What are the key differences between male and female pedophiles?

vividorca9 said:Look, if we actually went and put pedophilia in the DSM-IV as a mental disorder, we’d be forced to do the exact same thing for homosexuality, bisexuality, and pretty much any other sexual behavior that doesn't fit the "standard" mold. 🙄

🤦

Man, people still haven't shaken that absolute nonsense where they try to compare homosexuality to pedophilia. Oh sure, let's go there. Comparing abuse involving children, animals, or even necrophilia to two consenting, fully aware adults engaging in an act is just... wow. Aside from the tiny detail that the first group involves predation while the second is just a normal sexual orientation (that happens to be "different," apparently!), it's a joke.

Pedophilia is a disorder. It's a sickness. Just because it might be nearly impossible to "cure" someone of those impulses doesn't change that—there are plenty of mental illnesses out there that you just live with forever. But we aren't talking about a mere deviation from the norm here; we're talking about thoughts that can literally destroy a child's life at any given moment. It's criminal to even speculate on whether a sick individual will actually act on those urges or just stay home looking at photos from a beach. These things are treated—whether successfully or not—but they *are* treated. And when they actually cross the line into action? They get punished. Maybe not often enough, but that's how the law works.

Gay people don't hurt anyone. The Church claims the same thing about them as you do about pedophiles—that it isn't a sin until it's acted upon. They just refuse to grasp that acting on homosexual behavior doesn't leave scars or trauma on anyone, regardless of whether it was illegal in the past or not, whereas pedophilia permanently ruins lives. If you can't see the massive difference there, then 🤦

boldwalker12 said:🤦

Man, people still haven't shaken that absolute nonsense where they try to compare homosexuality to pedophilia. Oh sure, let's go there. Comparing abuse involving children, animals, or even necrophilia to two consenting, fully aware adults engaging in an act is just... wow. Aside from the tiny detail that the first group involves predation while the second is just a normal sexual orientation (that happens to be "different," apparently!), it's a joke.

Pedophilia is a disorder. It's a sickness. Just because it might be nearly impossible to "cure" someone of those impulses doesn't change that—there are plenty of mental illnesses out there that you just live with forever. But we aren't talking about a mere deviation from the norm here; we're talking about thoughts that can literally destroy a child's life at any given moment. It's criminal to even speculate on whether a sick individual will actually act on those urges or just stay home looking at photos from a beach. These things are treated—whether successfully or not—but they *are* treated. And when they actually cross the line into action? They get punished. Maybe not often enough, but that's how the law works.

Gay people don't hurt anyone. The Church claims the same thing about them as you do about pedophiles—that it isn't a sin until it's acted upon. They just refuse to grasp that acting on homosexual behavior doesn't leave scars or trauma on anyone, regardless of whether it was illegal in the past or not, whereas pedophilia permanently ruins lives. If you can't see the massive difference there, then 🤦

I deleted my post specifically because of this.
🤦

Look, I'm not claiming homosexuality needs treatment, and I'm not homophobic 🤦. My point is that pedophilia shouldn't be listed as a sexual preference in the DSM-IV until it's actually carried out (violating legal norms). If we include it based on thought alone, it opens a massive door for including bisexuality, heterosexuality, and all sorts of other nonsense in the DSM-IV—stuff I really hoped we had moved past by now. 😬

Is there anything else you want to take out of context just so you can accuse me of something? You haven't even read my previous posts, where, by the way, my views on the gay community and on pedophilia itself were pretty much laid out clearly. 😬

fadedotter47 said:Anyway, you won't believe this, but a few years back I read on the Index forum about some girl who hooked up with her dad's buddy. It's like... gross when you look older than you are. Let's be real, sex is hard to turn down, no matter how much people pretend it isn't.

Look, I'm not some animal.
Some stuff matters way more than my urges.
🙂

Bradley Wood3 said:Look, I'm not some animal.
Some stuff matters way more than my urges.
🙂

That was just me reacting to your post about how things can't be wrapped up, and you took it totally literally. Just trying to prove to you that it actually can happen.

boldwalker12 said:🤦

Man, people still haven't shaken that absolute nonsense where they try to compare homosexuality to pedophilia. Oh sure, let's go there. Comparing abuse involving children, animals, or even necrophilia to two consenting, fully aware adults engaging in an act is just... wow. Aside from the tiny detail that the first group involves predation while the second is just a normal sexual orientation (that happens to be "different," apparently!), it's a joke.

