Comments on: A Disturbing Experience http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/01/a-disturbing-experience.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Wed, 7 Jan 2009 02:03:25 +0000 By: Lynet http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/01/a-disturbing-experience.html#comment-26242 Lynet Fri, 17 Aug 2007 23:53:00 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/01/a-disturbing-experience.html#comment-26242 <blockquote>But as I like to say, sanity is for panzies...</blockquote> Okay, you're making me <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansy#Name_origin_and_significance" rel="nofollow">laugh</a>, there!

But as I like to say, sanity is for panzies...

Okay, you're making me laugh, there!

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/01/a-disturbing-experience.html#comment-26240 Alex Weaver Fri, 17 Aug 2007 22:47:27 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/01/a-disturbing-experience.html#comment-26240 (The above was in reference to Stan's surprise at an adult marrying an adolescent in the 1800s.) As an expansion, <a href="http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm" rel="nofollow">14-15 seems to be fairly common as a legal age of consent</a>, and the worldwide average is 16, so the idea of sex and/or marriages between legal adults and adolescents in modern times shouldn't be surprising. Whether this is desirable is perhaps debatable. In reference to Jim Baerg's comment, "pedophilia" should indeed only be used for sexual attraction to prepubescent children, and the term "pedophile" should properly be used only of a person who is primarily attracted to children. Some research apparently suggests that a minority of child molesters are actually attracted to children as a general condition; rather, most are what are termed "situational offenders" (although it's probably safe to assume that the person responsible for the website in question is a pedophile in the technical sense) Unfortunately, imprecise use has become incredibly common, and the consensus seems to be that the distinction is not worth making. The broader implications of allowing extreme loathing to trump concern for accuracy are generally not addressed. :/ (The above was in reference to Stan's surprise at an adult marrying an adolescent in the 1800s.)

As an expansion, 14-15 seems to be fairly common as a legal age of consent, and the worldwide average is 16, so the idea of sex and/or marriages between legal adults and adolescents in modern times shouldn't be surprising. Whether this is desirable is perhaps debatable.

In reference to Jim Baerg's comment, "pedophilia" should indeed only be used for sexual attraction to prepubescent children, and the term "pedophile" should properly be used only of a person who is primarily attracted to children. Some research apparently suggests that a minority of child molesters are actually attracted to children as a general condition; rather, most are what are termed "situational offenders" (although it's probably safe to assume that the person responsible for the website in question is a pedophile in the technical sense) Unfortunately, imprecise use has become incredibly common, and the consensus seems to be that the distinction is not worth making. The broader implications of allowing extreme loathing to trump concern for accuracy are generally not addressed. :/

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/01/a-disturbing-experience.html#comment-26234 Alex Weaver Fri, 17 Aug 2007 20:25:50 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/01/a-disturbing-experience.html#comment-26234 Unless by adolescent you mean "13 year old" modern western society is, as I understand it, actually fairly unusual in strongly discouraging relationships between teenagers and legal adults. Unless by adolescent you mean "13 year old" modern western society is, as I understand it, actually fairly unusual in strongly discouraging relationships between teenagers and legal adults.

]]> By: Jim Baerg http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/01/a-disturbing-experience.html#comment-26232 Jim Baerg Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:51:40 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/01/a-disturbing-experience.html#comment-26232 "And keep in mind, almost every "evil act" has been accepted at some point in some society. In this one's case, marrying an adolescent was not uncommon in the middle ages, even for a middle aged man. Even in what I believe was the 1800s, a lumberjack, as cited in my sociology book, married an adolescent. I am not justifying it; I disagree with pedophilia," Shouldn't the term pedophilia be used only for sexual attraction to prepubescent children? A middle aged man having sex with eg: a 15 year old girl is ethically dubious, but not in the same league as sex with a 7 year old. "And keep in mind, almost every "evil act" has been accepted at some point in some society. In this one's case, marrying an adolescent was not uncommon in the middle ages, even for a middle aged man. Even in what I believe was the 1800s, a lumberjack, as cited in my sociology book, married an adolescent. I am not justifying it; I disagree with pedophilia,"

Shouldn't the term pedophilia be used only for sexual attraction to prepubescent children? A middle aged man having sex with eg: a 15 year old girl is ethically dubious, but not in the same league as sex with a 7 year old.

