Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:11 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 12:15 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 12:10 am

I do.

Sorry, I should have said if they are someone with those inclinations, IF THEY HAVEN'T YET committed a crime, then they need to learn to suppress the urge and NEVER let it out. If they have committed a crime based on those urges, then severe punishment seems fair to me.

Well, seems to me the pervert who never offends is not the issue, obviously.

Chester the (wannabe) molester is a twistoid, but if he ain't actin' on his sick desire then how the hell would I, or any other paragon of virtue, know?

Well, if, like this man with gender dysphoria, he came out and admitted his condition, then we would know.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:13 am 'Paedophile'; another word that is fast losing its meaning because of the moronic media and their moronic readers. A PAEDOPHILE is someone who rapes, or fanstasises about rape with, CHILDREN. Now, in the current hysteria that has swept the planet, anyone who is accused of having sex with (or even hugging) a 'minor' (which in the US can be someone who is nearly 18) is being called a 'paedophile'. It's fucking ridiculous and being perpetrated by the gutter press (British).

It's a strategy: make everyone a potential pedo so the actual rapers are less visible.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:15 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:11 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 12:15 am

Sorry, I should have said if they are someone with those inclinations, IF THEY HAVEN'T YET committed a crime, then they need to learn to suppress the urge and NEVER let it out. If they have committed a crime based on those urges, then severe punishment seems fair to me.

Well, seems to me the pervert who never offends is not the issue, obviously.

Chester the (wannabe) molester is a twistoid, but if he ain't actin' on his sick desire then how the hell would I, or any other paragon of virtue, know?

Well, if, like this man with gender dysphoria, he came out and admitted his condition, then we would know.

Can we kill him then?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:13 am 'Paedophile'; another word that is fast losing its meaning because of the moronic media and their moronic readers. A PAEDOPHILE is someone who rapes, or fantasises about rape with, CHILDREN. They are not interested in them after puberty, or when they look more like adults. Now, in the current hysteria that has swept the planet, anyone who is accused of having sex with (or even hugging) a 'minor' (which in the US can be someone who is nearly 18) is being called a 'paedophile'. It's fucking ridiculous and being perpetrated by the gutter press (British).

I stand corrected, I was looking at a dictionary definition that said pedophilia is a "psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children." I took it to mean just the attraction itself.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:18 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:13 am 'Paedophile'; another word that is fast losing its meaning because of the moronic media and their moronic readers. A PAEDOPHILE is someone who rapes, or fanstasises about rape with, CHILDREN. Now, in the current hysteria that has swept the planet, anyone who is accused of having sex with (or even hugging) a 'minor' (which in the US can be someone who is nearly 18) is being called a 'paedophile'. It's fucking ridiculous and being perpetrated by the gutter press (British).

It's a strategy: make everyone a potential pedo so the actual rapers are less visible.

It would seem that way. Real paedophiles must be overjoyed about it.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:21 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:13 am 'Paedophile'; another word that is fast losing its meaning because of the moronic media and their moronic readers. A PAEDOPHILE is someone who rapes, or fantasises about rape with, CHILDREN. They are not interested in them after puberty, or when they look more like adults. Now, in the current hysteria that has swept the planet, anyone who is accused of having sex with (or even hugging) a 'minor' (which in the US can be someone who is nearly 18) is being called a 'paedophile'. It's fucking ridiculous and being perpetrated by the gutter press (British).

I stand corrected, I was looking at a dictionary definition that said pedophilia is a "psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children." I took it to mean just the attraction itself.

That there is the pedo-approved definition.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:23 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:18 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:13 am 'Paedophile'; another word that is fast losing its meaning because of the moronic media and their moronic readers. A PAEDOPHILE is someone who rapes, or fanstasises about rape with, CHILDREN. Now, in the current hysteria that has swept the planet, anyone who is accused of having sex with (or even hugging) a 'minor' (which in the US can be someone who is nearly 18) is being called a 'paedophile'. It's fucking ridiculous and being perpetrated by the gutter press (British).

It's a strategy: make everyone a potential pedo so the actual rapers are less visible.

It would seem that way. Real paedophiles must be overjoyed about it.

Especially those in the halls of power. They long for the good old days of children as chattel. They vacation in Thailand, them folks.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:21 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:15 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:11 am

Well, seems to me the pervert who never offends is not the issue, obviously.

Chester the (wannabe) molester is a twistoid, but if he ain't actin' on his sick desire then how the hell would I, or any other paragon of virtue, know?

Well, if, like this man with gender dysphoria, he came out and admitted his condition, then we would know.

Can we kill him then?

I would assume only if s/he commits a crime on the body of another person. Otherwise wouldn't it be like a "thought" crime if they didn't actually do a physical act? But as VT and Sculptor point out, perhaps I am confused on the definition of pedophile.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:26 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:21 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:15 am

Well, if, like this man with gender dysphoria, he came out and admitted his condition, then we would know.

Can we kill him then?

I would assume only if s/he commits a crime on the body of another person. Otherwise wouldn't it be like a "thought" crime if they didn't actually do a physical act? But as VT and Sculptor point out, perhaps I am confused on the definition of pedophile.

Pedos are mad dogs. Lowest of the low. Even commies are higher on the ladder than pedos

Shoot 'em the head.

It's merciful.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:21 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:13 am 'Paedophile'; another word that is fast losing its meaning because of the moronic media and their moronic readers. A PAEDOPHILE is someone who rapes, or fantasises about rape with, CHILDREN. They are not interested in them after puberty, or when they look more like adults. Now, in the current hysteria that has swept the planet, anyone who is accused of having sex with (or even hugging) a 'minor' (which in the US can be someone who is nearly 18) is being called a 'paedophile'. It's fucking ridiculous and being perpetrated by the gutter press (British).

