So that slippery slope wasn't so slippery after all eh?

[TheContrarian]

Cast your mind back a few years, specifically to the religious opponents to same-sex marriage and their argument that it would pave the way for the normalisation of paedophilia and bestiality in society?

Remember how all the progressives jumped on this for the horrible slander apparently was?  "OMFG that's a ridiculous slippery slope you've got there!" etc?

Turns out, they weren't far off the mark after all.  Acceptance of paedophilia, the new social justice issue of our time.

Thanks leftists, you are basically making poes out of yourselves at this point.

[Even Then]

One article from half a year ago constitutes all of the social left now. We've always been at war with Eastasia.

[TheContrarian]

A journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Do you honestly think Salon represents all progressives?

[TheContrarian]

Their rhetoric isn't out of step with the usual horrific bilge that comes out of other segments of the progressive movement these days, so yeah.

As the left slips further and further into ridiculousness verging on self-parody, it's hard to find an objective yardstick.

So, give it three years and when this crap is all over social media and NAMBLA are hosting rallies on the whitehouse lawn, i'll bump this thread so you can see just how far you've gone off the deep end in the meanwhile.

Enjoy the dissonance

[SCarpelan]

Paedophile != child molester. The article is an example of a movement that supports people who come out as paedophiles and get therapy for their desires instead of indulging in them. There is a clear difference between this and a movement supporting child molestation. Come back when those NAMBLA types become accepted in the Social Justice movement and then you will have an actual point.

[TheContrarian]

Paedophile != child molester. The article is an example of a movement that supports people who come out as paedophiles and get therapy for their desires instead of indulging in them

I can take that sentence, change out one noun and it's EXACTLY what practitioners of Gay reparative therapy say about their mental abuse.

[SCarpelan]

With the difference that the "reparative therapy" uses unethical, non-scientific methods and gays can indulge their sexual orientation with people who can actually consent so judging their desires at all is unethical.

Just because two ideas can be expressed with similar sentences they don't necessarily have similar moral and ethical considerations.

[TheContrarian]

With the difference that the "reparative therapy" uses unethical, non-scientific methods and gays can indulge their sexual orientation with people who can actually consent so judging their desires at all is unethical.

Just because two ideas can be expressed with similar sentences they don't necessarily have similar moral and ethical considerations.

You've overlooked the simple point.  Consent need not enter into this as a concept, as the specific sexual desires are irrelevant.

The point is that (I would assume) you are opposed to gay reparative therapy, and also that you would deny that a homosexual person's primary sexual attraction can be permanently changed. 

So what makes you think that a paedophile is suddenly a special case and that their primary sexual orientation is malleable without the extreme and fucking unpleasant methods used in GRT?

Surely if this is a matter of identity and not something one can change, then that's a foot in the door for social justice crusaders and we can start down the path of granting them rights and acceptance and criminalising anyone who dares criticise them?

[SCarpelan]

I'm not saying their orientation can be changed. I'm saying it can probably be suppressed which is probably unhealthy for them and increases their need for more therapy. Unfortunately for the paedophiles them not suppressing their desires causes a huge amount of harm to others so that is not a viable option.

[TheContrarian]

I'm not saying their orientation can be changed. I'm saying it can probably be suppressed which is probably unhealthy for them and increases their need for more therapy. Unfortunately for the paedophiles them not suppressing their desires causes a huge amount of harm to others so that is not a viable option.

So like, conditioning a homosexual to be celibate?

[The_Queen]

I think the big thing that Contrarian is kind of overlooking is consent. Two grown adults can consent to sexual relations. Children on the other hand lack the mental capacity to consent, let alone realize what is even happening.

[SCarpelan]

I'm not saying their orientation can be changed. I'm saying it can probably be suppressed which is probably unhealthy for them and increases their need for more therapy. Unfortunately for the paedophiles them not suppressing their desires causes a huge amount of harm to others so that is not a viable option.

So like, conditioning a homosexual to be celibate?

Precisely. The difference is that a homosexual doesn't harm others by not being celibate. A non-celibate paedophile does. That's why it's ethical to cause mental harm to one and not the other by forcing them to celibacy.

[TheContrarian]

I think the big thing that Contrarian is kind of overlooking is consent. Two grown adults can consent to sexual relations. Children on the other hand lack the mental capacity to consent, let alone realize what is even happening.

I think the thing you're overlooking is reading what I've actually written.  My point is that, regardless the specifics of the sexual attraction, the proposed method of dealing with paedophiles is essentially no different to the methods that are considered psychological abuse when applied to homosexuals.

Who or what you are attracted to is totally irrelevant in this.

But if we're going to take archaic and harmful methods that were previously applied to homosexuals and now apply them to paedophiles instead...chemical castration is a thing.

[The_Queen]

I think the big thing that Contrarian is kind of overlooking is consent. Two grown adults can consent to sexual relations. Children on the other hand lack the mental capacity to consent, let alone realize what is even happening.

I think the thing you're overlooking is reading what I've actually written.  My point is that, regardless the specifics of the sexual attraction, the proposed method of dealing with paedophiles is essentially no different to the methods that are considered psychological abuse when applied to homosexuals.

Who or what you are attracted to is totally irrelevant in this.

But if we're going to take archaic and harmful methods that were previously applied to homosexuals and now apply them to paedophiles instead...chemical castration is a thing.

No, you're missing the point. You want to say that this is a slippery slope and the new social justice issue. Thus, all I have to do is present a meaningful distinction to show that it will not become that. Consent is a very meaningful distinction in the realm of sex... You're now attempting to pull a paragon and goal post shift to this tangent that you went on about comparing therapy for pedophiles to reparative therapy for being LGBTQ.

Try again.