E) a grown adult having sex with a child is definitely harmful to them for their bodies and their mental development
G) children are not sexual beings before puberty, wtf are you talking about
H) most pedophiles would NOT protect them as a parent because most parents want to protect their children from pedophiles. Grooming/manipulation is not protecting. Sexual abuse is absolutely not protecting.
I) there are studies of how harmful viewing porn can be. And the creation of child porn is definitely harmful!
J) any “act” that is not inherently harmful… what act are you talking about ???? Because if it’s sex (btwn an adult and a child), or anything related to said sex, that’s harmful
K) there’s nuance to this. This is a childish thought. And like I said, your opinion
L) you thinking the restriction is harmful is your opinion
c) Punishing someone for something they cannot control cannot cause a change in their behaviour, therefore it is purely sadistic. That is not a matter of opinion.
d) You cannot conflate pedophilia and child abuse. A preference and an act are definitely not the same thing. Child abuse is inherently harmful and pedophilia is not. This is not a matter of opinion.
f) That sex is not inherently dangerous is not a matter of opinion. Sexual activity of various kinds occurs without harm in all kinds of circumstances, including, for instance, between children. If you have a better suggestion about how to deal with the inherent risk, that's a separate matter. Even if your solution isn't mine, it's definitely not tighter and tighter controls. Phycology is clear on this point, that exposure therapy reduces risk and avoidance increases risk.
k) You're wrong. Possession in and of itself *literally* can't harm someone else. To get from possession to harm, someone else must be involved ffs. Acquisition, selling, creation, procurement, all are different things then possession.
l) The first part of categorically true. The second may be debatable but i don't see any possible argument that tyranny isn't inherently more harmful than any particular crime, not least of which is bc it harms all of society indefinitely.
--
e) That's not even remotely plausible. In the first instance you've ignored several combinations of size and shape that don't even offer the potential for physical harm. The second point may be debated but for generations in many societies throughout history it has occurred and it hasn't been harmful. Just a hundred years ago it was common in the US, for instance, and nearly no one considered it harmful. Why? Because there were no symptoms of harm. Without negative effects, what harm are you even talking about?
g) Only a very few are not. Sexual exploration is natural *and always has been* way before puberty.
h) I explicitly sayd notwithstanding the current topic. Grooming is not intervene harmful, manipulation is not intermittently harmful, and *everything* parents do is grooming and manipulation, just not all sexually. Sexual abuse is harmful by definition, and not what this post is about.
i) Viewing porn cam be harmful, as an addiction, not simply in the viewing itself. But you've also ignored the studies about how urges can be mitigated. Whether its creation is harmful relies on other factors, which aren't part of this point.
j) Can be harmful does not imply is harmful, and to make that jump is to ignore actual reality. But that's not what this point was about.
k) Exploring the nuances is everything this post is about, and you're the one ignoring them.
l) Unnecessary restriction is inherently harmful. You've corrected something i never sayd... again.
This is really sickening? I’m shocked to be the only one commenting..
What's sickening about it? The acknowledgement of reality?
Your “thoughts” are not reality. That is your weird perception
Do please point out which item you believe to be factually incorrect.
C, d, f, k, l are all your opinions, not facts.
E) a grown adult having sex with a child is definitely harmful to them for their bodies and their mental development
G) children are not sexual beings before puberty, wtf are you talking about
H) most pedophiles would NOT protect them as a parent because most parents want to protect their children from pedophiles. Grooming/manipulation is not protecting. Sexual abuse is absolutely not protecting.
I) there are studies of how harmful viewing porn can be. And the creation of child porn is definitely harmful!
J) any “act” that is not inherently harmful… what act are you talking about ???? Because if it’s sex (btwn an adult and a child), or anything related to said sex, that’s harmful
K) there’s nuance to this. This is a childish thought. And like I said, your opinion
L) you thinking the restriction is harmful is your opinion
c) Punishing someone for something they cannot control cannot cause a change in their behaviour, therefore it is purely sadistic. That is not a matter of opinion.
d) You cannot conflate pedophilia and child abuse. A preference and an act are definitely not the same thing. Child abuse is inherently harmful and pedophilia is not. This is not a matter of opinion.
f) That sex is not inherently dangerous is not a matter of opinion. Sexual activity of various kinds occurs without harm in all kinds of circumstances, including, for instance, between children. If you have a better suggestion about how to deal with the inherent risk, that's a separate matter. Even if your solution isn't mine, it's definitely not tighter and tighter controls. Phycology is clear on this point, that exposure therapy reduces risk and avoidance increases risk.
k) You're wrong. Possession in and of itself *literally* can't harm someone else. To get from possession to harm, someone else must be involved ffs. Acquisition, selling, creation, procurement, all are different things then possession.
l) The first part of categorically true. The second may be debatable but i don't see any possible argument that tyranny isn't inherently more harmful than any particular crime, not least of which is bc it harms all of society indefinitely.
--
e) That's not even remotely plausible. In the first instance you've ignored several combinations of size and shape that don't even offer the potential for physical harm. The second point may be debated but for generations in many societies throughout history it has occurred and it hasn't been harmful. Just a hundred years ago it was common in the US, for instance, and nearly no one considered it harmful. Why? Because there were no symptoms of harm. Without negative effects, what harm are you even talking about?
g) Only a very few are not. Sexual exploration is natural *and always has been* way before puberty.
h) I explicitly sayd notwithstanding the current topic. Grooming is not intervene harmful, manipulation is not intermittently harmful, and *everything* parents do is grooming and manipulation, just not all sexually. Sexual abuse is harmful by definition, and not what this post is about.
i) Viewing porn cam be harmful, as an addiction, not simply in the viewing itself. But you've also ignored the studies about how urges can be mitigated. Whether its creation is harmful relies on other factors, which aren't part of this point.
j) Can be harmful does not imply is harmful, and to make that jump is to ignore actual reality. But that's not what this point was about.
k) Exploring the nuances is everything this post is about, and you're the one ignoring them.
l) Unnecessary restriction is inherently harmful. You've corrected something i never sayd... again.