[QUOTE=Zeke129;32675994]MountainWatcher are you an objectivist? Most of your post was babble but all I could gather was that you're an objectivist.
And by the way, speed is different from pleasure because speed is quantifiable, pleasure is not. There are units we can use to measure speed (they're arbitrary but that's not relevant right now), we don't have that for how good or nice something is.[/QUOTE]
No, much by the contrary.
My argument supports the idea that all consciousnesses are irrevocably selfish, but that doesn't mean you are allowed to do actions that only benefit yourself.
People do things for their own happiness that can or not benefit others. You attain the same pleasure/happiness from every action you hold as a taste or a preference (since it really only depends on the intensity of that preference, not the nature of it (ignoring the difficulty of accomplishing that action)) but the one that benefits others had a bigger net quantity of happiness, so it has more worth.
Selfishness is unhealthy in the same way pedophilia is.
Not YET. Hell, as soon as you can say a muffin is twice as good as a slice of apple pie, you're finding a unit. (a very iffy unit and measuring system but not relevant)
[editline]8th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jookia;32676569]So your argument is that rape is wrong and pedophilia is okay? Like we're all saying?[/QUOTE]
No, not at all. Satisfied pedophiles cause harm (via rape or not as most psychologists can tell you) unsatisfied pedophiles are doomed to live a life of restraint. In both cases, normal sexual preferences are more desirable.
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32678940]
My argument supports the idea that [b]all consciousnesses are irrevocably selfish[/b], but that doesn't mean you are allowed to do actions that only benefit yourself.
People do things for their own happiness that can or not benefit others. You attain the same pleasure/happiness from every action you hold as a taste or a preference (since it really only depends on the intensity of that preference, not the nature of it (ignoring the difficulty of accomplishing that action)) but the one that benefits others had a bigger net quantity of happiness, so it has more worth.
[b]Selfishness is unhealthy[/b] in the same way pedophilia is.[/quote]
So then we're [i]all[/i] unhealthy making unhealthy mean [i]nothing[/i].
What the hell are you even trying to say here? Stop babbling, come on man. Be clearer.
[quote]Not YET. Hell, as soon as you can say a muffin is twice as good as a slice of apple pie, you're finding a unit. (a very iffy unit and measuring system but not relevant)[/quote]
Uh, no. There is no unit. There never will be. Science will never invent a happyometer.
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32678940]No, not at all. Satisfied pedophiles cause harm (via rape or not as most psychologists can tell you) unsatisfied pedophiles are doomed to live a life of restraint. In both cases, normal sexual preferences are more desirable.[/QUOTE]
If a pedophile gets off to drawn child pornography they're satisfied and nobody was harmed. Now what?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32679265]So then we're [i]all[/i] unhealthy making unhealthy mean [i]nothing[/i].
What the hell are you even trying to say here? Stop babbling, come on man. Be clearer.
Uh, no. There is no unit. There never will be. Science will never invent a happyometer.
If a pedophile gets off to drawn child pornography they're satisfied and nobody was harmed. Now what?[/QUOTE]
I apologize, I used "unhealthy" with two different meanings. In the first time I meant the actual meaning, on the second I meant the usual sense. An action that fucks others up.
Y'know, I was thinking of putting how uncomfortable I was with using "unhealthy" because it implies it's a dichotomy. And it is, but it's irrelevant, there are varying degrees on unhealthiness.
And I'll present another argument. If consciousness is purely a product of matter than what it experiences must also be rooted in matter, which means they can be quantifiable.
Not nearly as satisfied as doing the actual deed. Same with a regular hetero person with nothing but hentai to his name.
Zeke you're obviously a paedophile, you jump on to threads like these every time trying to defend yourself.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("This isn't how you post in Mass Debate. Personal attacks doesn't belong here." - Swebonny))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=AngryChairR;32679771]Zeke you're obviously a paedophile, you jump on to threads like these every time trying to defend yourself.[/QUOTE]
I'm not the one with the picture of a child taken from the gay chat thread as my avatar mate
[editline]8th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32679516]
And I'll present another argument. If consciousness is purely a product of matter than what it experiences must also be rooted in matter, which means they can be quantifiable.[/QUOTE]
So let's loop this one back to the topic at hand - pedophilia is a disorder, to you, because generally a pedophile will be less happy than a non-pedophile (due to having to resist their urges as to not harm a child)
Is that what you're saying?
