LGBTQ+ Rights / Similar Discussion

@fssp#12262

Quote

I am confident that the majority of citizens and university freshmen surveyed for their political beliefs can reliably assign themselves either to the political left or to the political right with a considerable degree of reliability.

Then we can agree to disagree. I don’t think that the average American can accurately identify themselves as being “far left”, “left”, “right”, or “far-right”. Especially considering the fact that the overton window in American politics is so shifted towards the right that a good chunk of Americans believed that Obama was “far-left”. What I am broadly saying is that different people obviously have different ideas on what defines “left” or “right”, and you just agreed to my point that Americans have a poor understanding of political labelling. I wouldn’t call Bernie Sanders a “far-leftist”, but an American “conservative” (Republican) or “liberal” (Democrat) have defined Sanders as such and on a multitude of occasions called him a Communist/Socialist, even though most of his policies would fall under the blanket term “Social Democrat”.
Of course this discussion is much more nuanced than this, but in broad strokes I would certainly claim that this is a good summary. And as I mentioned in my previous comment another aspect of this conversation is the fact that the Traditional Political Spectrum (the one used in this context) oversimplifies the nuances of politics, whereas a more nuanced approach, which certainly still has its faults, would be a double-axis model.
Where would a Libertarian (economic and values) group themselves in this survey? They’re on the right due to their economic-leaning, but on the left due to their liberal values? Same could be said for pretty much every other political label. Plenty of self-identified “conservatives” (52% of Republicans if my memory serves me right) support a $15 minimum wage. A majority of Americans (incl. A rough half of Republicans) support a single-payer system in most polling. My point being that labels are utterly useless in this context, and we should instead be questioning people’s opinions on a variety of topics and afterwards identifying their beliefs with a label.

Quote

The shift towards liberalism in America comes with increased polarization between urbanized and rural counties in the United States, which means that academia is becoming increasingly detached from much of the country as it continues to identify with liberal politics (and will likely become more liberal in the future, if the information collected on professors indicates anything about the direction in which universities are heading).

I agree with the first part, but I don’t understand how would you amend this issue (if it could even be called an issue). And I don’t necessarily disagree with the notion that university faculty and students have indeed become more liberal, but my contention is that this is a natural progression. My paragraph and in my previous comment was my attempt to point out the shortcomings in your referenced study, and to assert that this is a more nuanced issue that can’t simply be surveyed by asking “are you x”, which was something that the director of HERI also noted. A quote I also quoted in my previous comment: “The attention the study is getting may be misplaced, as there may be trivial reasons for the shift towards liberalism”. Such “reasons” perhaps being that liberals are more inclined to apply for university (and thus by extension become professors), or that liberals tend to be wealthier thus being able to attend without cost being a hurdle, or perhaps science simply “agrees” with liberals. Which was why I used the example of climate change as a “liberal” issue.

Quote

I assumed that you would've made the connection by understanding why I referenced a nation which has "the youngest age of consent in the world" as opposed to "Scandinavia or just half of Europe as an example [of comparatively young age of consent laws]" when none of those European nations had age of consent laws that neared the age of 11.

And you point being? My point was that it was absurd to point to a socially-conservative country from Africa versus pointing to similar cultures/societies like Western Europe because that would certainly be misleading in that you (whether intenitonally or not) implied that only “backwards” cultures and countries like Nigeria have the age of consent below 18.

Quote

I am continuing this discussion because you see a need to continue implying that pederasty habitually involved a younger male "usually in his teens" when various historical studies taken on the subject show that there was a regular variance in the age of boys made to participate in these relationships, if not to the extent of a social custom, as demonstrated by inquires made into these phenomena, let alone the etymology of the word "pederasty." (Sources are provided in my previous reply.) If you truly know nothing of this subject, then why do you continue to entertain it? Clearly, we do not agree on the topic's relevance to the discussion at hand, nor is there a shared interest in the history behind this subject.

I don’t care what historical studies you reference when I was simply going off the consensus written on the Wikipedia article in which you linked. I never claimed that it didn’t happen to prepubescent boys, but I did assert that (perhaps) in a majority of cases it was indeed a teen. Let’s simply end it here.

Quote

Chemical castration.

I would argue that we should seek treatment for their illness before mutilating their body. Not all pedophiles want to rape children, and I think it’s sad if the first thing to do would be to castrate them because of the stigma against them. Nobody is going to seek “treatment” if the thing you do is remove their balls or throw acid on their pussy.

@billy7oblos#12272

Quote

the concept of LGBT did not exist, no one would have claimed to be gay (you can claim it but you need to prove it too)

You are the one that makes the claim that LGBT was constant through time, so naturally you need to prove your claim.

I am not making a claim at all actually, I am citing history. Its a well known fact that people did not call themselves gay (or have gay sex) [at large] in the us

I mentioned in my last comment that if you once again said I had the the burden of proof I would quote you the first time you claimed that the number of LGBTQ+-people is growing:

Quote

LGBTQ+ includes a growing number of disgusting 'fetishes' such as maps, furrys and many more 'fetishes' we just made up.

the only reason lgbtq+ is increasing is because we normalized it, just like we are normalizing pedophilia and zoophilia

Feel free to look up the dates of said quotes. And again, please read these two links thoroughly before you engage in your nonensical attempts at shifting the burden of proof to me:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

The burden of proof lies upon the one making a claim. It is not my sworn duty to disprove a claim you make. I can’t say that God is real and then proceed to argue that – you – need to disprove me.

Quote

I don't say anything other than what is in history: (in the us) there were no gay rights, and no people identifying as gay.

[…] Saying "its a millennial old practice" is irrelevant because it did not exist [at all] in the majority of cultures.

