- Registrado
- 27 de Jun, 2024
We've already gone that route. Personally, I don't see how citing a study showing a massive and disproportionate amount of homosexuals molesting teenaged boys helps your case any. I mean, you'd think they would be molesting boys and girls in the same age range and not disproportionately attacking young sexually maturing teenaged boys. I heard somewhere that the average age a gay man is when they have their first sexual encounter is 13 - 14, totally unrelated of course but I thought I'd mention it.
Personally I think this can actually be explained by examining how pedophilia is a very severe mental illness rooted in sadism rather than what it is often simplified as- "just a deviant sexual fetish conceptually of the same nature as any other sexual fetish, except this one targets children". As in, out of the offenders here, not all of them are really 'pedophiles' as defined psychiatrically. Real pedophiles actually do often molest both little boys and girls, just as they are often zoosadists as well. It's about inflicting one's power over a helpless and vulnerable party- Again, sadism. You think of it in the context of a 'sexual preference' so one would assume that they would scrutinize their victims heavily, just as you do with potential partners. But pedophiles really are obsessive, manic abusers who are almost demonically devoted to harming children simply to inflict their power over something helpless. Boy, girl, oftentimes animal, it's all beside the point of control. Most of the gay men who solicit and have sex from and with young boys aren't genuine pedophiles, their targets are young, yes. Too young, obviously. But still sexually mature to a degree. To them, sexually mature enough to consider them 'ready'. Their approach may not be out of intentional malice or a sadistic intent to inflict harm. To them, this behavior was normalized by their own experiences at that age. Even uncomfortable and abusive power dynamics which were experienced as normal aspects of the clique to the abuser and thus is echoed in the abuse. It's a vicious self propagating cycle and unjustifiable for sure, but it is worth giving it some thought to try and reach a better understanding of the mechanisms at play.
This same mechanism can be seen in online circles that end up inducting minors and exposing them to this sexual content. For many of the members (many of whom are themselves minors) sharing this content, there is no malice in the action. To them, the interactions are very normal and even social in nature. The ramifications are too nuanced and abstract to consider until it's far too late. Meanwhile, pedophiles are outright sadists.
This same mechanism can be seen in online circles that end up inducting minors and exposing them to this sexual content. For many of the members (many of whom are themselves minors) sharing this content, there is no malice in the action. To them, the interactions are very normal and even social in nature. The ramifications are too nuanced and abstract to consider until it's far too late. Meanwhile, pedophiles are outright sadists.
Actually I do moralize, and it's on the basis of material costs and conservation of energy. An objective grounds for morals that defines good as the effective and efficient use of time, resources, and the fostering of positive interactions, emotions, the improvement of oneself, cooperative acts between people that work to further the prosperity of everyone involved, and evil as the exact opposite. Waste, short term gain for greater long term loss, the underutilization of resources, or senselessly wasting people's time, or general avoidable inefficiency, and so on. This model stands up to any and all scrutiny because of how inherently intuitive it is, and it will generally line up with most people's moralizations again, because of how inherently intuitive it is. You may misinterpret the scope of what I mean and read this as being very shallow or surface level. An example being a food factory that inadvertantly begins contaminating their product with a harmful chemical in exchange for making food 10x as efficiently. Despite on the surface this seeming positive morally according to this model, one must consider they resulting fallout, the harm inflicted on people, the time, resources, and efficiency in other facets of society lost from this fallout, and thus the negative effects that heavily outweigh what seemed on the surface to be a positive according to the definition. I don't claim to be an objective arbiter of morality or even to be able to accurately gauge real life 'good and evil' by my own model totally, but the ludicrous argument that without religion you can't moralize has always been garbage that shows how aimless some people who need belief in a higher power to function on an emotional level are. The simple fact is that you're working with someone else's moral model if not your own. And that's coming from someone otherwise very sympathetic to these kinds of viewpoints. In fact, actually I would argue that it's impossible to objectively moralize against homosexuality without evolution. Doesn't get much simpler than "homosex means no babies means we all die". Which is exactly why your argument falters when the presented alternative is entirely faith based.
...And by the way, yes, this means that I consider faggotry to be literally evil. Ostensibly for the reasons I outlined in what this post is replying to, just projected onto greater society. It's an inefficient use of resources, and faggots generally inflict harm on the rest of the group by existing. They are a net negative to tolerate.
