't developed enough paradigmatically, humanity at large doesn't collectively know how to parse this subject without putting vulnerable children in harm's way. So, they can currently only hit it with a hammer and punish it.

Taboos serve this very function. They are a kind of societal technology for beating back what we're not yet developed enough (technologically, ideologically, or otherwise) to parse or integrate in a nuanced way that doesn't cause harm.

And we would need to develop collectively in terms of our outlook on justice, ethics, compassion, and so many other ideological frameworks before we even begin to have this conversation about exercising that kind of collective compassion towards pedophiles in a way that doesn't blur boundary lines and normalize things that shouldn't be normalized.

[Ulax]

I'd say focus on success stories of folks with pedophilia who have put systems in place to manage their condition in an effective way. 

[Ishanga]

7 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

Wasn't this you who was just talking about locking up prostitutes and how families get ruined by it. Now it's lets advocate for pedophiles.

told You so!

[gambler]

OP attempts to shut down talks about solutions for Palestinians in this forum by analogizing it as the predator and the prey, there's nothing that can be done, they're just the gazelle being targeted by the predator. Just move on. But, despite that nothing will come from talking about how to serve PDFs, OP all of a sudden doesn't care about holding to this standard anymore. Now it's more beneficial for us to brainstorm ways in which solutions can be found. Perniciously dehumanize Palestinians by analogizing them to nature's dumb and useless animals and his rage-bait signature? OP says yes! Dehumanization of PDFs? OP says wait a minute.

Edited September 18 by gambler

[Scholar]

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

First off, harm to pedophiles won't ever outweigh harm to children because children are in a far more powerless position. And issues that impact children are wise to give a greater weight to compared to issues that impact adults because children are in a very vulnerable state.

 

This wasn't the argument. I said that the harm prevented by stigmatization of pedophiles might not outweigh the harm that is collectively experienced by innocent individual. Teenagers are pedophiles too and experience incredible psychological harm as a result of stigmatization and dehumanization of pedophile. If you would listen to some stories of pedophiles, you would know that.

There is no evidence that stigmatization and dehumanization of pedophiles prevents any abuse, and in fact I find arguments that it increases child abuse far more compelling.

 

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

So, we haven't realized the paradigm of justice in its highest form... which is about serving everyone, including the criminal. And ultimately, stopping a criminal from committing crimes and helping them get into alignment with the law is the best way to serve them.

Pedophiles aren't criminals. Most pedophiles never abuse children.

 

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

And because humanity hasn't developed enough paradigmatically, humanity at large doesn't collectively know how to parse this subject without putting vulnerable children in harm's way. So, they can currently only hit it with a hammer and punish it.

Taboos serve this very function. They are a kind of societal technology for beating back what we're not yet developed enough (technologically, ideologically, or otherwise) to parse or integrate in a nuanced way that doesn't cause harm.

And we would need to develop collectively in terms of our outlook on justice, ethics, compassion, and so many other ideological frameworks before we even begin to have this conversation about exercising that kind of collective compassion towards pedophiles in a way that doesn't blur boundary lines and normalize things that shouldn't be normalized.

You can say this at any stage of human development and nobody could possibly say anything to disprove that we "aren't ready". This is the flaw with this type of intuitive argument, you simply cannot use it, ever, to justify concrete rights violations, unless you have actual data supporting what you are saying, which you do not.

Taboos are largely guided by completely irrational feelings and dispositions, and many of them do not fulfill any function and in fact have a harmful function, especially as we transition into modernity.

 

I have had a conversation with a teenager today who understood perfectly well the distinction between a pedophile and predator after it was explained to him. If he can understand that difference, anyone can. This isn't some sort of savant boy who is intellectual rigorous.

 

People are perfectly capable of understanding these differences, we are far beyond the cognitive development stages to assert that this is a concept individuals cannot grasp or hold. It is not this complex, and if you want to sustain a position of maintaining discriminatory attitudes against victims of nature, you better have more than your personal opinion to do so.