Its a well known fact that people did not call themselves gay (or have gay sex) [at large] in the us

There were no humans until 300 years ago because the word “human” dates back to the early 18th century, therefore no “human” could identify as “human.

Quote

that does not mean it isn't influenced by society or that the number has remained consistent.

And I still have yet to say that it isn’t influenced by society. Do you like feeding on straws?

Quote

do you even believe in morality? watching child porn does not have to be supporting the uploader, you aren't giving the rapeist money directly or indirectly. as for the animals, we enslave animals to do our work and we don't HAVE to eat them in 2020 north America. And what if the animal comes to the human for sex? does it become ok?

we kill bugs and flies to feel more comfortable, and we kill animals specifically to make clothes and shoes. we don't NEED nutrition from the animal nowadays in north america, but we just like to eat animals. Is that really as bad as beastiality? with that logic here is a way you can have sex with an animal without hurting it: just wait till it dies

yea but you didn't do the rape in this example so you aren't "taking advantage" you would not be harming anyone at all sooo

Did you actually read my comment, or did you just attack a strawman again? We don’t enslave animals to do our work in the Western world in the 21st century besides for leisure. If you want to argue that having a dog as a pet is literal torture to the dog, then be my guest. Also, slavery implies that the slaver does not give the slave remuneration. Do you want to give a saddle horse money or…. Feed like…. Hay..?
And just like my comments above. I never said that eating animals is moral. To quote myself:
“I don’t necessarily disagree that it might be a better idea to be vegan in order to avoid killing overall, but so far, meat substitutes haven’t come far enough to replace meat.”
You, yourself, said in the quote above that we kill animals specifically for clothes and shoes – so you acknowledge that there is indeed a purpose in the killing. I also think it’s hilarious to compare dogs, sheep, cows and pigs to bugs and flies. Yeah, a fly has the same intellectual capacity as a horse. Lmao

I can’t think of a scenario where an animal would come to “the human for sex” besides animals “raping” humans (or not in this case). But I have a hard time believing you actually read my paragraphs because in my last comment I said that animals can’t consent to sex because we don’t regard animals as having the mental aptitude to understand the consequences that might be involved (or the fact that they can’t properly communicate). There’s reason for the debate as to whether or not a low-IQ (<70) individual can sexually consent.

By watching child porn you are indirectly supporting the uploader via views or the acknowledgement that one wants more of said content. If I were to watch somebody taped being tortured without anybody else knowing that I watch it would still mean that I am exploiting other’s suffering for my own pleasure.

Quote

with that logic here is a way you can have sex with an animal without hurting it: just wait till it dies

I have never claimed that fucking a dead animal is immoral. Funny enough, a quick google search noted that in the UK, it’s not illegal to have oral sex with a dead animal.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politi…l-10510869.html

Quote

oversimplification. The point about KSA still applies. About the gay people in KSA, can you prove that? (no and the suicide and depression statistics are also against it) If there are gay people in the KSA, they are probably less than 0.1% (and you would need to prove otherwise)

Saying “oversimplification” and then not providing a reason or example of me “oversimplifying” your argument is next to meaningless. I have no idea what y ou’re claiming I am oversimplifying, and I don’t know why you think I am oversimplifying. And why would your point still apply? Saying “it just does” is absurd.
And once again: it is on the one making a claim to prove their claim, not for others to disprove it. You claimed that gays don’t exist (or at least to a big extent) in the KSA. My argument was that I think that there is a proportionally big percentage of gays in the KSA as there are in the US. The difference being that the ones in the KSA are repressing their sexuality (either because of government, religion or culture) whereas the US is more accepting of it meaning you can be more open (again, this is why “coming out of the closet” is a common phrase).

Quote

Bringing up history is a bad argument because of the huge amounts of abuse

And I never claimed otherwise. Did you see my comment about your three points being a strawman?

Quote

you cant prove that there are gay people in the KSA, less than 27 people received the death penalty TOTAL lol, why would you compare that to natzi Germany

I never compared them to Nazi Germany. I asked why they couldn’t be compared, and you didn’t even answer my question. I also think it’s important to note that Saudi Arabia does not have codified criminal laws. According to the country’s interpretation of sharia, a married man who commits sodomy, or a non-muslim who engages in sodomy with a Muslim, can be stoned to death. And the fact that the KSA is a highly unreliable source just speaks levels of your clear cherry-picking. And the fact that you keep bringing up this point just further proves my point in that individuals would not “come out of the closet” if that would mean they get stoned to death.
I would also like to see your source for those “less than 27 people” who received the death penalty.

Quote

I did not check all the books/studies you cited but the ones I did check were written before 2015. also none has an answer to why people are gay

Yeah. I don't get why you had to mention that they were "written" before 2015, as if that has some sort of meaning? But the consensus is leaning towards biologically-based theories. I think it’s best to let the scientists make the conclusions.

@anzu#12284 Why? Does this mean I can't watch lesbian porn?

@billy7oblos#12402 “Making up homosexuality” means making up the word, not the practice. I never argued that the word, or our direct understanding of the word “homosexuality” or “gay” has been ingrained in culture before the modern age. Humans have existed for 100s of thousands of years, but the term “human” originated less than 300 years ago.

Quote

Its crazy how you gave the example of god (especially because god would be the only example of something that causality theoretically does not apply to

And the example is still valid. I think we live in a simulation, prove me wrong.

Quote

because THAT IS EXACTLY what you are doing, you are claiming something existed by default and telling ME to prove you wrong.

No. I rebuked your point (being that homosexuality has increased) with my claim that it has remained relatively constant, but that the practice is now more open due to acceptance. I already showed you that you made the claim first, so I don’t get why you continually want me to disprove you, when you have yet to give proof. I even quoted you lol.

