LMAO So mammals are capable of higher reasoning? You're treading onto moonbat territory with that one, my friend. Dogs can be TRAINED through condidtional response, positive feedback, etc. But with this response to the morals regarding pedophilia- And a great many feel it isn't morally wrong, so your point is without any great substance. Some feel it is and some feel it isn't -- so what? You've firmly established yourself as a sick fuck. Many of your other arguments are explained here: http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2006/04/strategies-for-dealing-with-denial.html It is important to reiterate that the use of postmodern rhetoric is usually a desperate attempt on the part of the denier when he recognizes that logic, reason, and reality actually argue against his beliefs or purposes. This strategy can often take the form of redefining or distorting language and ideas so that they conform to ones pre-existing attitudes and emotions. EXAMPLE: "Everything is relative anyway." We have nothing more to discuss. Have a good weekend.
Sparo: >I'm assuming they are different until proven otherwise. Ok, fair enough, but that in an of itself is no more valid than the position "I'm assuming they are the same until proven otherwise." >They are completely different behaviors, so the >default assumption should be that they have >different causes. Well we fundamentally disagree that they are "different behaviors". I find the age/gender/type of person that one is sexually attracted to to be *exactly* the same and would be interested in hearing solid arguments against that position. >Obviously if Haroki had scientific evidence for a >common genetic factor then that would be a >different story, but he doesn't. Once again, you've presented *exactly* the same amount of scientific evidence for your argument as he has for his. In that arena it kinda seems like a tie to me. >Are you seriously suggesting that (let's say) sexual >attraction to blondes and sexual attraction to horses >have the same genetic or evolutionary cause? A: I'm saying that they are wired genetically. I am not saying that they have the same genetic cause. B: Of course I will always acknowledge there are exceptions to the above -- attention seekers, low self esteem, "I like blondes because my favorite ex was a blond", etc. >If, as you claim, all sexual predilections are >genetically equivalent, we can restate Haroki's >argument as follows, substituting "blonde >women" for "men" and "animals" for "children": Yes. Precisely. >"Look at this recent study showing that there is >a genetic basis for men's attraction to blonde >women! Obviously, then, bestiality is untreatable." Once again we get into definitions -- if you mean "untreatable" in the sense that we will most likely be unable to make that attraction go away -- then yes, I agree with the above. >Ridiculous isn't it? I don't get that it's ridiculous at all. I don't think I'm going to make my attraction to athletic women go away anytime soon -- no matter what the treatment. Why would a guy who get's a woody for 11yo girls be any different. I truly don't understand. >Here's another example. You're saying all sexual >preferences are equivalent. What about food >preferences? Food preference are a far cry from sexual preferences -- a completely different category in my world, but I'll listen. >When I was a kid I liked ice cream, now I don't >anymore. However I don't like cilantro because of a >well understood genetic factor that causes it to taste >soapy. Preference for ice cream isn't the same as >preference for cilantro; one is amenable to change >whereas the other isn't. Just because they are both >food preferences doesn't mean they are the same >thing. Similarly for sexual preferences. (First, understand that I consider sexual preference to be a continuum -- some are *really* "straight" -- NO attraction to opposite sex -- and some fall more in the middle. Gays similarly distributed.) When you can show me a significant population of *really* gay and *really* straight people transitioning throughout their lives from gay to straight and visa/versa, I will give you some credit on the ice cream thing -- it's just not what we see day to day. Food cravings change often as our age changes. Currently not buying the ice cream argument. No, I still see it as a cilantro thing. JB
Haroki: >So mammals are capable of higher reasoning? You used my desire and change of behavior to stay out of jail as and example of "higher reasoning". By that standard (and it's yours, not mine) every mammal that I know of is gifted with this reasoning. >Dogs can be TRAINED through conditional >response, positive feedback, etc. How do you think they got me out of the drug business? Sell drugs, go to jail -- conditional response, positive feedback, etc. >But with this response to the morals regarding pedophilia- > >And a great many feel it isn't morally wrong, so your point is >without any great substance. Some feel it is and some feel it >isn't -- so what? > >You've firmly established yourself as a sick fuck. I've established that I'm a sick fuck because some pedo's don't consider their actions morally wrong? ????????? All we've established is that you can't follow a logical train of thought -- YOU make a point and 'backed it up' by saying that there are pedos who feel it's morally wrong. I responded by saying that the proof of your point (pedos believing it's immoral) was weak because many DON'T consider it immoral. Yours is a "so what" arguing position -- your "evidence' proves nothing since it's only right part of the time. Get it -- I'M NOT SAYING IT'S IMMORAL .. THEY ARE SAYING ... And of course as mentioned previously, I don't understand how their position make me a sick fuck but then you do take some very strange positions from time to time. >We have nothing more to discuss. Have a good weekend. And you as well. JB
1- Moonbat alert...... 2- Yeah, I believe THAT. You're not smart enough to reason out that you might want to stay out of jail through the thought processes that a human might use. You're just like a fuckin' animal.... 3- You SHOULD be saying it's immoral, jackass. But you focus on *Everything is Relative* instead.
No, you spineless POS, he's a sick fuck when he said that some released pedos re offend, and his opinion of that is "so what?"
Haroki: >You SHOULD be saying it's immoral, jackass. Just in this thread alone, I've called pedo behavior "horrible" among other things. If you can't figure out my position on the morality of pedophiles who prey on children from the word "horrible" I can't help you. Apparently you're too stupid to read. JB
Confirmed -- too stupid to logically argue. Like mine, his "so what" had NOTHING to do with the pedos and EVERYTHING to do with the absolute weakness of your evidence. Bye bye. JB
Yeah, run away scum bag. It has EVERYTHING with pedos. He CLEARLY stated that "some re-offend and some don't---- so what?" But you're too spineless to admit that a "so what" answer to that is the most fucked up answer anyone could give. LMAO at the moonbat that thinks that dogs, etc have higher reasoning skills....