Daleth

Are we talking taxidermy or plush, here? I need to know.

TIA,
Dal

Theli

Either will do. Depends fully on my mood.
Seriously though, how did the debate go? There are 17 pages and most of them are filled with crap. Did you reach a conclusion of any sort?
What is the major difference (from a crucial moral standpoint) between homosexuality and pedophilia?
Is a pedophile who doesn't molest children immoral?
Is the yuck-factor regarding pedophilia today similar to the one against homosexuality 50 years ago?
Is the alleged immorality of pedophilia enflamed by this yuck-factor?

Just a couple of thoughts...

Daleth

Hmm, well I think in staying with the theme, only taxidermy makes sense. This way when your favorite kitten of your gender inexplicably... dies... you can have it stuffed, and there you've got your homosexuality, pedophilia and necrophilia all in one with an added bonus of bestiality. With plush, where's the fun?

This thread never got anywhere near adressing those questions. It has focused throughout on whether yguy had any reason at all to suggest specifically gay rights advocates need to distance themselves fom pedophiles, NAMBLA and that sort of thing. yguy insists that it makes sense because homosexuality, pedophilia and overeating all stem from the same root problem, but for whatever reason he did not address this thread to overeaters. Everybody else but dk says it makes no more sense than suggesting all book binders need to distance themselves from pedophilia, because homosexuality has as little in common with pedophilia as book binding does. This continues for a remarkable 17 pages, when dk shows up quite expectedly out of the blue and starts talking about how homosexuality is evil because gay men are recruiting schoolboys and giving them AIDS. As you might expect when someone's first post is 17 pages into the thread, changes the subject and has all been said by that person before, no one has been very intrested in taking him on. That's your absurd thread update. At the tone, the time will be 5:58 PM.

Dal

Pain Paien

Of course not, a "conclusion" was never the aim of this thread. The body of this thread is just quibbling. Nothing important was addressed because that was not the intent of the original poster.

All else aside, however, I think it's pretty clear that no one has advocated pedophilia.

Consent. From a scientific standpoint, it's the origin of the two. Pedophilia is a mental illness which is most common among those who were molested themselves, homosexuality is a (most likely congenital) condition that has no correlation with any such abuse. This, of course, is not universally recognized.

If they don't do it because they realize it's wrong, yes. Controlling unhealthy harmful urges is a part of being moral, in my opinion. I don't speak for anyone else, however.

The "yuck-factor" is irrelevant, in my opinion. Homophobia has historically had its roots in the denial of latent homosexuality and [religious] bigotry, and still does today. It's merely the result of societal indoctrination and self-denial. I do not feel the same way about pedophilia. Pedophilia is wrong because sexual contact with adults almost necessarily does great damage to children (if there are cases where it is not harmful, I believe they are flukes). If I knew for a fact that pedophillic acts did not hurt anyone, I would not think they were wrong.

The "alleged" immorality of pedophilia is based on its pernicious nature, at least for me. I would hope this is also true for the other people in this thread who hold pedophilia but not homosexuality as immoral.

yguy

Neither was it meant to, despite practially everyone's insistence that they knew otherwise.

Had the Lardass Lobby lionized Harry Hay and Allen Ginsberg, I'd have had reason to. As it is, it's pretty difficult to draw a socio-political connection between gluttony and pedophilia, regardless of any psychological connection.

Pain Paien

Originally posted by Daleth:
That's simple. First of all, it's much cheaper than the alternative. Secondly, and more importantly, you have way more options when you go with plush. What if one has a dinosaur fetish? You're never going to get your hands on a taxidermied dinosaur, I'll tell you that much. For that matter, where are you ever going to get a taxidermied manatee of appropriate size? Sailors quite fancied them, and in this day and age they'd have but one option. Besides, consistency is a very important element. Taxidermied animals, even those that have fur of some sort, are much too unyielding. I would think in this day and age enlightened people wouldn't be so plushophobic.

yguy

You haven't the foggiest idea what my intent was - and you don't want to either. As for importance, I think it was pretty significant that certain people villified me for daring to hint at a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia while leaving an apologist for pedophilia, well, unmolested, you should excuse the expression.

Pain Paien

I'm sure that wouldn't stop you.

Pain Paien

While it's true I don't really care for insights into your motives, you make yourself rather transparent. Besides, you've stated your motives openly.


Only you see significance in that. I would explain it by saying that most people don't see him as an apologist for pedophilia. If I had followed his other posts with any interest and seen the connection you do, I would probably have been vocal on the issue. The same is likely true for others as well.

yguy

Indeed. Predictably, you succeed in misapprehending them anyway.

Then they don't see much.