Quote

Gay people don't exist by DEAFAULT,

yea but they were still human, people didn't just have gay sex and call themselves something else.

The majority of the scientific community disagree with you (see last two comments). As I noted earlier, just because something isn’t described doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Gravity wasn’t described in detail before Newton but it still existed. Humans did still exist even though the term “human” only originates back 300 years.

Quote

its not logical because they cant reproduce and EVEN if it was possible we have significant evidence against it; what does it mean to that most societies either were against homosexuality or did not even know about it (12%) .

Saying “It’s not logical” does not mean that something is illogical without further justification. when you don’t give anything that supports your claim you’re merely arguing with your feelings. It’s not “logical” to have intercourse without the intent of procreating yet that’s standard practice for everybody.
Also: citation needed for that 12% number, and the fact that “most societies did not even know about it (homosexuality)”.

Quote

Here is an example: if zoophilia was popularized and 5% of american society 'came out' as zoophiles, would their disputant need to prove that zoophiles are increasing? (zoophiles would claim that they were in the 'closet' because of stigma) The answer is surely no: the zoohpiles would need to prove that they existed in a constant number through history, and they would not be able to although (like you) they would probably mention some zoophiles from the past.

whenever i say influenced by society in this thread i mean influenced mainly/fully by society.

The one who makes the first claim has the burden of proof. I don’t get why that is so hard to fathom.

It highly depends on what you mean by “increasing”. When you say “increasing” I interpret it as though people are – turning – gay. If I were to use the wording “increasing” I would be refering to the number of openly homosexual persons – in that, as society becomes more accepting, they will “come of out the closet”.

I can only point to the scientific consensus that homosexuals are mostly a consequence of biology. There is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial, biological causes of sexual orientation than social ones, especially for males.

Frankowski BL; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence (June 2004). "Sexual orientation and adolescents". Pediatrics. 113 (6): 1827–32. doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1827. PMID 15173519.

Bailey JM, Vasey PL, Diamond LM, Breedlove SM, Vilain E, Epprecht M (2016). "Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Science". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 17 (21): 45–101. doi:10.1177/1529100616637616. PMID 27113562. LeVay, Simon (2017). Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199752966.

Balthazart, Jacques (2012). The Biology of Homosexuality. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199838820.

Quote

yes i did read your comment, and none of my arguments have been strawman arguments

Okay. Can you point to when I said:

“There exists - a – gay gene”
“It (homosexuality) has nothing to do with how you were raised”
“LGBTQ+ people are exclusively a product of genetics.”

Quote

""we dont enslave animals" Yes we do we milk cows [inhumanely] and cramp thousands of chickens into rooms so we can eat them later, we give them chemicals so they breed more and genetically engineer fish (and cut off dogs pp).

Good point. I agree, which is why I support meat alternatives like Impossible Foods or Beyond Meat. I look forward to the day that all real meat comes from animals who’ve had a good life, and everything else is either grown or made in a lab.

Quote

Personally i wouldn't say 'enslaving' animals is bad (as long as its not inhumane) because animals don't understand.

So you agree that animals – can’t consent to sex because they “don’t understand”.

Quote

Also feeding your slave is not 'remuneration', its keeping them alive to do more work.

Feeding a slave is still a form remuneration, especially if the feed is tasty, and not just for nourishment. How would you go about giving your slave horse, dog or cat “remuneration” besides feed? It’s known that some sheep/cattle dog breeds literally get depressed if they don’t have any work to do (e.g. herding)

Quote

As for the consent, i too once tried to use that argument and it failed horribly

Your example doesn’t negate my argument. I said, and you just agreed to it yourself in the quote above, that animals (e.g. horses) don’t have the mental aptitude to consent to a sexual act, which is the same reasoning why a 6-year old can’t consent to it as well.
The reasoning you give for it being different than a child consenting is also not a rebuttal to what I said. The reason killing an animal is considered different than killing a person is again due to intellect, and killing an (intelligent) animal mercilessly is still illegal and will land you an animal cruelty charge. And just because it’s a full-grown horse doesn’t negate the fact that horses, again, aren’t smart enough to consent. This is why I pointed to the debate about whether or not a low-iq individual (>70) can consent to sex.

Quote

As for the rules of consent being made around iq, animals can have a higher iq than 70 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44559261

Except IQ tests aren’t meant for animals and according to her own instructor and caregiver, Francine Patterson,
“it is specious to compare her IQ directly with that of a human infant – because – gorillas develop locomotor abilities earlier than humans and many IQ tests for infants require mostly motor responses. Gorillas and humans also mature at different rates, so using a gorilla’s chronicial age to comput their IQ results in a score is not very helpful for comparative purposes.”

https://web.archive.org/web/2018071217…s/teok_book.pdf

Quote

and one more thing: its possible to make it that there are no consequences from having sex with an animal. I feel like you are avoiding the real question here: if an animal came willingly to have sex with a human and there were no consequences [to the animal], would you have a problem with it and why (if you reject that sexual deviation is wrong)

I never said that in all instances there are consequences from having sex with an animal (for the animal specifically). This has never been the focal point of my argument.

And yes, I would still have a problem with an animal going to a person for intercourse, because animals can’t consent. You’re arguing from a merely utilitarian viewpoint which isn’t that useful in the context of this debate.

Lastly: I don’t subscribe to the idea that sexual deviation is inherently wrong. I believe that fuking beings whom are incapable of sexual consent. If you want to argue that children or animals can indeed consent to sexual intercourse, then be my guest.

Quote

you would not be exploiting the person though, the person is already exploited and has already suffered. Watching it wont hurt the person, and not watching it wont unrape them.