]]> By: Stan http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/01/a-disturbing-experience.html#comment-26230 Stan Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:33:02 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/01/a-disturbing-experience.html#comment-26230 To me, I see it more as being relevant to free speech. I find that society shouts down alternate viewpoints to an extreme- yours included, of course. The contest in society's mainstream is which side can shout everyone else down the loudest- which has always ticked me off, becuase we seem to get further and further from that once American ideal of free debate that at the very least WAS the cornerstone of our democracy- but what am I saying? That went to Hell many times before now. The thing is, if championing a cause people disagree with can be made illegal, then this further destroys our right to free speech. Yes, this could be seen as harmful; yet so could allowing more guns into the hands of Americans, or instituting a draft. It is curious to note that I don't agree with any of the above causes; but I firmly believe in free expression. I won't use the slippery slope argument because I know it's supposedly a logical fallacy, but it is tempting, for it seems very much to apply. In short, before I repeat myself more needlessly and beleagour the point, you should not have turned it in to the police. The individual(s) in question committed no crime. And keep in mind, almost every "evil act" has been accepted at some point in some society. In this one's case, marrying an adolescent was not uncommon in the middle ages, even for a middle aged man. Even in what I believe was the 1800s, a lumberjack, as cited in my sociology book, married an adolescent. I am not justifying it; I disagree with pedophilia, but it is worth bringing up the fact that the same phenomena throughout history are assigned very contradictory roles in societal right/wrong and good/evil. Which is mostly to say that because of this, freedom of speech, expression and debate are even more important. That said, something not relevant to the story- I am Wiccan, and I have been humored to note that many times atheists on similar sites have stood up for us. I say humorous because our viewpoints are very, very different, but we share a common antagonist, and so have often banded together. I actually consider atheists much more rational than most religious people, becuase most religious people believe for the sake of believing, taking things on "faith" because it's "faith," which I find moronic (South Parks' analogy of belief in a giant spaghetti monster because we can't prove it doesn't exist is pretty on the mark), whereas atheists tend, at least, to have rationales to their beliefs that make sense. I used to be an atheist, and pretended to be for the duration of my high school years. I only turned religious because of events in my life that suggested there was something more than the physical world, mostly premonitions, an out of body experience, mediumistic experiences and other things that, I will admit, many skeptics rack up to insanity. But as I like to say, sanity is for panzies, so who gives a damn? All religion is insanity, most if not all insanity is religion. Hell yeah. (I say this because the symptoms of mental illness as defined by modern psychiatry and religious/spiritual experiences and awakenings tend to have very close parallels.) Which I'm sure is a radical viewpoint, I know it is, but I don't care. But once again I ramble. Just wished to say, in cap, that I respect the reasoning of atheists (after all, science does explain everything one is frequently exposed to), and that y'all don't tend to hold false pretenses (there hve been so many Christians that have tried to convert me with charm, and then after giving up, told me much later that they consider my gods to be Satanic like the rest of them), or hold prejuidces as much. If my religious beliefs were chosen based off of values rather than determined by what I see, I would be tempted to "convert," lol. To me, I see it more as being relevant to free speech. I find that society shouts down alternate viewpoints to an extreme- yours included, of course. The contest in society's mainstream is which side can shout everyone else down the loudest- which has always ticked me off, becuase we seem to get further and further from that once American ideal of free debate that at the very least WAS the cornerstone of our democracy- but what am I saying? That went to Hell many times before now.
The thing is, if championing a cause people disagree with can be made illegal, then this further destroys our right to free speech. Yes, this could be seen as harmful; yet so could allowing more guns into the hands of Americans, or instituting a draft. It is curious to note that I don't agree with any of the above causes; but I firmly believe in free expression.
I won't use the slippery slope argument because I know it's supposedly a logical fallacy, but it is tempting, for it seems very much to apply.
In short, before I repeat myself more needlessly and beleagour the point, you should not have turned it in to the police. The individual(s) in question committed no crime.
And keep in mind, almost every "evil act" has been accepted at some point in some society. In this one's case, marrying an adolescent was not uncommon in the middle ages, even for a middle aged man. Even in what I believe was the 1800s, a lumberjack, as cited in my sociology book, married an adolescent. I am not justifying it; I disagree with pedophilia, but it is worth bringing up the fact that the same phenomena throughout history are assigned very contradictory roles in societal right/wrong and good/evil. Which is mostly to say that because of this, freedom of speech, expression and debate are even more important.
That said, something not relevant to the story- I am Wiccan, and I have been humored to note that many times atheists on similar sites have stood up for us. I say humorous because our viewpoints are very, very different, but we share a common antagonist, and so have often banded together. I actually consider atheists much more rational than most religious people, becuase most religious people believe for the sake of believing, taking things on "faith" because it's "faith," which I find moronic (South Parks' analogy of belief in a giant spaghetti monster because we can't prove it doesn't exist is pretty on the mark), whereas atheists tend, at least, to have rationales to their beliefs that make sense. I used to be an atheist, and pretended to be for the duration of my high school years. I only turned religious because of events in my life that suggested there was something more than the physical world, mostly premonitions, an out of body experience, mediumistic experiences and other things that, I will admit, many skeptics rack up to insanity. But as I like to say, sanity is for panzies, so who gives a damn? All religion is insanity, most if not all insanity is religion. Hell yeah. (I say this because the symptoms of mental illness as defined by modern psychiatry and religious/spiritual experiences and awakenings tend to have very close parallels.)
Which I'm sure is a radical viewpoint, I know it is, but I don't care.
But once again I ramble. Just wished to say, in cap, that I respect the reasoning of atheists (after all, science does explain everything one is frequently exposed to), and that y'all don't tend to hold false pretenses (there hve been so many Christians that have tried to convert me with charm, and then after giving up, told me much later that they consider my gods to be Satanic like the rest of them), or hold prejuidces as much. If my religious beliefs were chosen based off of values rather than determined by what I see, I would be tempted to "convert," lol.

