Apologists for paedophiles: How Labour Deputy Harriet Harman, her shadow minister husband and former - Polidicks

Even if adult/little kid relationships were legalized, wouldn't the adult eventually move on once the little kid grows up?

[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;43180802]Ok. Pedophilia/ephebophilia/whatever you want to call it, it should not be legal for a grown man to have sex with a 12 year old girl who has not fully matured mentally to be able to give that kind of consent.[/QUOTE] whats with some of you people and mocking the term ephebophilia? Honestly, most people probably ARE ephebophiles. We all know how attractive 15-19 year olds can be (17-19 year olds especially).

the term itself is not the problem, the problem is pedophiles using the term to try and justify themselves.

[QUOTE=lintz;43185032]the term itself is not the problem, the problem is pedophiles using the term to try and justify themselves.[/QUOTE] Well if they are actually attracted to 15-19 year olds then they aren't really pedophiles, they're just kinda normal people. I can't really blame anyone for wanting to date a 15-19 year old, and it seems a little odd that society stigmatizes those people that do so much, when really most people would like it.

I don't agree with pedophilia at all, but Aiden_088 has a lot of seriously logical points, points that should at least be considered, and he's getting all this unwarranted bashing for it, without even the slightest consideration of his argument. Actually, sounds a lot like a normal SH thread.

[QUOTE=Wingz;43185226]I don't agree with pedophilia at all, but Aiden_088 has a lot of seriously logical points, points that should at least be considered, and he's getting all this unwarranted bashing for it, without even the slightest consideration of his argument. Actually, sounds a lot like a normal SH thread.[/QUOTE] Sometimes people ask uncomfortable questions that if answered, lead to uncomfortable conclusions. [editline]15th December 2013[/editline] For instance, would there be anything wrong with lowering the age of consent to 15?

[QUOTE=Kai-ryuu;43180600]there are literal pedophiles on this forum and it makes me sick.[/QUOTE] the sad part is that mods don't do shit about them. craptasket banned some pedophile for a week, I don't see why they wouldn't make it a perma

[QUOTE=Cone;43179492]whose fucking idea was it to have a position called the "Shadow Minister?" that's just asking for trouble right there[/QUOTE] The shadow party is the main opposing party that isn't in power. Right now the Shadow party is Labor while the Conservatives are the main party. If Labor win the next election, Conservatives become the Shadow party. Shadow ministers are just ministers for the shadow party.

[QUOTE=Heroku;43189383]the sad part is that mods don't do shit about them. craptasket banned some pedophile for a week, I don't see why they wouldn't make it a perma[/QUOTE] Yes let's permaban people we don't like. Not because they break rules but because they have opinions that I deem 'sick'. [editline]15th December 2013[/editline] Anyway from what I've read about this it sounds ridiculous from both sides. Lower the age of consent to four? That seems like a major lack of consistency to me. And arguing that legal action should be taken against people with those opinions? Come on.

[QUOTE=Heroku;43189383]the sad part is that mods don't do shit about them. craptasket banned some pedophile for a week, I don't see why they wouldn't make it a perma[/QUOTE] Which poster was this?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43189710]Which poster was this?[/QUOTE] i'll give you a hint it starts with A and he's in this thread acting very typically

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;43189633]Yes let's permaban people we don't like. Not because they break rules but because they have opinions that I deem 'sick'.[/QUOTE] Yeah it's an "opinion" that pedos are sick, sure dude. [editline]15th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;43189710]Which poster was this?[/QUOTE] Aidan_088. Check his event log.

[QUOTE=Heroku;43189836]Yeah it's an "opinion" that pedos are sick, sure dude. [editline]15th December 2013[/editline] Aidan_088. Check his event log.[/QUOTE] Nothing I posted in that thread or this one, or anywhere else would indicate that I was a pedophile. If you think it would I suggest you look up the definition of pedophile.

