Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Inevitable end result of moral relativism.

Well they did another one of those sex stings where they lure internet pedophiles into meeting with a (fake)young child for the purposes of sex.

The article is here:

The article itself is not the strange part, they've been doing shows like this for the past year and these articles come out whever they are scheduled to show another installment on 60 minutes or whatever show they are on. The strange and really disturbing part is the response of one of the readers in the readers bulletin board....a guy who very articulately makes the case for allowing pedophilia in our society. He uses alot of the same types of debating tricks that people right here on the fray use when defending such deplorable things as rooting for the enemy in a time of war or racism or something like that(I'm not trying to pick on one side of the political spectrum or the other, this isn't a lib vs con thing). He first changes the term used to describe pedos....instead calls them MAA's (minor attracted adults) then sites government studies supporting his argument while at the same time insinuating that intolerance for pedophilia is akin to naziism and fascism. He also goes on to use moral relativism arguments, equating pedophilia with any other sexual deviancy and suggesting that it is hypocritical to accept other forms of deviancy while not accepting this one form. He also suggests that these children are capable of consent so nobody is being harmed in these situations. He makes some pretty good arguments and comes off sounding very well informed, although extremely creepy. At one point he even equates his defense of pedophilia with Dr Martin Luther King's struggles in the civil rights era.

I post about this guy because I think his posts are an excellent example of how dangerous the state of our political and ideological rhetoric has become. If you look at some of his arguments, you can see they are well thought out and well presented....yet at the same time you know that what he is promoting is probably about the most disgusting and intolerable thing any of us can think of. Yet taken from a purely theoretical and intellectual point of view you almost have to concede him a few points. Quite disturbing in my opinion. If our level of rhetorical sophistication has led us to the point where even such horrible unacceptable notions as pedophilia can be made to sound reasonable, what else can slick educated intellectual types make sound almost reasonable? Few people are going to buy into this guy's garbage because of the volatility of the subject matter, but what happens when someone similar to this guy uses the same methods to make an almost reasonable sounding case for ideas that are equally as destructive but not as culturally taboo as this subject? People have to be very careful about what they allow so called better educated people to convince them to believe. Just because someone is educated, well spoken and thoughtful does not mean what they are trying to sell you isn't a load of complete and utter crap, no matter how convincing or well researched it may sound. Sometimes you just gotta go with your gut, folks.

It is interesting to note though that among all the responses to this guys posts, the only person to stand up and stick up for him was a libertarian. lol I included that in the cut-n-paste below as well.

Posted by Jonney (anonymous) at 12:56 p.m. on April 25, 2006 (Suggest removal)

"Pedophiles" or more accurately Minor Attracted Adults (MAAs) are the most reviled segment of our society while at the same time they are in EVERY segment of our society, which only proves that these people are a legitimate sexual orientation currently being harassed on popular demand.

Parents should be ashamed for creating an atmosphere of fear around the sexuality of their children, ensuring that minors (and their adult lovers) are now legally the last of the suppressed. Psychology, sociology, and lawyers should be ashamed for betraying their professions to the all mighty dollar. NBC has proved that it is in everyone's financial interest to create crimes. That the police are now being paid by NBC to "hunt" innocent citizens should frighten anyone who has studied Nazi Germany and the propaganda that lead to the deaths of millions of Jews.

The struggle for MAAs to gain rights in this country WILL BE the next great civil rights struggle. Indeed, MAA or "pedophiles" are facing unjust imprisonment, lifetime monitoring that allows for harassment and murder (as seen in Maine), roundups into Nazi-like ghettos (pedophile-free zones, PFZs), life in prison and in one state, SC, codified murder for nothing but consensual love. "Pedophiles" are the new "nig*ers" in our society, the new bogyman, and the silent victims of mob mentality.

There are growing intellectual movements all over the internet for a re-thinking of the socially fascist path that the U.S. has taken towards Minor Attracted Adults. For example, the founder of the Boyscouts was a "boy-lover", Lewis Carroll was a "girl-lover", William Shakespeare was attracted to young teen boys as well as women, not to mention the founding ethos of Western society was based on erotic pedagogy between men and boys starting around the age of 12. Why then would America castrate itself from its history? Societies, from time to time, do not realize the slope of evil they have slipped down until it is too late.

1 of 2 people found this comment useful.

Posted by Jonney (anonymous) at 3:40 p.m. on April 25, 2006 (Suggest removal)

First, I'm not a Minor Attracted Adult, and I don't live in Florida, thank God! I am simply someone practicing my freedom of speech as guaranteed in most civilized societies. Yes, I'm rather educated, and I have chosen to use my education to attack this current perversion of social justice. If you don't like freedom of speech, move to Russia or Saudi Arabia.

Unlike the hate mongering and death threats (clearly illegal) in the above posts, I have only called for a reasoned approach to the issue, not rabid, foaming at the mouth mob mentality. Statistically a child is more likely, as we've seen in the news, to be abused or murdered by his or her parents than to have any sort of relationship with an MAA. But where are the calls to round up parents and take their children away from them? Of course that would be nonsense; just as it is nonsense to castrate every heterosexual man because a very small minority of heterosexual men have committed rapes. (Or is it true, as some Feminists claim, that all penetrative sex is a form of rape? Nonsense, of course!)

Similarly, and its not deniable, there might be some MAAs who do legitimately abuse children. These crimes should be dealt with just as adult-adult crimes are dealt with, and not by casting a wide net over every Minor Attracted Adult. In the extreme majority these are good, upstanding, celibate citizens. Why attack them, why turn them into monsters that do not exist? Such actions are a fictitious and dangerous lie.