Exploit: “to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploit

You are exploiting the child who has been abused for viewing purposes by viewing said material. That’s why the material was filmed, and that’s what you’re engaging in.
How can you be certain that watching said material won’t hurt the person emotionally, in that they will know that other’s have partaken in distributing or watching their abuse. As I mentioned previously: when you watch content for pleasure you’re tacitly showing your approval of the content. If you like towatch lesbian porn, then you’re showing approval for the content, and this can help perpetuate the market for such material.

Now, if you’re going to argue that child porn could be used in a clinical setting for treatment and therapy, then you might get me to agree to some aspects.

Quote

are you claiming its moral (fucking a dead animal)? would you be ok with people getting married to dead animals?

I don’t understand why you switch from fucking a dead animal to marrying one. I would think that fucking a dead animal is worse.
No. It is not moral, nor would I necessairly think it is immoral in all contexts, because it heavily depends on when the line is drawn. Fucking a dead person is desecrating their corpse, so ultimately fucking a dead dog would be the same, yes? But since dogs don’t understand human concepts such as respect, then I would be torn between it being amoral (nothing to do with morals), or it being immoral. I would think that you would agree that fucking a tree isn’t rape, nor is fucking a dead tree trunk considered desecration. So it all really depends on where you draw the line.

Quote

You said "there are gay people in the ksa" when that doesn't really mean anything because there are probably WAY less gay people in ksa than in the us, meaning that homosexuality can still be linked mostly or entirely to society and how you were raised

That doesn’t negate the fact that there still are gay people in the KSA, and I would still contend that the percentage of the population is relatively equal to that of other more open societies like Western Europe. For my argument, it doesn’t matter whether someone is outwardly gay, suprpressing their sexuality or being persecuted, because being homosexual simply means you’re attracted to the same gender, and I hope you would agree that being gay is – not – a choice, because that is what the entirety of my argument relies upon.
So no, I still beg to differ that homosexuality is mostly or entirely linked to society and your upbringing. The scientific consensus agrees with me.

Quote

and yet they still have lower depression and suicide rates; things you claim come from repressing sexuality

And you continue to use this to support your argument, even though I have continually told you why this is a non sequitur. Do you believe that the only thing that causes people to suffer from depression and ultimately suicide is being gay?

Suicide is a deadly sin in all of the world’s major religions. 93% of the KSA are Muslim. If your religion, state or culture actively persecute you for your sexuality, then I doubt you would be outwardly expressing said sexuality. I wouldn’t put it past others for either fleeing the country or simply suppressing who you are.

Quote

my answer to why nazi Germany cant be compared was the amount of people who received the death penalty. The punishment for homosexuality in saudi arabia is the country's interpretation of sharia: they are punished either by stoning or lashing. This is not an "unreadable source"; its very clear

no, the law clearly is not against LGBT activism or "being gay" its against sodomy, lets remember that it was YOU who brought up the KSA so you cant exactly call me out on "cherry picking". Saudi arabia is a good example though because it is an ultra-conservative country and the only country that claims to have the sharia law as its legal system. As for the source of the death penalty. (i heard egypt is much more harsh on lgbt)

The law is not against LGBTQ activism or homosexuality? Please read this section before you make yourself sound even more silly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_righ…sex_sexual_acts

Saying that the law is not against something is a ridiculous notion. You can still discriminate against something without explicitly saying it. Drug war being a good example.
I also didn’t say it was an “unreadable source”. I said that the KSA is not a reliable source, and if you’re being genuine in this discussion you would agree. Also, you have yet to actually link the stats you’re spouting.

The KSA does not recognize same-sex marriage, domestic partnerships or civil unions. The government actively arrests people for being gay (e.g. in 2005 when 92 men were arrested and the sentences varied from fines to prison or lashings. The law derives from Sunni sharia. This is not to mention discrimination and harassment or censorship and education.
no, the law clearly is not against LGBT activism or "being gay" its against sodomy, lets remember that it was YOU who brought up the KSA so you cant exactly call me out on "cherry picking". Saudi arabia is a good example though because it is an ultra-conservative country and the only country that claims to have the sharia law as its legal system. As for the source of the death penalty. (i heard egypt is much more harsh on lgbt)

The reason why I called you out for cherry-picking is because you have yet to point to other sources beyond the government of Saudi Arabia. In your linked article, the one who is making the claim that the KSA is reducing the number of people put to death is a - governmental body -:

“Saudi Arabia "drastically" reduced the number of people it put to death last year, according to a governmental body.”

And this has been questioned by a variety of different groups:
"''The campaign group Reprieve warned that the number might increase this year.

'The decline can partly be attributed to the Covid-19 lockdown from February to April, when the government carried out no executions due to restrictions to control the virus,' it said.

'The government recommenced executions at an increased rate in the final quarter of 2020: approximately one-third of all executions last year were carried out in December alone.'

According to Amnesty International, Saudi Arabia put to death a record 184 people in 2019. Half were foreign nationals and six were women.'""

Quote

before the study debunking the gay gene came out

It has been known for many years that there is no single “gay gene”

@fssp#12406

Quote

I believe this to be an issue on the basis that increased polarization between urbanized and rural counties in the United States, if brought to such a degree, would almost certainly lead to a political fracture between regions depending on their lenience. Those who are "pushed" to the political right usually do so in response to agitation on behalf of the political left, particularly in response to extreme narratives published by academics which do not necessarily contrast with the generally moderate public, while self-identified "leftists" usually rank "right-wing extremists" as among the most urgent crises in our country. As for your argument regarding political labels, I believe that Americans who identify politicians having anything to do with democratic socialism as "far-left" demonstrates a considerable hostility to the shift towards liberalism in America in the minds of some voters.