[QUOTE]Satisfied pedophiles cause harm (via rape or not as most psychologists can tell you) unsatisfied pedophiles are doomed to live a life of restraint. In both cases, normal sexual preferences are more desirable.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Not nearly as satisfied as doing the actual deed. Same with a regular hetero person with nothing but hentai to his name.[/QUOTE]
This doesn't say anything about whether it is a mental disorder or not. (well actually it does for some definitions:)
[I]- The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) defines pedophilia as a "disorder of adult personality and behaviour" in which there is a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.[5] According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), pedophilia is a paraphilia in which a person has intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children and on which feelings they have either acted or which cause distress or interpersonal difficulty.[/I]
By this definition, it is a paraphilia, and a mental illness if it causes distress. And well, obviously it does. And what you said is actually true, I think. But does it really mean anything? Yes it's not as convinient, not as desirable and so on, but I don't think we should differentiate.
We got sexual orientations, which is what you like sexually
Then we have fetishes, which is sort of the same except apperantly orientation only encompasses gender, while fetishes can include all sorts of things.
Then we have paraphilia, which are just fetishes that happen to be abnormal and cause distress.
And then we have mental illnesses which are, uh, the same thing.
What I think about all this is that we need to get rid off confusing buzzwords and vague definitions. Every fetish, paraphilia and sexual orientation should all be classified as sexualities. Then we can have bad sexualities, good sexualities, unhealthy sexualities and so on, but seperating them with vague barriers in language serves only to confuse people and to create connotations based on nothing.
[QUOTE]Zeke you're obviously a paedophile, you jump on to threads like these every time trying to defend yourself. [/QUOTE]
Completely irrelevant. No matter what he is, you have to look at the words he is saying and discuss those words; not what he is.
Your argument is basically the same of somebody with a rape fetish, MountainWatcher.
[QUOTE]pedophilia is a disorder, to you, because generally a pedophile will be less happy than a non-pedophile (due to having to resist their urges as to not harm a child)[/QUOTE]
I think that is actually what he is saying.
As far as I know, homosexuality was removed from the list of disorders for exactly that reason: they no longer saw it as something that caused the person distress. And if it doesn't cause distress, it isn't a disorder.
I think differentiating between sexual desires that cause distress and ones that don't is completely meaningless, but it is the way they do it, or so it seems.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;32679909]
Then we have paraphilia, which are just fetishes that happen to be abnormal and cause distress.[/quote]
[i]May[/i] cause distress, by most definitions. Subtle but significant difference.
[release]In the current version of the DSM (DSM-IV-TR), a paraphilia is not diagnosable as a psychiatric disorder unless it causes distress to the individual or harm to others.[/release]
And the draft of DSM-V goes even further to plainly say, "paraphilias are not ipso facto psychiatric disorders"
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;32679909]Completely irrelevant. No matter what he is, you have to look at the words he is saying and discuss those words; not what he is.[/QUOTE]
Nah, I'm not a pedophile. I've been pretty open about what I am in other threads.
[editline]8th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;32679932]I think that is actually what he is saying.[/QUOTE]
Well let's let him say it, I don't want to have the wrong idea.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32679940][i]May[/i] cause distress, by most definitions. Subtle but significant difference.
[release]In the current version of the DSM (DSM-IV-TR), a paraphilia is not diagnosable as a psychiatric disorder unless it causes distress to the individual or harm to others.[/release]
And the draft of DSM-V goes even further to plainly say, "paraphilias are not ipso facto psychiatric disorders"[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. I still think "paraphilia" is a kind of meaningless word...
[I]- Paraphilia (in Greek para παρά = beside and -philia φιλία = friendship, having the meaning of love) is a biomedical term used to describe sexual arousal to objects, situations, or individuals that are not part of normative stimulation and that may cause distress or serious problems for the paraphiliac or persons associated with him or her.[/I]
Basically a paraphilia is just a sexual orientation which is not normal, and indeed which [I]may[/I] cause distress. But why would we differentiate? What does it matter if pedophilia is a mental illness or disorder?
[QUOTE]Nah, I'm not a pedophile. I've been pretty open about what I am in other threads.[/QUOTE]
I believe you, at no point did I suspect you were one. But it's still completely irrelevant to point out if you were :P Ad hominem and poisoning the well.
[QUOTE]Well let's let him say it, I don't want to have the wrong idea.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, fair enough.
[QUOTE=cis.joshb;32645892]If the both parties in sex are either over 18 or under 18 with legal guardian's permission they should be allowed to have sex. Pedophilia is not a disorder or illness, acting on your necrophiliac urges and breaking the law is.[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't that mean that it's legally possible for someone to ask a kid's dad if they can have sex with their child and if the dad says yes(bad parenting story of the day),then the guy would be allowed to rape the child and get away with it?