In response to the (illegal) NBC/Police alliance, the men who were solicited (read: entrapped) by NBC and their paid mercenaries, committed no crime at all because no child AT ALL was involved in the entire exchange. Sooner or later the Supreme Court will have to address this matter. Now, take NBC out of the equation and insert a minor, yes a crime, as is on the books, would have been committed. But such codes are unjust and illegal, just as blacks, at one time, were not allowed to enter "whites only" businesses or engage with white people romantically. I'm not talking about toddlers or babies, these are left the mutilative whim of their mothers, I'm talking about minors who can converse and engage and consent to be the free agents of their own sexualities. Such liaisons should not be illegal. I'm not promoting breaking the law; I'm simply saying that the law, as it stands, is unjust, and wrong, and should be changed.

Have nice day.

Posted by Jonney (anonymous) at 4:54 p.m. on April 25, 2006 (Suggest removal)

I'm not sure what the "man/boy" thing has to do with empires. You do still use the Spartan model of homosexuality (though suppressed) in your modern day army… But if you're talking about longevity, the Roman Empire has it all over America. Perhaps in the next 900 years she'll come to some sort of civilization, but only time will tell. Already the U.S. is crumbling under its empire and wars, taking no apparent lesson from the overextended and embattled Romans.

The "man/boy" thing, though, does have something to do with a post-modern mindset. The American project will never be successful as long as it still heeds to violent dualism. The goal for success is to do something different, but I don't seeing it going that way currently. Gandhi probably came the closest, but as can be seen here, non-violence, is not your forte. Fascism has found a way to exist in every conceivable type of government, and the United States, a capitalist republic, obviously is not immune.

In the man/boy relationship, the harm comes from the stigmatism of society. Rind et al (1998) found that consensual sexual relations between men and boys had either no effect on boys or a "slightly positive" affect. The current problem with the industry of Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) is that it is founded on a radical feministic and religious ideology that all sex involving men (feminists) is bad and, for the religious all sex, unless regulated by the church, is bad. This mindset has become reified in our culture via codification and sensationalization and is a current falsity that many researches and academic theorists are trying to rethink.

On top of all this is the obscene amount of money being made by sociologist, psychologists, lawyers, NBC, and religious organizations on the false assumption that all child sexual activity with an adult is harmful to the child. Money, says the good book, is the root of all-evil, and the CSA industry is no exception. Remember "suppressed memory syndrome"? Women paid a lot of money to go into a shrink and have memories recovered, or as was later determined "implanted" in their minds. Some old feminists still have power in social services and still use this to falsely accuse fathers of abuse during nasty divorce proceedings, so much so that it is very difficult for a divorced father to get guardianship over his children. This is pseudo-science now, but it still lingers in the way counselors lead children to believe, when they did have sexual relations with an adult, that what they did was wrong, even when it was consensual. This practice of constructing victims is very slowly on the decline. The PhDs I speak with see this as a perversion of their discipline, but are afraid to speak out because the people who are making money on it and ruining lives in the process have no problem with ruining careers in the gamut.

Posted by Jonney (anonymous) at 5:42 p.m. on April 25, 2006 (Suggest removal)

676, wrong as usual.

PickyDogs, I was talking about greed, same dif as "love of money". Thanks for argument, though :) And I have not argued about cultures condoning adult-child sexuality, but you do remind me of the Pashtun and Bedouin love poetry to prepubescent boys. And surely you wouldn't be claiming that Plato's ideology is indicative of Greek culture, would you, hmm? Buggering boys wasn't Socrates' delight, but if one was going to go about it the right way, the Phaedrus, as you mentioned, would be the book to read. After all, it was all about Love.

On the other side of the coin we have you trying to use the current cultural taboo against MAAs as a valid reason to murder them; sir (or mam), that is called Nazism.

Have a nice day :)

I've been trying to keep a civil tone and avoid losing my temper.

Don't get me wrong, I think this guy is a worthless sack of zhid, but this evil fug is not being illogical, he is articulating the horrors latent in political liberalism.

0 of 0 people found this comment useful.

Posted by libertarian_type (anonymous) at 6:46 a.m. on April 26, 2006 (Suggest removal)

Shall we remember that these people are innocent until
proven guilty? And I might disagree with "Jonney", but he
expressed an opinion, and you folks are ready to lynch him.

0 of 0 people found this comment useful.

Posted by Jonney (anonymous) at 9:50 a.m. on April 26, 2006 (Suggest removal)

Like Dr.Martin Luther King, Jr., I learned a long time ago that Truth is the most unpopular type of speech, and he who stands by truth must do so with righteousness because the mob will always try to silence you with violence and eventually murder, as has been pronounced by some of you here.

Socrates, Jesus, Gandhi; these men, too, paid the ultimate sacrifice for Truth. I'm not saying that I am in their league, but sometimes I feel that I am in their good company. Feel free to disagree with me, but know that the issue I am bringing reason to is an issue of fundamental Justice, and like all such struggles it is only a matter of time until its goals are realized.

There are a handful of causes where one can take the position of rightousness and be crucified by the philistines. The defense of the Jews in Hitler's Germany was one of these; the Civil Rights battle was one of these issues; the right for homosexuals to marry is another; and, finally, the civil rights and liberties of children and Minor Attracted Adults is another.

Disagree, send your death threats, foam at the mouth, do whatever, but know this cause is not going anywhere, and it is only getting stronger.

Have a nice day.
Posted by .
To reply to this post, click HERE. Requires Microsoft Passport.
Tags: | | | | |