Can you give an example of an “extreme narrative”?
And I don’t disagree with you saying that when right-wingers label social democrats as “far-left” shows hostility, and by extension, a fracture in US politics. However, that doesn’t negate my point that people ultimately can’t categorize these labels accurately, and the study you linked is therefore an absurdly simplified approach to a broader complex issue.

Quote

The political or geographic situation of Nigeria is irrelevant to why the country was referenced; Nigeria has the youngest age of consent in the world. I can't tell if you're intentionally undermining the point regarding this statistic by asserting what I was "trying to say" even though nothing of the sort was remotely mentioned in my post.

What isn’t irrelevant is that you pointing to a sociall-regressive country which is typically in the category of what people think of when we say “third world”. When you point to such a country you insinuate, whether intentionally or not, that only “backwards” or highly-conservative countries have a low sexual age of consent, because they simply just want to rape little kids legally.
This is why I continue to ask you why you didn’t point to a similar society like the countries I listed in Europe if your intention was to simply point to a country with a low age of consent. Just because you didn’t explicitly say something doesn’t mean that your words can’t tacitly imply something.

Quote

If you are of the persuasion that Wikipedia is the be-all and end-all for historical consensus, then I am willing to entertain that by citing various elements of the same article: "[the] extent of pederasty [...] is likely to have varied according to local custom and individual inclination," which goes on to exemplify Athenian law as recognizing age as factorial thus implying that laws for other cities of Ancient Greece were lacking in this regard; "[in the modern world] prepubescent and adolescent children are not socially equal to adults, and abusers emotionally manipulate the children they victimize."

Are you genuinely of the belief that I value Wikipedia as the “be-all and end-all” for historical consensus?
I think Wikipedia is a valuable tool for references or for summarization of a topic enabling one to get a more accurate portrayal of said consensus. One can then evaluate whether or not the Wikipedia article agrees with the literature, because every article includes a reference table at the bottom.
The fact that you were the first one to link to the Wikipedia speaks more about you than it does me for citing that very same article.

I think it is disingenious to omit the whole quote:

“Scholars have debated the role or extent of pederasty, which is likely to have varied according to local custom and individual inclination. Athenian law, for instance, recognized both consent and age as factors in regulating sexual behavior.”

Your quote excludes the wording that this is a debated topic by scholars, and not a consensus as your quote makes it seem. One might even call it cherry-picking. Also, I have still yet to claim that it was uncommon for older men to have sexual relations with minors (<13). All I have said is that the very same page you used as a source says that it was usually between a teenage boy and an adult male. When you cite a quote saying that it varied from city state to city state doesn’t refute my point when I recognize that, yes, it likely happened to minors as well.

Quote

Chemical castration does not entail the "removal of their [genitalia]" and would aim to decrease the sexual drive of a pedophile. The purpose of such a treatment would be to prevent somebody that does not want to hurt anyone from acting upon an urge so vile and detrimental to children. In short, decreasing the sexual drive of pedophiles and other offenders not only aims to remedy someone of their own illness, however seeks to make these individuals useful for society after undergoing a certain therapeutic routine.

You’re being obtuse. Removing one’s balls is a common synonym for castration. Chemical castration does indeed involve mutilation of the body, which I why I said I was against it instead of getting treatment for an individual suffering from this illness. You’re setting up a false dichotomy that we either mutilate the body of a pedophile or they will go on to rape innocent children. The solution should be treatment, and if that was not useful, then we can perhaps start to talk about forced castration. It seems as though you agree with this notion, but you contradict this viewpoint by starting your paragraph with a false dichotomy. Getting people help for their mental illness (and yes, pedophelia is considered a mental illness) should always be the go-to, and if you were to go the other route you simply continue down the same route of stigmatization – meaning that pedophiles won’t go for the “treatment” you wish they receive, and will instead be left to themselves to either act on their urges or supress them and suffer for it. I don’t want to compare pedophiles to homosexuals, because homosexuality is not an illness, but this is an issue which affects both parties, and the fact that pedophilia is often misconstrued as child molestation just further exemplifies that people have a hard time seeing it from the other side. Child molestation is horrible, and the perpetrator should be sentenced and afterwards get help for their illness. The best path would be for them to get treatment – before – they act on their urges.

Of course, if the individual in question wants their dick removed to remove their urges (I apparently have to state that I don’t mean this literally), then I would in most circumstances be fine with it.

But when you say

Quote

“I would not want any sort of "pedophile" around my child, or anyone else's child (if they had any significant sexual drive or were "attracted" to children).”

you demonstrate a one-sided view on the scenario, and perhaps even a misguided view on mental illness as a whole. There’s a reason why homosexuals have stayed in the closet until recently and why many have killed themselves due to the social stigma.

@fssp#12499

Quote

In recent times, universities have been known to offer courses which have been highly critized and seen as "poor scholarship decisions." These fields offered in the form of courses by various universities include "gender studies," "fat studies," and "queer studies," just to name a few. (More academic journals are specified by the article on the Sokal Squared scandal which makes a case for the increasing prevalence of "postmodern jargon" and "academic-babble" in some courses offered by universities.) In addition to the message of these articles being almost entirely nonsensical,

Good example, although I would have to note that these are examples of generally less-respected disciplines. The fields they submitted in were “cultural, queer, race, gender, fat, and sexuality studies” as opposed to general fields like psychology, biology or sociology. So I wouldn’t agree if you tried to claim that this means that the entirety of (American) academia has been corrupted by poor science.

Quote

concepts to the likes of "fat studies" are rather extreme and do not connect with the majority of the population. Rather, they are made fun of.