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;43189853]Nothing I posted in that thread or this one, or anywhere else would indicate that I was a pedophile. If you think it would I suggest you look up the definition of pedophile.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Protocol7;42871587]how about if the genders were reversed? would you have problems with a grown man trying to have sex with a 12 year old girl?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Aidan_088;42871592]If it was consensual then no I wouldn't. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Pedophile" - Craptasket)) [/highlight][/QUOTE] okay dude

[QUOTE=Aphtonites;43179532] [IMG]http://www.wnd.com/images2/namblabulletin.jpg[/IMG] [/QUOTE] He looks nothing like marlon brando.

[QUOTE=Heroku;43189861]okay dude[/QUOTE] If I said I was okay with people having a sex change would you assume I was a transsexual? If I said I was in favour of votes for women would you assume I was a women? The point I made in that thread was that I did not see the problem with consensual relationships. Though obviously I would never encourage anyone to break the law, although I do also think in some countries the law should be changed.

[QUOTE=Heroku;43189836]Yeah it's an "opinion" that pedos are sick, sure dude.[/QUOTE] Well then let's accept that being attracted to children is objectively wrong and sick and disgusting. Let's permaban people for being [I](objectively)[/I] sick and disgusting, even if they don't break the rules. Basically what you're saying is still stupid.

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;43189879]If i said I was okay with people having a sex change would you assume I was a transsexual? If i said I was in favour of votes for women would you assume I was a women? The point I made in that thread was that I did not see the problem with consensual relationships. Though obviously I would never encourage anyone to break though law, although I do also think in some countries the law should be changed.[/QUOTE] "You can break the law and I am fully okay with this, I don't encourage it though because it's illegal!" That's pretty much saying you're perfectly okay with pedophilia. Yeah stop trying. [editline]15th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;43189891]Well then let's accept that being attracted to children is objectively wrong and sick and disgusting. Let's permaban people for being [I](objectively)[/I] sick and disgusting, even if they don't break the rules. Basically what you're saying is still stupid.[/QUOTE] ...yes it is. and yes I agree, we should ban all the sickos

[QUOTE=Heroku;43189893]"You can break the law and I am fully okay with this, I don't encourage it though because it's illegal!" That's pretty much saying you're perfectly okay with pedophilia. Yeah stop trying.[/QUOTE] I'm saying the law should be changed. I think it would be foolish for anyone to break the law, but that doesn't mean I don't think the law should be changed.

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;43189905]I'm saying the law should be changed. I think it would be foolish for anyone to break the law, but that doesn't mean I don't think the law should be changed.[/QUOTE] yeah you're saying pedophilia should be legalized, alright dude

[QUOTE=Heroku;43189893] ...yes it is. and yes I agree, we should ban all the sickos[/QUOTE] Where does it end? Why not ban homosexuals, transsexuals feminists or anyone who has any opinion other than your own? Why not? If I'm wrong then you have nothing to fear. But if the facts really are on my side, then I can see why you would want to silence me and those like me. [editline]15th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Heroku;43189916]yeah you're saying pedophilia should be legalized, alright dude[/QUOTE] Again pedophilia refers to attraction to prepubescence and girls in western nations mostly start puberty at 8-10. This has already been covered in this thread. Though to be clear I think anything under 13 should be judged on case by case basis and be under very strict scrutiny and only be allowed in exceptional circumstances.

[QUOTE]...yes it is. and yes I agree, we should ban all the sickos[/QUOTE] I deliberately made that statement look ridiculously extremist. People should be allowed to think and say what they want. And people should be allowed to be here no matter what they are attracted to - after all, nobody can control their attractions, only their actions. So go ahead and be the kind of guy who would use a word like [I]"sickos"[/I] in an argument, but I hope everyone else can see that that mentality is really bad.

The age of consent does need adjusting but not in a way that would allow 40 year olds to have sex with people under the age of 18. A 14 year old is going to try and have sex regardless of any law, it shouldn't be illegal for them to do it with someone around the same age, as long as they are taught to do it safely and consensually.

