Quote# 127289

[[Child molestation survivor: A child's brain is not developed enough to make that decision. Idfc if I said yes.]]

guilt trips and assumptions regarding my actual position rarely work on me. i oppose paedophilia not on moral grounds but practical grounds instead. sex is merely extensive genital contact, particularly in the pelvic regions. your opinion can be subject to further ridicule because you imply that sex must be 'practical' and procreative; i appear to have found someone who believes in abrahamic natural moral law.

ReclusiveChicken, Deviantart 18 Comments [5/18/2017 11:08:35 PM]
Fundie Index: 7

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom

Mister Spak

"sex is merely extensive genital contact, particularly in the pelvic regions."

Do you have genitals in other regions?

5/19/2017 6:11:55 AM

Swede

If sex is "merely extensive genital contact, particularly in the pelvic regions", why not restrict this contact to consenting adults? Or, if it has nothing to do with feelings or brain-activity at all, why not do it with a flesh-light or a real-doll?

We normal, sane humans see sex as interaction with other humans, caresses of the whole body, laughter, excitement, relaxation. There are many emotions involved, at least in us that have emotions, and children are not really able to cope.

I believe in human rights. Including the bodily autonomy of children, and protection from manipulative adults.

5/19/2017 7:02:11 AM

Thinking Allowed

Nature has no morals. Therefor your claim of "Abrahamic natural moral laws" is moot.

Also with the screen name of ReclusiveChicken, that tells me Mom hasn't kicked you out of the basement yet and the only genital contact your getting is when your hand goes there.

5/19/2017 7:24:12 AM

shy

lmao @Mister Spak

5/19/2017 10:12:28 AM

Doubting Thomas

sex is merely extensive genital contact


And something which can "merely" traumatize a child for life.

5/19/2017 10:42:30 AM

heleninedinburgh

Do you have genitals in other regions?


Does being a dickhead count?

5/20/2017 4:23:06 AM

ReclusiveChicken

normal human rights are things to be disregarded. practices which prevent it will do far more than crying about some social force which any psychopath may disregard. i do not disregard the fact that it is traumatising.

you have failed in your arguments against me and my position. that thread is the gift that keeps on giving and i win again.

5/20/2017 11:50:32 AM

The Angry Dybbuk

"...normal human rights are things to be disregarded."

...until you require the force of law to secure your own rights against predation by sociopaths; then they matter.

5/20/2017 11:01:31 PM

Passerby

Winning an argument and not caring about being wrong are two different things.

5/21/2017 12:49:06 AM

Titania

"Abrahamic natural moral law" - that's definitely a contradiction in terms!

Also anyone who defends child molesters is as bad as them - and deserves the same treatment. That site had some good suggestions.

5/22/2017 7:49:41 PM

ReclusiveChicken

'i'm going to scream that you support child molesters and say you're wrong lelele'

so you have presented yourselves to be e-niggers and possibly government-linked baiters (inb4 YOU SAID WE WERE FAKE HAHA THIS PROVES YOU'RE AN PAEDO ENABLER!!!) given that you cannot give me any arguments. typical liberals! you use the same tactics that any religious person uses: declare that the opposition is wrong and give no arguments. if you are out to stop people who, according to you, 'support child molesters' then explain to me why i'm wrong. so far you haven't done this, and i shall address why:

"...until you require the force of law to secure your own rights against predation by sociopaths; then they matter."

and yet said force of law is being misused to support countless government paedophile rings and even ignore other rings (the rotherham case being an example)? i cannot trust the bourgeois state which does as it wants, particularly when my peers and i are weak. only under social democracy and extensive keynesian policy has it ever cooperated to a large extent with people who do not seek to become part of it. other than this, it leaves the social world to be managed in a market-like fashion: a right-wing liberal's wet dream.

on a more fundamental basis: here, you have almost immediately assumed the whole concept of rights as being set in stone. you indicate to me that you don't wish to venture outside your decidedly reactionary logical system. don't bother pardoning my use of allcaps to drive this point home: 'HUMAN RIGHTS', BEING GENERAL CODES WHICH ARE INDEED BASED AROUND ASSUMPTIONS MADE ABOUT PEOPLE ARE FLAWED BECAUSE THEY ASSUME THAT PEOPLE MUST BE TREATED EQUALLY EVEN IF THEY ARE BASED ON A CODE OF CONDITIONALS WHICH CORRESPOND WITH REACTIONS OF PEOPLE TO CERTAIN MOTIONS AND ACTIONS. TO ASSUME UNIVERSAL STANDARDS IN THIS WAY (I.E. PEOPLE AHISTORICALLY AND CONSISTENTLY ACT IN CERTAIN WAYS) HAS ALREADY PROVEN TO BE FOOLISH UNLESS THE FOCUS IS ON PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF MATERIALS AND SOCIAL VALUES. EVEN THEN, SUCH ASSUMPTIONS CAN ONLY BE USEFUL FOR SO LONG GIVEN THAT THE WORLD IS IN A CONSTANT STATE OF CHANGE. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO CALL A 'RIGHT' IN YOUR AUTISTIC FANTASY WHEN MUTUALLY-USEFUL RESULTS CAN BE ACHIEVED TO A FAR GREATER EXTENT WITH LOOSER MORAL CODES?