I don’t understand what you mean. Are you saying that “useless” degrees like “fat studies” are mocked regularly online, because I don’t think that means anything besides contrarians/edgelords/anti-SJW’s need something to point to instead of concrete policy from the left (as in: most anti-SJW’s are on the right as far as I’m aware). If that is indeed what you mean, then I don’t think that broadly encapsulates the entirety of the US populus.

Quote

Now you're just repeating yourself despite the fact that I have continually answered this question.
I mentioned Nigeria because it has the "youngest age of consent in the world," and no European country has an age of consent law that nears the age of eleven. If you believe that I am intentionally making an implication about African countries, that's your opinion and there's nothing I can do about that.

Because you continue to obfuscate and not answer my question. You have yet to answer why you couldn’t simply point to a similar culture/country like the ones I listed instead of attempting to smear my argument by pointing to a socially-backwards country. My question is not “why did you point to Nigeria”. The age of 11 is obviously below the consensus in the US and Europe, which is why I find it silly to point to a country with vastly different cultural characteristics when you could’ve simply listed a country from Europe (e.g. Germany) which has a low sexual age of consent, and you would’ve still gotten your point across. It all boils down to the fact that Nigeria is so vastly different to Europe and the US that they are irrelevant to the conversation.

It doesn’t look like you’ll acknowledge my question fairly, so feel free to end the discussion on this note.

Quote

My quote included that which was pertinent to the argument, because the original quote does not imply that there was no consensus of opinion that Athenian law "recognized both consent and age as factors in regulating sexual behavior." If there were truly no consensus on that subject, the sentence regarding Athens would not be separate from that which concerns how "scholars have debated the role or extent of pederasty."

Your quote included that which merely supported your argument, and you omitted the entirety of it to not stain your argument. The entirety of your argument relies on the example of Athens, which is why I said it was important to include the first part in that scholars don’t have a clear consensus on the role or extent of pederasty. I could just as easily say that the reason why they included Athens in the quote is because it was an outlier: an example of such variations across local customs and individual inclination. So yes, including the first part of the quote is indeed important for the context, and your exclusion of such is nothing less than cherry-picking.

Quote

To assert that [perhaps] in a majority of cases it favored either party places you in a state of abeyance, considering there were no records kept of those who were abused and it has already been established that certain territories of Ancient Greece exerted autonomy with respect to the laws concerning this subject.

I never said that the relationship favoured either party? I said in that all likelihood it was a teenage-adult relationship, which is why I cited the quote in the first place. You won’t get me to use the wording “favoured either party” because that implies that I support adult-teen relationships which is something I have never said I do or don’t. What I argued was that there is a clear distinction between an adult male fuking a 6-year old vs. an adult male fuking a 15-year old. I used the wording “perhaps” because all I could go off is the quote I originally cited, wherein I also mentioned that I do not have a enough knowledge on the subject to continue arguing with you, but then you boil this argument down to semantics, which has even less relevancy to the topic at hand.

Quote

Chemical castration is regarded by the majority of sources as a form of castration by way of chemical injection. The act of "removing one's balls" refers to surgical castration, and chemical castration does not involve acid as previously mentioned.

There is (and should continue to be) a social stigma against pedophiles in order to discourage them from any form of public participation until they are no longer attracted to children, which can be done by eliminating (or severely lowering) their sex drive. The social stigma against pedophiles is a natural reaction against something which can be physically and emotionally harming to children. Nobody should be "attracted" to a child in a sexual manner.

You’re still being obtuse, so I will continue to explain that “copping one’s balls off” is a synonym for general castration, at least that’s how I used it in this context, and yet again you’re trying to direct this conversation over to a semantics game. Whether that is literally removing your ballsack or simply injecting one with a chemical to hinder the production of x. I would assume by your wording that you think there should be a social stigma against depression, axiety and PTSD as you want to continue the stigmatisation of pedophiles, people suffering from a mental illness. I explained in previous comment why this is a bad idea and will only lead to more children getting abused, but your seemingly narrow vision only enables you to see the false dichotomy of “either we remove their balls” (I still have to explain that this is a synonym for removing their ability to reproduce) or more children will get removed.
Removing a part of one’s body is – not – treatment. If you get infection in your arm, the go-to is not to remove the arm itself unless it is the only way to avoid harming the body further. No pedophile will go in for your proposed treatment of cutting their dick off (not literally) and will thus keep an influx of child abusers. I’m sorry, but your viewpoint is why schizophrenic were imprisoned for their illness, why people suffering from depression have killed themselves en mass and why more children will continue to get abused.
I never claimed that anybody should be attracted to children, which is why I am advocating for treatment of their illness, so it is deeply disingenuine to insinuate that I have said otherwise:

Quote

Nobody should be "attracted" to a child in a sexual manner.

If the process of castration diminishes the sex drive of somebody who is at a risk of offending, how is that not a form of treatment?

Limiting the sex drive of pedophiles is an option – an option which will severely diminish the potential life quality they could get with an (adult) partner in the future if they were to be fully rehabilitated. Do you advocate for a social stigma against transgenderism or homosexuality? How’d that go for the last 100s of years? The social stigma against pedophiles should be directed towards child molesters. Those people should indeed get punished and get help for their urges. You’re simplying this issue so much that the only choice for you seems to be chemical castration. I wouldn’t be surprised if you told me that depressed people should simply stop being unhappy. Nobody should indeed be attracted to a child, but you're acting as if it's the individual's own fault for their mental illness. Being depressed is not a choice, being anxious is not a choice, being a pedophile is not a choice. Get people help when they need it. Period.

I would genuinely like you to steelman my arguments before you continue the conversation on both topics, because I honestly don’t believe you’re being sincere in this conversation.

@billy7oblos#12530

Quote

are you saying the simulation theory is invalid?