Pedophilia is a disorder. It's a sickness. Just because it might be nearly impossible to "cure" someone of those impulses doesn't change that—there are plenty of mental illnesses out there that you just live with forever. But we aren't talking about a mere deviation from the norm here; we're talking about thoughts that can literally destroy a child's life at any given moment. It's criminal to even speculate on whether a sick individual will actually act on those urges or just stay home looking at photos from a beach. These things are treated—whether successfully or not—but they *are* treated. And when they actually cross the line into action? They get punished. Maybe not often enough, but that's how the law works.

Gay people don't hurt anyone. The Church claims the same thing about them as you do about pedophiles—that it isn't a sin until it's acted upon. They just refuse to grasp that acting on homosexual behavior doesn't leave scars or trauma on anyone, regardless of whether it was illegal in the past or not, whereas pedophilia permanently ruins lives. If you can't see the massive difference there, then 🤦

Some people just can't grasp basic definitions, I guess. There's sexual orientation, and then there's sexual deviation. Orientation is straight, gay, or bi. Deviation is stuff like pedophilia, necrophilia, zoophilia, voyeurism... you get the idea.

boldwalker12 said:🤦

Man, people still haven't shaken that absolute nonsense where they try to compare homosexuality to pedophilia. Oh sure, let's go there. Comparing abuse involving children, animals, or even necrophilia to two consenting, fully aware adults engaging in an act is just... wow. Aside from the tiny detail that the first group involves predation while the second is just a normal sexual orientation (that happens to be "different," apparently!), it's a joke.

Pedophilia is a disorder. It's a sickness. Just because it might be nearly impossible to "cure" someone of those impulses doesn't change that—there are plenty of mental illnesses out there that you just live with forever. But we aren't talking about a mere deviation from the norm here; we're talking about thoughts that can literally destroy a child's life at any given moment. It's criminal to even speculate on whether a sick individual will actually act on those urges or just stay home looking at photos from a beach. These things are treated—whether successfully or not—but they *are* treated. And when they actually cross the line into action? They get punished. Maybe not often enough, but that's how the law works.

Gay people don't hurt anyone. The Church claims the same thing about them as you do about pedophiles—that it isn't a sin until it's acted upon. They just refuse to grasp that acting on homosexual behavior doesn't leave scars or trauma on anyone, regardless of whether it was illegal in the past or not, whereas pedophilia permanently ruins lives. If you can't see the massive difference there, then 🤦

Thoughts don't hurt anyone. Actions do. But even then, you have to make a distinction; someone looking at a photo of a kid is just as much an abuser as a guy looking at a photo of a dead body is a murderer, or a terrorist looking at photos of weapons...

boldwalker12 said:🤦

Man, people still haven't shaken that absolute nonsense where they try to compare homosexuality to pedophilia. Oh sure, let's go there. Comparing abuse involving children, animals, or even necrophilia to two consenting, fully aware adults engaging in an act is just... wow. Aside from the tiny detail that the first group involves predation while the second is just a normal sexual orientation (that happens to be "different," apparently!), it's a joke.

Pedophilia is a disorder. It's a sickness. Just because it might be nearly impossible to "cure" someone of those impulses doesn't change that—there are plenty of mental illnesses out there that you just live with forever. But we aren't talking about a mere deviation from the norm here; we're talking about thoughts that can literally destroy a child's life at any given moment. It's criminal to even speculate on whether a sick individual will actually act on those urges or just stay home looking at photos from a beach. These things are treated—whether successfully or not—but they *are* treated. And when they actually cross the line into action? They get punished. Maybe not often enough, but that's how the law works.

Gay people don't hurt anyone. The Church claims the same thing about them as you do about pedophiles—that it isn't a sin until it's acted upon. They just refuse to grasp that acting on homosexual behavior doesn't leave scars or trauma on anyone, regardless of whether it was illegal in the past or not, whereas pedophilia permanently ruins lives. If you can't see the massive difference there, then 🤦

What do you mean "not often enough"? If a case breaks and it's proven someone committed a crime, the court finds them guilty. The real issue is that some idiot wrote the criminal code, so there's this massive gap in sentencing. Like, someone might get hit harder for looking at illegal stuff online—which basically just harms themselves—than someone who actually physically assaults a child. It makes zero sense.

Jamie Reyes6 said:Some people just can't grasp basic definitions, I guess. There's sexual orientation, and then there's sexual deviation. Orientation is straight, gay, or bi. Deviation is stuff like pedophilia, necrophilia, zoophilia, voyeurism... you get the idea.