 

We aren't the Aztecs anymore, we don't sacrifice the few because we think it will give us a greater benefit. If we want to do so, we have to have rock solid evidence for such things. Right now, the evidence is on the side of the taboo being harmful rather than preventative in any way.

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, gambler said:

OP attempts to shut down talks about solutions for Palestinians in this forum by analogizing it as the predator and the prey, there's nothing that can be done, they're just the gazelle being targeted by the predator. Just move on. But, despite that nothing will come from talking about how to serve PDFs, OP all of a sudden doesn't care about holding to this standard anymore. Now it's more beneficial for us to brainstorm ways in which solutions can be found. Perniciously dehumanize Palestinians by analogizing them to nature's dumb and useless animals and his rage-bait signature? OP says yes! Dehumanization of PDFs? OP says wait a minute.

Given how much of an incoherent mess this is, I am not surprised you have no clue what my position on palestine is and utterly failed to understand it.

[Leo Gura]

There's no room for it in our political climate. People will just smear you as a pedophile if you attempt to defend pedophiles. 

It's basically political suicide.

The public is not interested in a serious discussion of such issues. When it comes to political activism you have to be realistic about what the public is ready for and what it isn't.

Edited September 19 by Leo Gura

[Emerald]

5 hours ago, Scholar said:

People are perfectly capable of understanding these differences, we are far beyond the cognitive development stages to assert that this is a concept individuals cannot grasp or hold. It is not this complex, and if you want to sustain a position of maintaining discriminatory attitudes against victims of nature, you better have more than your personal opinion to do so.

You're over-estimating the general populace's cognitive and moral development... and their ability to hold space for seemingly dichotomous notions like compassion and justice.

All things arise for ideological reconsideration in the time they're meant to be unpacked. And taboos stick around until society develops enough to parse those topics in a more mature way and the taboo becomes obsolete. That's the nature of human societal development.

A taboo is like a cast that we keep on until the bone mends. And we can't take the cast off prematurely and get good results.

And that's true even if it is at the expense of people who haven't committed a crime. And innocents have always been casualties of humanity's lack of cognitive and ethical development. It sucks, but it is what it is, until we collectively transcend to higher levels of ethical development.

Plus, there are SO many other taboos and former taboos that are "ripe" right now for 'anti-tabooification' that we must focus on collectively... things like having kids out of wedlock, co-habitation, divorce, the LGBTQ community, choosing to have few children, choosing to have no children, miscegenation, multi-ethnic societies, female autonomy, birth control, polyamory, swinging, immigration, drug addiction, psychedelic therapy, choosing one's own marriage partner, sex work, withholding cruel and unusual punishment for criminals, and various other breaks from traditional norms that were once considered taboo by the general populace.

These things couldn't be integrated into the Stage Blue societal structure because of the level of ideological and technological development and the adaptations necessary to make those kinds of societies run. Acceptance of these things and removing these taboos in a solid blue culture is like trying to jam a cd into a cassette player. It just doesn't work.

But in the current state of Stage Orange society, we do have the ability to integrate all of those things without it getting in the way of how the societal technology runs. But there are still huge swaths of the population that struggle to integrate these things because they are not morally developed enough to move past absolutist thinking... and more towards an ethics that's more around the idea "If it doesn't inflict harm on another person. We can accept it."

But someone who has developed their level of moral development to "If it doesn't inflict harm on another person. We can accept it." still won't be able to parse how to orient to people who have a taboo that is associated with the harm of the vulnerable... even if they've never committed a crime. And they will still have the punishment-mindedness of the previous level of development... only geared specifically to those causing harm (or are associated with causing harm) and not towards people who engage in taboos that are "unusual/uncommon" but not harmful.