No. I used that as an example because you claimed that my “prove god isn’t real” quote was the only example of an appeal to ignorance that I could come up with. I simply supplied with another example.
You have yet to acknowledge that the buden of proof lies upon the one making the claim. You made the first claim that homosexuality is increasing, and the onus is therefore on you to prove said claim. This is why I asked you to prove to me that “God isn’t real” because you made an obvious attempt to shift the burden of proof on me to prove you wrong, when you made the claim in the first place. And no. My rebuttal that the percentage of homosexuals has “remained relatively constant” was not the first claim, as that comment was made in – response – to your claim. The only things you’ve pointed to thus far are suicide statistics (which I have already emphasized aren’t relevant) and studies not finding a “gay gene” which is a strawman.
I, on the other hand, have linked 10-20 studies, wherein the consensus seems to be that being gay is mostly a result of biology – which would imply that the gay percentage of the human populus has remained relatively constant, - unless – something in our genome has changed due to modern pollution etc. But if you were to make that claim, then you’d be in league with Alex Jones on claiming that the chemicals in the water are turning the frogs gay.

Quote

gay people did not identify as gay, have gay sex or have gay relationships in MOST societies, me saying the number of homosexuals is increasing is just citing the visible, if you want to claim there is something more than what is on the surface you need to provide proof for that.

And I never claimed that they identified as being gay. I already provided plenty of proof that substantiated my claim (e.g. see comments above), and yet again: you’re shifting the burden of proof. You have yet to demonstrate that homosexuality is increasing besides people now being more openly gay, which is – not – the same as an “increasing percentage” of homosexuals in the population. I have continued to say that there are so many reasons as to why this isn’t necessairly explanatory of people turning gay, but that it simply could be a result of people coming out of the closet due to a more open and accepting culture.

Quote

(and you cant say they just "weren't called homosexuals" because there was laws against homosexuality, so people couldn't have practiced it anyway)

What are you even trying to say? Yes, they weren’t called homosexuals because “homosexual” isn’t that old of a term. Regardless of a word being used or not doesn’t mean that a practice didn’t take place.
Also, you – just claimed – that there were laws against homosexuality, but how could there laws against something that people didn’t “identify as” or didn’t practice by “having gay sex” or having “gay relationships.

Quote

[…] but homosexuality was not implemented either in the majority of areas

What does that even mean? Homosexuality isn’t implemented, which is the crux of my argument lol.

Quote

i don't know what last 2 comments you are talking about but the majority of the scientific community agrees that homosexuality cannot be explained with genetic factors alone. I agree that just because something is not "described" does not mean it does not exist, but homosexuality was not implemented either in the majority of areas

The last two comments I made before the post in which you quoted me? I already stated as such and gave citations for the quote:

“Although no single theory on the cause of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support, scientists favor biologically-based theories”

Frankowski BL; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence (June 2004). "Sexual orientation and adolescents". Pediatrics. 113 (6): 1827–32. doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1827. PMID 15173519.

“There is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial, biological causes of sexual orientation than social ones, especially for males.”

Bailey JM, Vasey PL, Diamond LM, Breedlove SM, Vilain E, Epprecht M (2016). "Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Science". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 17 (21): 45–101. doi:10.1177/1529100616637616. PMID 27113562. LeVay, Simon (2017). Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199752966.

Balthazart, Jacques (2012). The Biology of Homosexuality. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199838820.

If you want to disagree with me, then you’re tacitly acknowledging that you also disagree with the scientific consensus, and unless you have anything to back up your claim that those exact same scientists haven’t thought of (I implore you to try), then you’re simply spouting an unsubstantiated claim.

Quote

i did give justification when i called it illogical (my justification was they cant reproduce [a disability]), not sure how you ignored that

And I said that your justification was a non-sequitur (not sure how you ignored that): “It’s not “logical” to have intercourse without the intent of procreating yet that’s standard practice for everybody.”

Quote

In a detailed compilation of historical and ethnographic materials of pre-industrial cultures, "strong disapproval of homosexuality was reported for 41% of 42 cultures; it was accepted or ignored by 21%, and 12% reported no such concept. Of 70 ethnographies, 59% reported homosexuality absent or rare in frequency and 41% reported it present or not uncommon -Adolescence and puberty By John Bancroft, June Machover Reinisch, p.162

You’re making the point for me. I agree that homosexuality was rare (and despised). But I will argue that this was because of the threat of persecution and discrimination, not because it didn’t happen because the gay wasn’t implemented. Have you paid any attention for last 140 posts?

Quote

all the studies you cited here are before 2019; when the study debunking the gay gene came out

So all those studies are just no longer viable because a single study came out saying that a single “gay gene” didn’t exist? You do know that there have been studies saying that before, yes? I have never claimed that being gay is – heritable -. I have also never claimed that it was purely biology, but I have pointed to the consensus saying that it is mainly or entirely biology. Now, biology is a broad generalization. The same study from 2019 you linked said that sexuality is polygenic (A lot of different genes make contributions to the trait.) Polygenic traits can be influenced by enviroment or your genome from birth.

A detailed article explaining the study:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/scien…-study-confirms

“There is no single gene responsible for a person being gay or a lesbian. That’s the first thing you need to know about the largest genetic investigation of sexuality ever, which was published Thursday in Science. The study of nearly a half million people closes the door on the debate around the existence of a so-called “gay gene.”

“It’s effectively impossible to predict an individual’s sexual behavior from their genome,” said Ben Neale, a geneticist at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Broad Institute who led the study.

“[Our study] underscores an important role for the environment in shaping human sexual behavior and perhaps most importantly there is no single gay gene but rather the contribution of many small genetic effects scattered across the genome,” Neale said.