Thoughts don't hurt anyone. Actions do. But even then, you have to make a distinction; someone looking at a photo of a kid is just as much an abuser as a guy looking at a photo of a dead body is a murderer, or a terrorist looking at photos of weapons...

What do you mean "not often enough"? If a case breaks and it's proven someone committed a crime, the court finds them guilty. The real issue is that some idiot wrote the criminal code, so there's this massive gap in sentencing. Like, someone might get hit harder for looking at illegal stuff online—which basically just harms themselves—than someone who actually physically assaults a child. It makes zero sense.

It’s not quite that simple... ultimately, even just possessing those images is a crime.

We could argue that "just looking at pictures" is the least harmful part of pedophilia, but let's think about it... as long as there is demand, there will be supply.
Now... if we were just talking about kids being photographed secretly at a beach, maybe we could say "it's not that bad," but how many children are kidnapped, abused, raped, or coerced into these situations only to have it all filmed and distributed...

That's the point. Some creep might just be "looking at pictures" of naked kids, but how were those photos taken? What happened to those specific children during and after the filming... does "looking at pictures" still seem so "innocent" to you? 🙄 👎

silentpilot6 said:It’s not quite that simple... ultimately, even just possessing those images is a crime.

We could argue that "just looking at pictures" is the least harmful part of pedophilia, but let's think about it... as long as there is demand, there will be supply.
Now... if we were just talking about kids being photographed secretly at a beach, maybe we could say "it's not that bad," but how many children are kidnapped, abused, raped, or coerced into these situations only to have it all filmed and distributed...

That's the point. Some creep might just be "looking at pictures" of naked kids, but how were those photos taken? What happened to those specific children during and after the filming... does "looking at pictures" still seem so "innocent" to you? 🙄 👎

Classic case of switching the blame around. You see some dealer trying to push junk on a kid, and instead of doing your job, you go ahead and arrest the kid. Real genius move right there. ☕

silentpilot6 said:It’s not quite that simple... ultimately, even just possessing those images is a crime.

We could argue that "just looking at pictures" is the least harmful part of pedophilia, but let's think about it... as long as there is demand, there will be supply.
Now... if we were just talking about kids being photographed secretly at a beach, maybe we could say "it's not that bad," but how many children are kidnapped, abused, raped, or coerced into these situations only to have it all filmed and distributed...

That's the point. Some creep might just be "looking at pictures" of naked kids, but how were those photos taken? What happened to those specific children during and after the filming... does "looking at pictures" still seem so "innocent" to you? 🙄 👎

Look, let’s be real here. There is zero connection between taking a photo of kids playing at the beach or splashing around and someone filming child abuse behind closed doors in their own house. Like, seriously? Taking a picture of a kid at the shore isn't inherently pornographic—unless you're intentionally framing it so their genitals take up the whole shot, which obviously nobody is doing. At the end of the day, if you look at everything through a lens of perversion, you're just going to see perversion everywhere. It's all about how you're wired.

Ever heard of Miti Vesović? He’s this photographer who, like twenty years ago, snapped a shot of this little kid just running around the room naked holding a bouquet of flowers. It was one of those classic, artistic shots that sat in galleries for two decades without anyone batting an eye. Then, out of nowhere a few years back, some child advocate types decide they need to play hero and demand a full-blown police investigation. Apparently, looking at a photo of a naked kid with some flowers somehow constitutes child pornography and "encourages pedophilic behavior" or whatever nonsense they're preaching now. It’s wild. Even the kid in the photo—who’s a grown man now, by the way—basically told them to get lost, saying the only people seeing anything sexual in that picture are the ones with seriously broken brains.

silentpilot6 said:It’s not quite that simple... ultimately, even just possessing those images is a crime.

We could argue that "just looking at pictures" is the least harmful part of pedophilia, but let's think about it... as long as there is demand, there will be supply.
Now... if we were just talking about kids being photographed secretly at a beach, maybe we could say "it's not that bad," but how many children are kidnapped, abused, raped, or coerced into these situations only to have it all filmed and distributed...

That's the point. Some creep might just be "looking at pictures" of naked kids, but how were those photos taken? What happened to those specific children during and after the filming... does "looking at pictures" still seem so "innocent" to you? 🙄 👎

So, look, those photos only exist because someone happened to mash the shutter button at the right moment. As for what was actually going down with those kids? That’s anyone's guess depending on the context. Maybe they were just tearing it up on the beach, or maybe someone was out there filming something much darker. It really just depends on the situation.