Since when has paedophilia been a disorder?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32680110]Since when has paedophilia been a disorder?[/QUOTE]
Since they completely disregard any feeling for anybody and torture people?
It's called being a psychopath.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32680110]Since when has paedophilia been a disorder?[/QUOTE]
Since when has physically and emotionally destroying someone been normal? Disorders are defined by deviations from the norm.
Specifically to mental disorders: a psychological disorder of thought or emotion; a more neutral term than mental illness.
[QUOTE=AngryChairR;32680205]Since they completely disregard any feeling for anybody and torture people?
It's called being a psychopath.[/QUOTE]
I think you're getting child molester and paedophile mixed up.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32680299]I think you're getting child molester and paedophile mixed up.[/QUOTE]
All child molesters are paedophiles. Sure, not all paedophiles are child molesters, but chances are they will become one.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32680308]All child molesters are paedophiles. Sure, not all paedophiles are child molesters, but chances are they will become one.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily, I imagine very few people actually act out their fetishes.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32680371]Not necessarily, I imagine very few people actually act out their fetishes.[/QUOTE]
I act out on mine. Though mine aren't destructive of course.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32680385]I act out on mine. Though mine aren't destructive of course.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean by "act out"
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32679805]I'm not the one with the picture of a child taken from the gay chat thread as my avatar mate[/QUOTE]
The avatar of his is a picture of me and I'm sixteen.
Still, he is creepy.
[editline]8th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=AngryChairR;32680205]Since they completely disregard any feeling for anybody and torture people?
It's called being a psychopath.[/QUOTE]
Psychopathy and pedophilia are different things.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32680396]What do you mean by "act out"[/QUOTE]
Exactly what you meant. Do whatever is involved with your fetish, as long as the person/people involved is/are willing. They're fetishes because they're something different that we would really like to do. Do you really think paedophiles have the self will to not act out on it, ever? Their fetish will never have a willing person to be involved in it, because they are too young to.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32680411]Exactly what you meant. Do whatever is involved with your fetish, as long as the person/people involved is/are willing.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but since raping children is illegal i doubt many actually act on it.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32680428]Yeah but since raping children is illegal i doubt many actually act on it.[/QUOTE]
I got kicked out the student union last night for drinking underage. That is illegal, but I still did it. Laws are often disregarded.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32680439]I got kicked out the student union last night for drinking underage. That is illegal, but I still did it. Laws are often disregarded.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but drinking underage and raping a child are on different levels of illegal.
Also if you act out your fetishes you have no right to attack paedophiles.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32680470]Yeah but drinking underage and raping a child are on different levels of illegal.
Also if you act out your fetishes you have no right to attack paedophiles.[/QUOTE]
There's a huge difference between destructive acts and non-destructive acts. That's what makes paedophilia a disorder, and other fetishes or sexual orientations not.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32680490]There's a huge difference between destructive acts and non-destructive acts. That's what makes paedophilia a disorder, and other fetishes or sexual orientations not.[/QUOTE]
Being attracted to children, while being pretty sick and fucked up (which to be honest can be applied to almost any fetish) does not mean the person is a child rapist.
When you have paedophiles stuck in a house, never to see light of day, you properly see them have
mental disorders. Also, that Australian paedophile who thinks he's great, but crazy when he writes books
about sex with young boys.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32680308]All child molesters are paedophiles. Sure, not all paedophiles are child molesters, but chances are they will become one.[/QUOTE]
No. Some, if not most, people rape for reasons relating to domination and power, not just sexual attraction/feeling. There are people who rape children so that they can feel powerful; they don't have to actually be attracted to children to do so.
ETA: In some areas of Africa, people rape children/babies because they believe it'll cure them of HIV. That's got nothing to do with sexual attraction.
[QUOTE=Binladen34;32646248]Are stockings seriously a fetish?
[/QUOTE]
I mean, they look fucking wierd and gay when faggot anime wanna-be chicks at school wear them, but one time my girlfriend put on stockings when we fucked because it was cold and that shit was sexyyy as fuckkk
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32679805]I'm not the one with the picture of a child taken from the gay chat thread as my avatar mate
[editline]8th October 2011[/editline]
So let's loop this one back to the topic at hand - pedophilia is a disorder, to you, because generally a pedophile will be less happy than a non-pedophile (due to having to resist their urges as to not harm a child)
Is that what you're saying?[/QUOTE]
Actually, if you'd like, I'd rather enjoy continuing that discussion over PMs, but alright. And yes.
[editline]8th October 2011[/editline]
But I seriously dislike using the word "disorder" here.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.