IN PRONOUNCING PAEDOPHILIA TO BE 'ALWAYS WRONG' IN A TYPICAL RELIGIOUS MANNER, YOU ARE ADMITTING THAT WE HAVE REACHED THE END OF HISTORY AT LEAST WITH REGARDS TO THIS ASPECT OF THE WORLD. YOU IGNORE THE POSSIBILITY THAT SEXUAL ACTS BETWEEN ADULTS AND CHILDREN CAN ONE DAY BE MADE SAFE FOR ADULTS AND CHILDREN EVEN IF IT REQUIRES THE MODIFICATION OF ADULT GENITALIA OR CHILD GENITALIA. I DO NOT SUPPORT PAEDOPHILIA BECAUSE IT IS INDEED UNSAFE AND IS MUTUALLY HARMFUL LARGELY BECAUSE OF THE IMPACT ON THE AFFECTED CHILDREN.

now being the ideological entrepreneurs you are, you will put this on ed, scrub this response and get me doxxed. you will do everything in your power to mock me; you know that it is not discussion but power that ultimately decides the way of the world. do not forget, though i am weak i can easily predict what kind of actions you will take. you will even look at the spacing i use and call me a redditor, i can see it all coming.

""Abrahamic natural moral law" - that's definitely a contradiction in terms!"

how so? it is not terminology which i have cooked up; the religious assume it to be 'natural'.

"Also anyone who defends child molesters is as bad as them"

which i am not doing

"- and deserves the same treatment. That site had some good suggestions."

focus on what is practical, not on what you deem to be set in stone. no-one crosses the is-ought gap without a permit.

8/19/2017 12:29:03 AM

Pharaoh Bastethotep

How cute, it thinks it's Das Ubermensh!

8/19/2017 12:32:44 AM

ReclusiveChicken

"how cute"

as expected, you don't want to discuss things; i can hear lowtax screeching through you. links to things like rationalwiki at the bottom of the homepage are glaring red flags as to what you are: progressive liberals.

i expect from you similar responses as those which i'd get from weird twitter's virtue-signallers. you don't wish to critique what you believe in. as a loose collective entity you even throw around "ubermensch" as if you think i'm using nietzschean frames of reference to view myself and my actions. all that it shows to me is that you don't know what you're talking about despite entering into a discussion with me. you're just like the fundamentalists whom you wish to ridicule, only with a single distinguishable layer of satire and the 'progressive' armies behind you.

bottom line: if you're anti-fundamentalists then why do you assert that paedophilia is ahistorically immoral and harmful?

8/20/2017 11:38:54 PM

Pharaoh Bastethotep

@ReclusiveChicken:
lowtax

???

virtue-signallers

Says the one is desperately (and incompetently) trying to portray himself as a revolutionary freethinker.

you even throw around "ubermensch" as if you think i'm using nietzschean frames of reference to view myself and my actions.

No, I am using that term* more generally to denote arrogant arseholes who fancy themselves iconoclasts toppling the outdated notions of morality blahblahblah. You, for examole.

entering into a discussion with me.

I did not. There is no point in debating a pseudointellectual psychopath.

* The misspelling is deliberate, by the way,

8/21/2017 12:36:15 AM

Shepard Solus

@ReclusiveChicken:
"E-niggers"? Really? What, was the quote not embarrassing enough? Were you worried someone might still take you seriously?

8/21/2017 9:07:32 AM



long version:

>"???"

'hey kids, watch me pretend that i don't know who lowtax is!'

i've already seen enough red flags right at the bottom of your homepage:

"The Brick Testament | Church of the FSM | Cult Education Institute | Feministing | Friendly Atheist | Metabunk | Rational Wiki | Religious Tolerance.org | Right Wing Watch | Skeptic's Annotated Bible | Snopes | Southern Poverty Law Center | Talk Origins | ThinkProgress | US Humane Society | We Hunted the Mammoth | Wonkette"

need i remind you of the history of somethingawful and /r/shitredditsays? you sound awfully like those feminist goons with so much snark.