[QUOTE=squids_eye;43190075]The age of consent does need adjusting but not in a way that would allow 40 year olds to have sex with people under the age of 18. A 14 year old is going to try and have sex regardless of any law, it shouldn't be illegal for them to do it with someone around the same age, as long as they are taught to do it safely and consensually.[/QUOTE] A 40 year old can already have sex with someone under 18 in Britain though. The age of consent here is 16. A lot of people seem to draw this distinction and I don't understand why. Why accept that for example a 15 year old should be able to have sex with a fellow 15 year old but not with an 18+ year old. It's no secret that some people, both mentally and physically, are significantly more or less mature tham people there own age. Why would you allow such a potentially exploitative relationship but not allow another relationship in which there was an age gap? There would be a risk, but no guarantee, of exploitation in both cases.

I would rather it were a scale of increasing age ranges rather than a solid date. I think standard one on the internet is a bit too restrictive, though. It should probably be around 2 years for most of the time, rising to 3 or 4 as you hit 15 and 16 respectively. Of course these numbers are subjective and I would rather trained psycologists considered it above myself. The basic thing is that I don't think 13 year olds should be prosecuted for having sex with 12-14 year olds, but where a significant difference in age and maturity causes a distinct power imbalance it shouldn't be okay. On the banning pedophiles, I don't think someone should be banned for being attracted to something. Ban them for posting CP or actually acting on it etc, but banning someone for something they can't control is just silly.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;43190203]I would rather it were a scale of increasing age ranges rather than a solid date. I think standard one on the internet is a bit too restrictive, though. It should probably be around 2 years for most of the time, rising to 3 or 4 as you hit 15 and 16 respectively. Of course these numbers are subjective and I would rather trained psycologists considered it above myself. The basic thing is that I don't think 13 year olds should be prosecuted for having sex with 12-14 year olds, but where a significant difference in age and maturity causes a distinct power imbalance it shouldn't be okay. On the banning pedophiles, I don't think someone should be banned for being attracted to something. Ban them for posting CP or actually acting on it etc, but banning someone for something they can't control is just silly.[/QUOTE] I see where you're coming from and I completely agree that it is ridiculous that people below the age of consent aren't even allowed to have sex with each other. However there is a power imbalance in all relationships which creates the potential for exploitation but it does not guarantee exploitation. If someone does exploit their partner, especially if he/she is younger, I think that person should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It is however a fallacy to suggest that exploitation would take place in all relationships with a significant age gap.

There is a possibility of no exploitation but in a relationship with such a large gap in maturity and experience, such a possibility would likely be so rare that it would not be worth considering when compared to the cons of such a position.

[QUOTE=Heroku;43189383]the sad part is that mods don't do shit about them. craptasket banned some pedophile for a week, I don't see why they wouldn't make it a perma[/QUOTE] Explain to me why they should be permabanned?

Again, I would rather have trained professionals review this based on empirical data and proper scientific evidence, rather than some people on an internet forum deciding on it. If it is found that a 40 year old can have a harmless relationship with a 13 year old, then fine, but I highly doubt that is the case, or at least the case often enough for it to be worth including in legislature. [editline]15th December 2013[/editline] My merge :suicide:

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;43190285]Again, I would rather have trained professionals review this based on empirical data and proper scientific evidence, rather than some people on an internet forum deciding on it. If it is found that a 40 year old can have a harmless relationship with a 13 year old, then fine, but I highly doubt that is the case, or at least the case often enough for it to be worth including in legislature. [editline]15th December 2013[/editline] My merge :suicide:[/QUOTE] I agree it should be left to psychologists and professionals. I suggest you look into Rind's 1998 meta analysis and the various follow up studies that vindicates my position entirely. You can find the studies online but the Wikipedia page has useful background information and information about Heather Marie Ulrich major follow up that reluctantly confirmed the results. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy[/url]