So, I was scrolling through some morbid stuff on Rotten.com the other day—you know, just looking at photos of corpses and then eventually spiraling into those horrific images from Nazi concentration camps. Honestly? It was pretty gripping. But now I'm sitting here wondering... should I be worried? Like, am I gonna get picked up by the FBI or something under some charge of being a murderer or a freaking Nazi just because I clicked on those links? 😂 🤣

I think you’re either missing the point or just refusing to see it...

The Nazis weren't killing people just so someone could take photos of it for entertainment.
The horrific things found on rotation sites weren't created for the sake of photography or being viewed by others.

Child abuse imagery exists solely for the purpose of distribution—essentially, children were victimized 😢 just so someone could document it for some degenerate to obsess over. 👎
If there weren't people watching this stuff, no one would be documenting it, and we'd be doing them a favor... 😢 whereas the Nazis would have kept killing regardless. Is that clear enough?

I don't see much point in commenting on the photographer's specific case because it's largely irrelevant to the main topic... that should be obvious.

silentpilot6 said:I think you’re either missing the point or just refusing to see it...

The Nazis weren't killing people just so someone could take photos of it for entertainment.
The horrific things found on rotation sites weren't created for the sake of photography or being viewed by others.

Child abuse imagery exists solely for the purpose of distribution—essentially, children were victimized 😢 just so someone could document it for some degenerate to obsess over. 👎
If there weren't people watching this stuff, no one would be documenting it, and we'd be doing them a favor... 😢 whereas the Nazis would have kept killing regardless. Is that clear enough?

I don't see much point in commenting on the photographer's specific case because it's largely irrelevant to the main topic... that should be obvious.

Look, it’s clearly not clicking for you, but that’s exactly what’s happening—you’re just looking at a picture. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. ☕

I don't even know where to start with this one. Just looking at the thread and honestly? My head hurts. It’s like watching people walk straight into a brick wall and then acting surprised when they get a concussion. Anyway, what was I saying? Right. The whole situation is just... a lot. If you ask me, most of the noise coming out of the news lately feels like someone took a bunch of random headlines, threw them in a blender, and hit "pulse" without checking if the lid was on. It's messy. It's chaotic. And frankly, it's kind of hilarious if you have that dark sense of humor. I remember back when I was living in Chicago—actually, scratch that, it was more like a suburb outside of Des Moines, but whatever—I saw something similar happen with a local election. Everyone was screaming about nothing, making mountains out of molehills, and by the time the dust settled, nobody actually remembered why they were mad in the first place. We're doing the exact same thing here. We're all just spinning our wheels in the mud while thinking we're winning a race. Anyway, enough of my rambling. I'll stop talking now. Or maybe I won't. We'll see.

silentpilot6 said:I think you’re either missing the point or just refusing to see it...

The Nazis weren't killing people just so someone could take photos of it for entertainment.
The horrific things found on rotation sites weren't created for the sake of photography or being viewed by others.

Child abuse imagery exists solely for the purpose of distribution—essentially, children were victimized 😢 just so someone could document it for some degenerate to obsess over. 👎
If there weren't people watching this stuff, no one would be documenting it, and we'd be doing them a favor... 😢 whereas the Nazis would have kept killing regardless. Is that clear enough?

I don't see much point in commenting on the photographer's specific case because it's largely irrelevant to the main topic... that should be obvious.

Yeah, okay, so that’s got absolutely nothing to do with what we're actually talking about... but whatever. ☕

Jamie Reyes6 said:Look, it’s clearly not clicking for you, but that’s exactly what’s happening—you’re just looking at a picture. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. ☕

I don't even know where to start with this one. Just looking at the thread and honestly? My head hurts. It’s like watching people walk straight into a brick wall and then acting surprised when they get a concussion. Anyway, what was I saying? Right. The whole situation is just... a lot. If you ask me, most of the noise coming out of the news lately feels like someone took a bunch of random headlines, threw them in a blender, and hit "pulse" without checking if the lid was on. It's messy. It's chaotic. And frankly, it's kind of hilarious if you have that dark sense of humor. I remember back when I was living in Chicago—actually, scratch that, it was more like a suburb outside of Des Moines, but whatever—I saw something similar happen with a local election. Everyone was screaming about nothing, making mountains out of molehills, and by the time the dust settled, nobody actually remembered why they were mad in the first place. We're doing the exact same thing here. We're all just spinning our wheels in the mud while thinking we're winning a race. Anyway, enough of my rambling. I'll stop talking now. Or maybe I won't. We'll see.

