Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

F3nd0 wrote

In case you list those as his negative points, I'd like to elaborate them in his defence.

He said he is "skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] pedophilia harms children"

It seems reasonable to be sceptical of that until proven wrong. He continued¹ by writing that ‘the arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary’, and in his later comment on paedophilia² he writes:

‘There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

‘Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue.’

Some of his remarks on the matter are questionable, but altogether there is more reason in them than multiple people who have complained about them have cared to see.

He said of people with Down syndrome, "If you'd like to love and care for a pet that doesn't have normal human mental capacity, don't create a handicapped human being to be your pet. Get a dog or a parrot..."

This is preceded by another quote³, which says that ‘There are people who argue for carrying these fetuses to term by citing how moving it is to love and care for them afterwards. Maybe it is, but that amounts to treating a human being as a pet. The first step in loving a human being is to choose to make that being more capable, not less.’

As I see it, he did not call them pets, but drew the comparison to criticise some people for treating them as such. It appears that the quote is no longer online, and it was replaced with a different, clarified message⁴, that reads:

‘According to Wikipedia, Down's syndrome is a combination of many kinds of medical misfortune. Thus, when carrying a fetus that is likely to have Down's syndrome, I think the right course of action for the woman is to terminate the pregnancy.

‘That choice does right by the potential children that would otherwise likely be born with grave medical problems and disabilities. As humans, they are entitled to the capacity that is normal for human beings. I don't advocate making rules about the matter, but I think that doing right by your children includes not intentionally starting them out with less than that.

‘When children with Down's syndrome are born, that's a different situation. They are human beings and I think they deserve the best possible care.’


ziq wrote

Children are completely unable to consent to sex so how can it be 'voluntary' for them to be raped?

I can't tell if you're a pedo or just a serial debater but stop this shit either way.


F3nd0 wrote

Children are completely unable to consent to sex so how can it be 'voluntary' for them to be raped?

Legally they are unable to consent (and I suppose there's a good reason for that), but not ‘completely’ unable. Suppose a case with two victims of paedophilia:

  • The first one may feel very uncomfortable about the whole thing, and be coerced into the act using threats and violence.
  • The second one may not be in distress and may even enjoy the act, possibly due to kind approach from the adult's side.

I firmly believe that the first victim would suffer and be left with deep mental (and possibly physical) scars, much more so than the second victim. That is not to say the second victim is mature enough to be sexually active (I leave that decision to people with appropriate knowledge), but it's pretty clear that more harm is done to the first one. In that regard, there is a form of consent, and it's an important factor.


throwaway wrote (edited )

I can guarantee you that your second victim will come to regret their decision (if you can call it such - children are not capable of making such a decision, and should never be put in a situation in which they have to) deeply.

There is no way that fucking children is alright. Don't defend this sick, twisted view. There is no good way to be a paedophile, they should all be placed against a wall and shot by the dawn of day.


F3nd0 wrote

I feel like you misunderstood my comment. Nowhere did I say paedophilia was okay; I have simply asserted that it's not a black & white affair, but rather one with different possible shades. (And given that darker is worse, it could be black, several very dark shades of gray & white, for all I know. I make no assertions on that part.)


throwaway wrote

I got what you're saying, I just don't think you should be apologizing and making light of something as horrible as pedophilia. There's only one good pedophile, and that's the dead one.


ziq wrote (edited )

Edit: I don't feel like being raddle's attack dog any more.


GrimWillow wrote

ok seriously, you're so confused about why people are calling you a pedo apoligizer, I'll point out where you went wrong:

The second one may not be in distress and may even enjoy the act, possibly due to kind approach from the adult's side.

possibly due to kind approach from the adult's side.

due to kind approach from the adult's side

kind approach

The part you missed is that there is no kind approach.


AgitatedStatesOfAmazement wrote (edited )

Older relatives having power isn't the only reason children can't consent.

He also said he thought people not being ok with adults fucking children was a symptom of "clingy parents being afraid to let their children go" or something to that effect.

You don't have to defend every shitty thing someone does just because you agree with their philosophy on software licenses.