I'd guess that "pedophilia" is largely conflated with CSA, and most people don't care to disentangle them. So your argument isn't against a coherent, considered opinion so much as a gut reaction.
I am new here, and I don't think other sites would give any worthy discussion of this topic, as a lot of people online seems to wish me death (or similar) when I try to come up with this discussion.
Seems to me like you are saying: "There is a behavior of mine that makes many people extremely angry. Here is a new audience. Let's do the annoying thing again. I wonder what will happen now."
On a scale from 0 to 10, how would you rate this strategy as a way to introduce yourself at a new community?
I agree with the premise that thoughts (even thoughts of abusive activities) do not hurt anyone per se. Unless you act on them. Or talk about them with the intent to normalize them.
Most people are not amateur lawyers, so when you call yourself "a pedophile supporter", they probably hear "a child abuse supporter".
I am not sure if there exists a precise earlier discussion on this topic, but I couldn't find one here.
I remember one or two occasions. Couldn't find them; they are probably deleted.
Based on my vague memory, the previous debates started similarly. Then the other shoe dropped, and the author segued from "thoughts don't hurt anyone, right?" into describing increasingly more detailed and more unrealistic hypothetical scenarios of consenting children who would totally benefit from the experience. The author did not respond to any objections like "the actual world doesn't work like that" and kept indulging their fantasies... until I guess the moderators lost patience and banned him. (That's my vague memory. I may have missed something important.)
So... is the other shoe doing to drop?
Is there another topic you would like to discuss, or was this the sole reason why you created an account on this website, and if your attempt fails, will you just move to another online community?
Is an irrational world worth living in? I don't think so, so I'm stress testing it here.
There is a behavior of mine that makes many people extremely angry. Here is a new audience. Let's do the annoying thing again. I wonder what will happen now.
How would I rate this strategy as a way to introduce myself at a new community? 8/10 maybe. It tests whether the community is going to endure annoying but rational thinking or kick me out, and I see that test as worthy. If, in the end, the community doesn't tolerate annoying ideas while wearing the rational mask, then I could openly say out loud that this community doesn't really believe in annoying but justifiable ideas (and that's fine).
Is there another topic you would like to discuss, or was this the sole reason why you created an account on this website, and if your attempt fails, will you just move to another online community?
Yeah, there are a lot of interesting topics I'm interested in, and I'd be happy discussing them (if I ever have a chance and not getting kicked out before that)! Is this topic the sole reason I created my account? It's not the only reason, but one among others.
Do you think Socrates deserved the death penalty? I think most people would say yes, since they're annoyed by such behavior. I'm looking for a place where people openly say no despite the fact that Socrates was very annoying to the citizens.
In particular, if this place says he deserved the death penalty, then maybe it's also a good time that I leave this place as well.
By the way, the world is what it is, and I'm not going to deny anything about that. Does the world have to be like that, can we do anything about it, or can we change it into a better place? I think we can, and in my perspective, I'm a part of the movement. If you believe otherwise (i.e. believing I'm making the world a worse place), I'm open to hearing your opinions as well.
It tests whether the community is going to endure annoying but rational thinking
Being annoying has a cost, and you seem to suggest that being rational means ignoring the costs.
Is there no way to make the same point in a less annoying way? If there is, what made you choose this one?
Do you think Socrates deserved the death penalty?
you seem to suggest that being rational means ignoring the costs.
I don't think so. I think I'm suggesting that the benefits outweigh the costs, and that I should bear whatever costs I need to bear, while still staying true to myself.[1] And if you disagree, I would be interested in hearing some counter-opinions on why not.
Is there no way to make the same point in a less annoying way? If there is, what made you choose this one?
Maybe. But one of the points is the annoyance itself as an end. More precisely, do you (and others) perceive annoyance as something to be avoided or necessary cost to be paid in order to achieve truth with rationality? Maybe my post was not a good one in this sense if you think there are ways to make the same point in a less annoying way, but I couldn't come up with a better post.
Hmm... I understand the dynamics of the community a bit better. I still disagree, but I think we can agree to disagree. If eventually the mods ban me, I will accept that (and maybe complain elsewhere). I think this is a value question, say, do you prefer a community that survives and thrives, or a (perhaps dysfunctional) community that values argumentation, reasoning, and truth (while "corrupting the youth")? My answer is obviously, and strongly, the latter.
I still see my intention (on bringing annoyance) as a good intent within good faith, but I can also see why many people don't like that. To this end, since it's a normative question, not a descriptive one, I don't think anyone can purely say what is universally right and what is universally wrong. My decision forward is to simply hear everyone out and see which kind of normative values do they have. If my values contradict with the community, then we're simply incompatible. Neither of us are wrong.
Or if you interpreted the suggestion at the whole community: I do suggest that a rational community should tolerate annoyance (not ignoring the costs, but rather accepting them). My opinion is that any fruitful discussion that can change someone's mind using reasoning should at least acknowledge that at least one party will be annoyed that their original beliefs are worse than the newer ones. Such annoyance is necessary, should be expected, and should be tolerated.
Private thoughts are not punished. You can feel and believe literally any crazy or harmful thing, without repercussion. As long as you don't express it, call for normalization or acceptance of it, or act on it. Private = undetectable, harmless, and no basis for judgement of others.
Those actions (including acts of communication) CAN carry judgement and reprisal, as society tries to protect itself from variations in dimensions it considers harmful.
I am new here, and I don't think other sites would give any worthy discussion of this topic, as a lot of people online seems to wish me death (or similar) when I try to come up with this discussion. I am not sure if there exists a precise earlier discussion on this topic, but I couldn't find one here. There are, however, relevant adjacent discussions: Pedophile Problems (which I think still didn't consider my thesis statement directly) and Social Dark Matter (which considers a generalization of this topic, i.e., on social stigma as a whole). This is my first post, and please let me know if any actions of mine are wrong or are discouraged.
First of all, I'd like to state a list of statements that I believe to be true:
In my reasoning, if pedophilia were to be wrong, then by the first statement, someone's existence would've been judged without their choice (i.e. mere existence is already wrong), and this is against one of the core values of mine, that one shouldn't be morally judged as wrong by something one cannot choose[1].
Moreover, I feel sad already at the current state. Pedophiles did no harm, and I feel sad for them that the society looks down on them and wishing them death. And even then, when I label myself as a pedophile supporter, most people seem to have a strong reaction against my existence.
From what I have tried to think things out (i.e. made a guess), a reason that made a lot of people judge pedophiles as bad is because they identify a correlation between pedophilia and child sexual abuse, and then generalize the claim into "all pedophiles perform child sexual abuse". I argue that this generalization isn't very reasonable. A more reasonable[2] claim would be "pedophilia is an important risk factor towards actual child sexual abuse, and therefore we must stigmatize it". Under the assumption that stigmatizing a risk factor would result in reducing social damage, this reasoning looks reasonable to me, but I'm attacking this assumption itself (i.e. I don't think stigmatizing bad things help in this case).
Therefore, I'd want to hear everyone out on this topic and find a less wrong conclusion.
I acknowledge that this is not a universal belief, i.e., it isn't absolute, and one may disagree with this.
in my opinion