Yeah, okay, so that’s got absolutely nothing to do with what we're actually talking about... but whatever. ☕

Yes... that suits you perfectly. 😉.

Don't you realize that posting an image like that just encourages people to create more? The person being targeted isn't a Nazi or some deadbeat criminal—it’s just pure stupidity to celebrate that kind of behavior on a public forum. 👎

If you haven't realized it by now, you probably never will.

Pedophilia is a pathological disorder where the perpetrator finds arousal and satisfaction through the helplessness and suffering of their victims. It depends entirely on circumstances and whether someone collecting "images" decides to turn those fantasies into reality, making them a constant threat to their community and society at large.

If a photo of a child at a beach accidentally ends up on your phone, nobody is going to hunt you down for it. But if someone is hoarding an entire collection, that’s a matter of fundamental caution—we need to investigate how they got them and take appropriate action against the offender.

It’s human nature to be most morally sensitive when it comes to protecting children. It is both a societal and individual duty to remain vigilant and protect ourselves from perpetrators of such acts by using every possible measure available.

silentpilot6 said:Yes... that suits you perfectly. 😉.

Don't you realize that posting an image like that just encourages people to create more? The person being targeted isn't a Nazi or some deadbeat criminal—it’s just pure stupidity to celebrate that kind of behavior on a public forum. 👎

If you haven't realized it by now, you probably never will.

Total ad hominem attack. Honestly, we're done here. Nothing left to talk about. ☕

silvercobra11 said:Pedophilia is a pathological disorder where the perpetrator finds arousal and satisfaction through the helplessness and suffering of their victims. It depends entirely on circumstances and whether someone collecting "images" decides to turn those fantasies into reality, making them a constant threat to their community and society at large.

If a photo of a child at a beach accidentally ends up on your phone, nobody is going to hunt you down for it. But if someone is hoarding an entire collection, that’s a matter of fundamental caution—we need to investigate how they got them and take appropriate action against the offender.

It’s human nature to be most morally sensitive when it comes to protecting children. It is both a societal and individual duty to remain vigilant and protect ourselves from perpetrators of such acts by using every possible measure available.

Dude, you’re basically blurring the line between pedophilia and sadism. ☕

silvercobra11 said:Pedophilia is a pathological disorder where the perpetrator finds arousal and satisfaction through the helplessness and suffering of their victims. It depends entirely on circumstances and whether someone collecting "images" decides to turn those fantasies into reality, making them a constant threat to their community and society at large.

If a photo of a child at a beach accidentally ends up on your phone, nobody is going to hunt you down for it. But if someone is hoarding an entire collection, that’s a matter of fundamental caution—we need to investigate how they got them and take appropriate action against the offender.

It’s human nature to be most morally sensitive when it comes to protecting children. It is both a societal and individual duty to remain vigilant and protect ourselves from perpetrators of such acts by using every possible measure available.

So by that logic, some guy collecting pictures of guns is a threat to everyone because, hey, who knows, maybe he'll start shooting people if the opportunity pops up...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

silvercobra11 said:Pedophilia is a pathological disorder where the perpetrator finds arousal and satisfaction through the helplessness and suffering of their victims. It depends entirely on circumstances and whether someone collecting "images" decides to turn those fantasies into reality, making them a constant threat to their community and society at large.

If a photo of a child at a beach accidentally ends up on your phone, nobody is going to hunt you down for it. But if someone is hoarding an entire collection, that’s a matter of fundamental caution—we need to investigate how they got them and take appropriate action against the offender.

It’s human nature to be most morally sensitive when it comes to protecting children. It is both a societal and individual duty to remain vigilant and protect ourselves from perpetrators of such acts by using every possible measure available.

That's not "basic common sense," that's just straight-up paranoia. ☕

silvercobra11 said:Pedophilia is a pathological disorder where the perpetrator finds arousal and satisfaction through the helplessness and suffering of their victims. It depends entirely on circumstances and whether someone collecting "images" decides to turn those fantasies into reality, making them a constant threat to their community and society at large.

If a photo of a child at a beach accidentally ends up on your phone, nobody is going to hunt you down for it. But if someone is hoarding an entire collection, that’s a matter of fundamental caution—we need to investigate how they got them and take appropriate action against the offender.