Quote

1. you said many times that the scientific consensus is that homosexuality is explained by genes

Exactly. I never claimed that a single gay gene existed. Thank you for acknowledging that you were strawmanning me.

Quote

2. when i say homosexuality has to do with your upbringing, i am trying to say that its mostly about how you were raised

Okay, but I never said so, so you were still strawmanning me.

Quote

3. again, you argued that they are mainly a product of genetics

Mainly =/= exclusively. I argued that they are a product of biology. Enviroment can affect biology.

Quote

fair, but keeping your slave happy can be in your own interest

Have you heard the of the term “pet” before?

Quote

you just justified raping an animal with a lower iq? Also i don't see why consent is an issue here, if you are ok with killing an animal you should be ok with the animal being raped, simple as. If you are ok with killing the animal but not ok with raping it, the animal can be killed and "raped" while dead. To clarify are you even saying that sex with dead animals is immoral or..

I never justified raping an animal with a lower IQ? I’ve literally said that everything is considered rape if you fuk a living being who’s incapable of consenting due to intellectual impairment. You can’t fuk a dog because they can’t consent. You can’t fuk a toddler because they can’t consent. Why do you continue to strawman me?

I have also never claimed that I think it’s okay to kill an animal. I can understand why we kill animals, because it has a purpose in that it gives us nourishment, clothing and other products as a result of their death. I also never advocated for cruelty against animals, and raping an animal is indeed cruel, because, once again, they can’t consent. And as I mentioned countless times before: raping an animal serves no purpose other than pleasure, whereas the byproducts of killing an animal can and are essnetial for survival. I am also in full support of meat substitutes so killing any beings can be avoided.

Quote

To clarify are you even saying that sex with dead animals is immoral or..

I said that a discussion can be held as to whether it’s immoral or amoral to fuk a dead animal. I could be persuaded by both sides if a good argument was put forth. This is obviously not including scenarios wherien other parties are involved (e.g fuking a recently-deceased family dog).

There’s a reason why we don’t categorize necrophilism as “raping the dead”. One viewpoint is that once you’re no longer a living being you don’t fall under the potntial “rape umbrella” - you can’t rape a grass, you can’t rape a plastic box.

Quote

circumventing both of these is very possible, one can download CP from an anonymous site that does not show the uploader how many times it has been downloaded or the child how many times it has been viewed

Do you personally know of any such sites? And what would be point of putting that material online other than for it to be evidence for the FBI to charge you with?

Quote

i never claimed its rape, i claimed its immoral because its sexual deviation, a tree is an inanimate object and so is a dead animal. Cutting an animal up is not exactly 'desecrating' so fucking it wouldn't be either.

And I never said that you claimed it’s rape. I said that I thought you’d agree that it wasn’t rape, which you do.

Sexual deviancy does not equal immoral. What would be inherently moral about a sexual deviant?

Quote

Also the definition of 'desecration' is here, it means "to violate the sanctity of" and essentially goes back to morality

And?

Quote

the scientific consensus does not agree with you

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/scien…-study-confirms

“Although no single theory on the cause of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support, scientists favor biologically-based theories”

Frankowski BL; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence (June 2004). "Sexual orientation and adolescents". Pediatrics. 113 (6): 1827–32. doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1827. PMID 15173519.

“There is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial, biological causes of sexual orientation than social ones, especially for males.”

Bailey JM, Vasey PL, Diamond LM, Breedlove SM, Vilain E, Epprecht M (2016). "Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Science". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 17 (21): 45–101. doi:10.1177/1529100616637616. PMID 27113562. LeVay, Simon (2017). Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199752966.

Balthazart, Jacques (2012). The Biology of Homosexuality. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199838820.

Feel free to point me to a metastudy that claims the opposite.

Quote

in your argument, they would not commit suicide but would still be depressed for being forced to repress their 'identity'

I would argue that some wouldn’t commit suicide due to their religious beliefs, but some would still. I didn’t argue for a false dichotomy.

Quote

The section you cited did not say that there is a law against lgbt activism? I did find a case that an lgbt activist was jailed and deported though, but the law (in your narrative) cant stop people from 'being attracted to the same gender'.

Do you honestly want me to point to a paragraph in sharia law stating that “LGBT activism is illegal”? You don’t believe somebody can be discriminated against unless it explicitly says that (e.g.) “blacks are inferior to whites”?

Quote

Why are you implying that a government body would lie about how many people received the death penalty? I dont see why the saudi human rights commission to lie, and it makes sense that when there is a lockdown less crimes will happen. And whatever you quoted did not link to a source and did not even imply that the number was false

You genuinely believe that the KSA are a reliable source? You believed the government of Saudi Arabia when they claimed that Jamal Khashoggi had left the consulate alive? Or that he had been strangled during a “fist fight”? Don’t you think you’re being a tad naive lol.
Also, I’m not implying. I am saying that the KSA are lying about their death penalty statistics, which is why I cited – your own article – detailling this exact thing. And yes they did link to sources: Amnesty International, Reprieve and European-Saudi Organisation for Human Rights (ESOHR).
They also mentioned that the numbers are misleading or false:

"The decline can partly be attributed to the Covid-19 lockdown from February to April, when the government carried out no executions due to restrictions to control the virus," it [Reprieve] said.

'The government recommenced executions at an increased rate in the final quarter of 2020: approximately one-third of all executions last year were carried out in December alone.'

According to Amnesty International, Saudi Arabia put to death a record 184 people in 2019. Half were foreign nationals and six were women.

Reprieve and the European-Saudi Organisation for Human Rights (ESOHR) are monitoring the cases of 80 people believed to be facing the death penalty at various stages of trial."

Feel free to read your own source here.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-55710005