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/01/a-disturbing-experience.html#comment-25302 Alex Weaver Mon, 02 Jul 2007 03:35:19 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/01/a-disturbing-experience.html#comment-25302 <blockquote>What in the world??? Reporting a website for investigation is no different from a CrimeWatch member calling the cops about a suspicious car, in fact if you find something so suspicious it is your duty, both as an adult, a sane human, and a "Christian" to protect children by erring on the side of caution. This isn't Communist Russia, your complaint won't lead to the webmaster being dragged off to Siberia unless there is illegal activity. I am sure the FBI and other legal authorities would be thrilled to have a thousand false leads that lead to even one monster being convicted.</blockquote> 1) "Christian?" Uh. Read the site heading. 2) Did you even read a single one of the replies before you spouted off?

What in the world??? Reporting a website for investigation is no different from a CrimeWatch member calling the cops about a suspicious car, in fact if you find something so suspicious it is your duty, both as an adult, a sane human, and a "Christian" to protect children by erring on the side of caution. This isn't Communist Russia, your complaint won't lead to the webmaster being dragged off to Siberia unless there is illegal activity. I am sure the FBI and other legal authorities would be thrilled to have a thousand false leads that lead to even one monster being convicted.

1) "Christian?" Uh. Read the site heading.
2) Did you even read a single one of the replies before you spouted off?

]]> By: Donna http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/01/a-disturbing-experience.html#comment-25297 Donna Sun, 01 Jul 2007 23:34:57 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/01/a-disturbing-experience.html#comment-25297 What in the world??? Reporting a website for investigation is no different from a CrimeWatch member calling the cops about a suspicious car, in fact if you find something so suspicious it is your duty, both as an adult, a sane human, and a "Christian" to protect children by erring on the side of caution. This isn't Communist Russia, your complaint won't lead to the webmaster being dragged off to Siberia unless there is illegal activity. I am sure the FBI and other legal authorities would be thrilled to have a thousand false leads that lead to even one monster being convicted. What in the world??? Reporting a website for investigation is no different from a CrimeWatch member calling the cops about a suspicious car, in fact if you find something so suspicious it is your duty, both as an adult, a sane human, and a "Christian" to protect children by erring on the side of caution. This isn't Communist Russia, your complaint won't lead to the webmaster being dragged off to Siberia unless there is illegal activity. I am sure the FBI and other legal authorities would be thrilled to have a thousand false leads that lead to even one monster being convicted.

]]> By: Ainslee Hooper http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/01/a-disturbing-experience.html#comment-12813 Ainslee Hooper Sat, 27 Jan 2007 06:30:01 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/01/a-disturbing-experience.html#comment-12813 This kind of dilemma raises the moral question, are you as guilty as the person in question if you do not report them? Obviously you had no proof he had done anything wrong, but the promoting pedophelia alone is wrong in itself is it not? This is not a shot at you, only raising the moral question in itself. It's like at school, a child picks on another child and another child watches on. They do not stop it but they do not take part. Are they guilty for not doing something? This kind of dilemma raises the moral question, are you as guilty as the person in question if you do not report them? Obviously you had no proof he had done anything wrong, but the promoting pedophelia alone is wrong in itself is it not? This is not a shot at you, only raising the moral question in itself. It's like at school, a child picks on another child and another child watches on. They do not stop it but they do not take part. Are they guilty for not doing something?