>"Says the one is desperately (and incompetently) trying to portray himself as a revolutionary freethinker."

again you've resorted to ridicule without any basis. i'm merely parroting the thoughts of revolutionaries. i just know what to expect from you and i come back to have a laugh and test my judgement. even though i might hate it, i know that being wrong can be valuable if i can improve myself and the models which i use to evaluate my perception of the world.

after posting in this thread for the first time, i was met with discussion in addition to ridicule. i responded to said discussion and then your 'side' started acting differently. i know that you and your ilk wish to ridicule someone and i happen to be the target but why do you need to justify it? from the off you could've shitposted. instead, you try to act as if you have a political motive and then hide behind insults and an implied moral high ground when your political stance is challenged. 'i am wise, respected, snarky and mentally stable. you are not. i cannot be wrong.' the irony of your accusation is what makes me come back for more comedy. you're not seriously invested in your preferred political movement despite using it as a shield to justify your actions. hallmark of a coward! in fact, your condescending tone is a sign of YOUR arrogance.

>"No, I am using that term* more generally to denote arrogant arseholes who fancy themselves iconoclasts toppling the outdated notions of morality blahblahblah. You, for examole. *The misspelling is deliberate, by the way,"

then you could've said that instead of being cowardly as i have already pointed out. you also imply that it's 'wrong' to do what you describe here: to be arrogant (which you're actually projecting onto me here); to be an iconoclast; to 'topple outdated notions of morality'. 'it makes you look like an assblasted dork whose balls didn't drop.' and have you shown to me that you are any better here? i would love to learn from you if you are as wise as you imply you are here!

>"I did not. There is no point in debating a pseudointellectual psychopath."

as an individual, you didn't. your brothers in arms did.

>"If sex is "merely extensive genital contact, particularly in the pelvic regions", why not restrict this contact to consenting adults? Or, if it has nothing to do with feelings or brain-activity at all, why not do it with a flesh-light or a real-doll?

We normal, sane humans see sex as interaction with other humans, caresses of the whole body, laughter, excitement, relaxation. There are many emotions involved, at least in us that have emotions, and children are not really able to cope.

I believe in human rights. Including the bodily autonomy of children, and protection from manipulative adults."

>""...normal human rights are things to be disregarded."

...until you require the force of law to secure your own rights against predation by sociopaths; then they matter."

if you try to distance yourself from the actions of your peers who are indeed PART OF THE SAME MOVEMENT AS YOU then you admit that you're not serious. you don't even have to agree with everything that they might say here; you need only develop and defend a generally-shared position to be invested in that movement. here you have failed to do that. that's not a series of unconditional and absolute moral statements but practical assessments. i'm even trying to help you to achieve your goals unless i really don't know what you want.

if you do wish to put me in my place then perhaps you should intellectually overpower me. buzzwords and weird twitterisms won't do it. if you're partial to turning this into a political statement then you'll need a cult and a media engine. wait, hang on...

==================================================

tl;dr version:

i'll say it again: if you're anti-fundamentalists then why do you assert that paedophilia is ahistorically immoral and harmful?

>"???"
>t. progressive liberal who speaks like a goon

>"Says the one is desperately (and incompetently) trying to portray himself as a revolutionary freethinker."
t. condescending retard

>"No, I am using that term* more generally to denote arrogant arseholes who fancy themselves iconoclasts toppling the outdated notions of morality blahblahblah. You, for examole. *The misspelling is deliberate, by the way,"
>implying that's wrong

>"I did not. There is no point in debating a pseudointellectual psychopath."
>i'm not going to defend my position despite others trying to do so fuck them lol
>umm what do i do now i know YOU'RE [insert buzzword here]

i'll ask again: if you're anti-fundamentalists then why do you assert that paedophilia - let alone anything - is ahistorically immoral and harmful? justify it to me.

8/21/2017 9:13:10 AM



in fact, #2053934 is right in my definition of 'sex' being shit. however, he merely says that children can't enjoy the complex feelings with which 'they are not able to cope'. is this even true in the present?

8/21/2017 9:55:34 AM



in fact, #2053934 is right in my definition of 'sex' being shit. however, he merely says that children can't enjoy the complex feelings with which 'they are not able to cope'. is this even true in the present?

8/21/2017 10:59:54 AM

1 | top: comments page