It’s human nature to be most morally sensitive when it comes to protecting children. It is both a societal and individual duty to remain vigilant and protect ourselves from perpetrators of such acts by using every possible measure available.

What kind of acts? Threatening them with a look?

Jamie Reyes6 said:Total ad hominem attack. Honestly, we're done here. Nothing left to talk about. ☕

How else am I supposed to talk to you when you refuse to see what's right in front of you?🤷

Looking at photos of the Holocaust, fatal car accidents, or victims of war is NOT—and can never be—the same thing as looking at pedophilic imagery.

The Nazis didn't commit massacres just so someone could look at pictures of them.
People killed in wars aren't slaughtered just so people can view those images.
Perry didn't get turned into a pillar just so someone could photograph him and post it online, but a child is abused specifically so they can be photographed and have those images distributed.
If there weren't predators wanting to see those kinds of images, there wouldn't be such a massive demand from people taking those photos while simultaneously abusing or raping children.
Meanwhile, the number of people who want to see footage of traffic fatalities or war zones has absolutely no impact on the frequency of car crashes, wars, or camps.

If you still don't get the point, then we really have nothing left to say to one another.

You totally missed the point and botched the comparison. ☕

http://pedophileophobia.com/pedophilophobia.htm

There’s an entire spectrum of severe personality disorders rooted in deriving pleasure from the suffering of others, with pedophilia being among the most extreme. Because these conditions are likely driven by genetic malfunctions, they aren't curable. These offenders are habitual recidivists who need to be kept isolated from society.

Comparing this to weapons or murder victims is fundamentally flawed. There is clear, well-documented evidence that pedophiles focus on collecting and trading illicit material, whereas that kind of connection just doesn't exist with killers.

silvercobra11 said:There’s an entire spectrum of severe personality disorders rooted in deriving pleasure from the suffering of others, with pedophilia being among the most extreme. Because these conditions are likely driven by genetic malfunctions, they aren't curable. These offenders are habitual recidivists who need to be kept isolated from society.

Comparing this to weapons or murder victims is fundamentally flawed. There is clear, well-documented evidence that pedophiles focus on collecting and trading illicit material, whereas that kind of connection just doesn't exist with killers.

😂 🤣 Honestly, you clearly don't even get the difference between pedophilia and sadism. 🤦 There's really no point in even arguing this further... ☕

silvercobra11 said:Pedophilia is a pathological disorder where the perpetrator finds arousal and satisfaction through the helplessness and suffering of their victims. It depends entirely on circumstances and whether someone collecting "images" decides to turn those fantasies into reality, making them a constant threat to their community and society at large.

If a photo of a child at a beach accidentally ends up on your phone, nobody is going to hunt you down for it. But if someone is hoarding an entire collection, that’s a matter of fundamental caution—we need to investigate how they got them and take appropriate action against the offender.

It’s human nature to be most morally sensitive when it comes to protecting children. It is both a societal and individual duty to remain vigilant and protect ourselves from perpetrators of such acts by using every possible measure available.

Pedophilia falls under the umbrella of sexual pathology, and it's a disorder just like hundreds of others out there; it just has a different trigger. You’ve got everything from people obsessed with animals, corpses, inanimate objects, the same sex, elderly women, pain, suffering, insects, statues, and so on. This particular disorder isn't inherently "larger" or "smaller," nor is it easier or harder to treat just because of whether the behavior is legal or illegal.

Quincy :

Jamie Reyes6 said:You totally missed the point and botched the comparison. ☕

http://pedophileophobia.com/pedophilophobia.htm

You are stubbornly clinging to the failed argument that looking at images isn't wrong... while throwing out links that have absolutely nothing to do with what we are actually discussing.

Just so you know, admitting you're wrong won't cause you to 🤣 lose anything in this debate...

But fine... if you still want to insist 😉, that viewing such images isn't an issue, then go ahead.

I believe I've presented enough arguments for any reasonable person to understand.

👋

Quincy : Legion

silentpilot6 said:Quincy :
You are stubbornly clinging to the failed argument that looking at images isn't wrong... while throwing out links that have absolutely nothing to do with what we are actually discussing.

Just so you know, admitting you're wrong won't cause you to 🤣 lose anything in this debate...

But fine... if you still want to insist 😉, that viewing such images isn't an issue, then go ahead.

I believe I've presented enough arguments for any reasonable person to understand.

👋

Seriously though, since when did looking at an image become some kind of sin? Like, does someone just sitting there staring at a screen actually hurt the person in the photo? I don't see it.