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/01/a-disturbing-experience.html#comment-12466 Alex Weaver Tue, 16 Jan 2007 23:04:37 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/01/a-disturbing-experience.html#comment-12466 Regarding what Esoteric said, I don't have any data on how many pedophiles (in the clinical sense) act on their feelings (though I would be surprised if that data were valid; for obvious reasons one would expect a *strong* selection bias in those identified as clinical pedophiles toward those who had done so and been caught), but I do recall reading that only about 10% of child molesters actually fit the clinical definition of "pedophile." Worth thinking about. Regarding what Esoteric said, I don't have any data on how many pedophiles (in the clinical sense) act on their feelings (though I would be surprised if that data were valid; for obvious reasons one would expect a *strong* selection bias in those identified as clinical pedophiles toward those who had done so and been caught), but I do recall reading that only about 10% of child molesters actually fit the clinical definition of "pedophile." Worth thinking about.

]]> By: Discerning Esoteric http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/01/a-disturbing-experience.html#comment-12465 Discerning Esoteric Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:42:28 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/01/a-disturbing-experience.html#comment-12465 I think it’s a shame you decided to assume what that person and their website was must consist of something obscene, rather than taking the time to make an unbiased judgment by actually looking at the site and what that person had to say. Obviously if they have a pro-pedophilia website they have something to say about a subject most people wouldn’t ever touch…even with the anonymity of being online. I don’t want to sound demeaning to you but it looks like you made the assumption that a pedophile is child molester and vice versa. Pedophilia is a feeling of attraction to prepubescent children, that in and of itself is not an action in any way, shape, or form. A child molester is someone who has violated the physical and/or emotional well being of a child according to the laws of wherever that person is. Now I am sure that some pedophiles do become child molesters, but to the way you talk you sound as though every pedophile is or will become a child molester. Now maybe you didn’t have to look at that person’s website, as it seems to have you feel uncomfortable with it, but you could at least understand what the definitions are of the terms you are using and not confuse two different things. Although it is so often confused between those two terms and they are used as synonyms to each other when they are not. My own words are just simple and may not be well constructed but I’d like to leave you with a quote that I think has much greater wisdom to it than anything I could write. “There is no ‘should’ or ‘should not’ when it comes to having feeling. They’re part of who we are and their origins are beyond our control. When we can believe that, we may find it easier to make constructive choices about what to do with those feelings.” –Mister Fred Rogers. Seems to me that if someone has pedophilia feelings, but refuses to abuse a child as a child molester might and decides to discover and reach out to the world through the internet I would investigate what they have to say about their unusual view of the world. Of course if anyone advocated the harming of a child (or any human being for that matter) I would not find their opinion valid. Though I couldn’t know their opinion unless I looked for it. I think it’s a shame you decided to assume what that person and their website was must consist of something obscene, rather than taking the time to make an unbiased judgment by actually looking at the site and what that person had to say. Obviously if they have a pro-pedophilia website they have something to say about a subject most people wouldn’t ever touch…even with the anonymity of being online.

I don’t want to sound demeaning to you but it looks like you made the assumption that a pedophile is child molester and vice versa. Pedophilia is a feeling of attraction to prepubescent children, that in and of itself is not an action in any way, shape, or form. A child molester is someone who has violated the physical and/or emotional well being of a child according to the laws of wherever that person is. Now I am sure that some pedophiles do become child molesters, but to the way you talk you sound as though every pedophile is or will become a child molester.

Now maybe you didn’t have to look at that person’s website, as it seems to have you feel uncomfortable with it, but you could at least understand what the definitions are of the terms you are using and not confuse two different things. Although it is so often confused between those two terms and they are used as synonyms to each other when they are not.

My own words are just simple and may not be well constructed but I’d like to leave you with a quote that I think has much greater wisdom to it than anything I could write. “There is no ‘should’ or ‘should not’ when it comes to having feeling. They’re part of who we are and their origins are beyond our control. When we can believe that, we may find it easier to make constructive choices about what to do with those feelings.” –Mister Fred Rogers. Seems to me that if someone has pedophilia feelings, but refuses to abuse a child as a child molester might and decides to discover and reach out to the world through the internet I would investigate what they have to say about their unusual view of the world. Of course if anyone advocated the harming of a child (or any human being for that matter) I would not find their opinion valid. Though I couldn’t know their opinion unless I looked for it.

]]>