Edited September 19 by Emerald

[Kid A]

7 hours ago, Scholar said:

Given how much of an incoherent mess this is, I am not surprised you have no clue what my position on palestine is and utterly failed to understand it.

https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/102940-be-on-the-right-side-of-history/?page=6

7 hours ago, Scholar said:

It's not whataboutism. I'm not saying "The Palestinians are doing bad things therefore the Israelis can do bad things too!". 
I'm saying from an "objective" lense, it is actually good that the Israeli's are killing Palestinians, because in the end you are saving more individuals this way. And not by killing innocence, but by killing rights violators such as mass murderers (people who directly fund and consume the tortured corpses or excretions of rape victims). In fact, they should kill each other as much as they can to reduce the atrocities and violations they engage in. 

I, and probably many others, interpreted this as you supporting genocide. Is this the case? The thread was locked right after your post, so never got to ask.

Edited September 19 by Kid A

[aurum]

8 hours ago, Emerald said:

Taboos serve this very function. They are a kind of societal technology for beating back what we're not yet developed enough (technologically, ideologically, or otherwise) to parse or integrate in a nuanced way that doesn't cause harm.

Great insight.

[IronFoot]

A compassionate approach to mental disorders definitely wouldn’t be a bad thing. I don’t disagree with that at all.

 

however, as others have stated, I don’t think our society is equipped to make the discernment between a enabling or solving this issue.  What sort of approach would you propose to be compassionate to marginalized groups of people while still protecting the children that could be victimized by these people? Children that are victimized seem to have a higher likelihood of developing other mental issues too which would just lead to more societal problems.

 

I have no idea if this number is accurate, but off a quick google search I saw that it is estimated that less than 5 percent of the world population are pedophiles. Out of that 5 percent, I wonder how many of them are acting on those urges and how many of them are functioning members of society that have never done anything damaging?

 

I would say there are bigger fish to fry than supporting pedophiles. Having society reach stage yellow would likely lead to solutions to these problems becoming more feasible. If consciousness were elevated on a large enough scale, this could be true for a lot of other problems as well. I think that it would be pointless for anyone in power to come out and support something like this with where we are currently at on the spiral. Defending pedophiles and other topics like this is a great way to scare people off from ever moving up the spiral.
 

Public positions that create so much backlash that it hinders consciousness from being raised ultimately hurts everyone.

[Leo Gura]

10 hours ago, Emerald said:

Taboos serve this very function. They are a kind of societal technology for beating back what we're not yet developed enough (technologically, ideologically, or otherwise) to parse or integrate

Well, there goes my kitten-eating agenda.

Ya'll are not advanced enough to eat a kitten.

Edited September 19 by Leo Gura

[BlueOak]

If help is sought first I am conflicted. That will become obvious below as to why. Yes all things need to be discussed. Yes,  this would help us not only track these individuals to prevent issues but also treat them before they inflict harm. The stigma, however unfortunate, is completely understandable, I'll explain.

If help is not sought first: Harm toward children is one of the few instances where capital punishment is warranted.

• Reproduction is the primary function of Planet Earth.
• Children of all species are the highest thing this planet achieves. Whatever term you prefer:  Sacred / Valued / Precious / The future / The continuance of the dream etc.
• Ergo, protecting them is paramount, above all other concerns. Please take into account 'all other concerns' when replying to this.
• I have yet to see evidence that pedophilia can be considered cured. 

Now I've typed all this, I don't demonize anyone. So there is zero need to make a moral argument here or restate the preference that all life is sacred or part of us. I only need to see reliable statistical data that shows pedophiles can be cured or healed. 

I can love a man or woman others loathe because they are part of our reality. But I also understand sometimes part of reality (us/me/you) needs to no longer be as it is. If this can be achieved medically, that is excellent, and that needs to be highlighted more often, but never at the expense of the primary reason this reality exists.

So yes a stigma toward protecting children is not only fundamentally important to continue life as we know it, but also hinders the healing or at least observation/treatment of those that might do them harm.

Edited September 19 by BlueOak

[LSD-Rumi]

Advocating for a non-judgmental attitude towards criminals and other shunned people would be the first step. Judgment is key player here. If society starts understanding The beauty of non-judgment, it will be willing to understand the points you raised.