I stand corrected, I was looking at a dictionary definition that said pedophilia is a "psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children." I took it to mean just the attraction itself.

I wasn't having a go at you, just the way in which work meanings are changed to suit whatever political agenda someone wants to push (or create eye-catching headlines).

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:39 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:21 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:13 am 'Paedophile'; another word that is fast losing its meaning because of the moronic media and their moronic readers. A PAEDOPHILE is someone who rapes, or fantasises about rape with, CHILDREN. They are not interested in them after puberty, or when they look more like adults. Now, in the current hysteria that has swept the planet, anyone who is accused of having sex with (or even hugging) a 'minor' (which in the US can be someone who is nearly 18) is being called a 'paedophile'. It's fucking ridiculous and being perpetrated by the gutter press (British).

I stand corrected, I was looking at a dictionary definition that said pedophilia is a "psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children." I took it to mean just the attraction itself.

I wasn't having a go at you, just the way in which work meanings are changed to suit whatever political agenda someone wants to push (or create eye-catching headlines).

OK. I wasn't sure. I was trying to draw some distinction between someone who does indeed fantasize about children but doesn't act on the fantasy versus someone who does. But maybe I shouldn't use that as an example of something similar in social taboo to transsexualism. I should probably drop it from here forward.

All in all, maybe I'm just unjustly prejudiced against transsexuals. I mean I just think it a bit of a hard pill to swallow to think that children be exposed to all this gender-switching and everything. It seems insane to me. But maybe, in the end, it's just "fine" as Sculptor insists. I'm, perhaps, just being too old fashioned (and bigoted) in that respect.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 2:03 am All in all, maybe I'm just unjustly prejudiced against transsexuals. I mean I just think it a bit of a hard pill to swallow to think that children be exposed to all this gender-switching and everything. It seems insane to me. But maybe, in the end, it's just "fine" as Sculptor insists. I'm, perhaps, just being too old fashioned (and bigoted) in that respect.

Naw. Don't go soft just because somebody pulls the "b" word, or because you don't want to hear somebody do it. You're no bigot, so far as I can see; but you don't become one just because some numbskull pulls that trick.

It's not bigoted to have a grasp on reality. Genetics shows you you're right. Don't let the mere virtue-signallers throw you off. They don't care what happens to anybody, so long as they can preen themselves on their doubtful "virtues." But to let people butcher and abuse children, or to abandon the mentally ill to their torments by "normalizing" their illness is no act of mercy. That much should be pretty clear to you.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:09 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 2:03 am All in all, maybe I'm just unjustly prejudiced against transsexuals. I mean I just think it a bit of a hard pill to swallow to think that children be exposed to all this gender-switching and everything. It seems insane to me. But maybe, in the end, it's just "fine" as Sculptor insists. I'm, perhaps, just being too old fashioned (and bigoted) in that respect.

Naw. Don't go soft just because somebody pulls the "b" word, or because you don't want to hear somebody do it. You're no bigot, so far as I can see; but you don't become one just because some numbskull pulls that trick.

It's not bigoted to have a grasp on reality. Genetics shows you you're right. Don't let the mere virtue-signallers throw you off. They don't care what happens to anybody, so long as they can preen themselves on their doubtful "virtues." But to let people butcher and abuse children, or to abandon the mentally ill to their torments by "normalizing" their illness is no act of mercy. That much should be pretty clear to you.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:09 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 2:03 am All in all, maybe I'm just unjustly prejudiced against transsexuals. I mean I just think it a bit of a hard pill to swallow to think that children be exposed to all this gender-switching and everything. It seems insane to me. But maybe, in the end, it's just "fine" as Sculptor insists. I'm, perhaps, just being too old fashioned (and bigoted) in that respect.

Naw. Don't go soft just because somebody pulls the "b" word, or because you don't want to hear somebody do it. You're no bigot, so far as I can see; but you don't become one just because some numbskull pulls that trick.

It's not bigoted to have a grasp on reality. Genetics shows you you're right. Don't let the mere virtue-signallers throw you off. They don't care what happens to anybody, so long as they can preen themselves on their doubtful "virtues." But to let people butcher and abuse children, or to abandon the mentally ill to their torments by "normalizing" their illness is no act of mercy. That much should be pretty clear to you.

I guess what I'm wondering is whether or not it just comes down to pragmatics. Yes, it's very odd behavior but Is such a person actually harming the children? I mean, I get delusional episodes once in a while where I'm just batshit crazy, acting batshit crazy and doing batshit crazy things, babbling about things incoherently and I can understand not wanting me to be in a classroom when that happens. But I'm surmising that the only thing wrong with this guy is that he just "identifies" as a female. Presumably, all the other faculties of a person with gender dysphoria are unaffected. They can still form coherent sentences, they can teach out of a textbook, etc. I mean, maybe, at the worst, s/he will say that it's OK to be gender dysphoric to the children. Is that such a bad thing if maybe one of the children in the back of the classroom feels the same way about his gender identity and takes some comfort in the fact that his life isn't completely over and he could have a teaching career too if he works hard at it?

At this point just saying, "he's crazy" seems kind of unsubstantial. It seems to me that there needs to be some tangible reason if s/he is going to be disqualified from teaching based on the concept that s/he cannot perform the job. But what if s/he can?

One thing I will say is that I have heard that people who identify as a different gender get very antagonistic toward others if others use or refuse to use the "correct" pronoun etc. Now maybe that would create unnecessary antagonisms in the classroom, labeling students who disagree with the practice as "bigoted" or something. I wouldn't think we should be creating such labels for young children.

So I'm interested in what you think, sculptor? You've obviously had more experience with the schools and maybe with transgender or transsexual teachers. What if the teacher gets upset at children for using the wrong pronoun? Is it OK to guilt children over something like that?