Salon writer admits he's a pedophile

Nah, it's just that logic escapes the left. When your brain is over filled with feelings, there isnt enough room left for logical thought. You simply cannot have the idea that children arent mentally developed enough to make decisions on love...yet at the same time take them as credible when a medically certified boy tells you hes a girl. Feelings just arent consistent, nor a sound basis for legislation.

Either the logic escapes you, or you're simply embarrassed. Either way, no matter to me.

 

LOL...even when there isnt..as we discuss a guy who admitted he had to take a bathroom break to masturbate after looking at a beautiful child. Right, no sexual implicaitons at all, what was I thinking.

 

I had my first crush on a girl in fourth grade. Clearly, I knew I was heterosexual that early, even though I was way too young to be able to "consent" to anything, or be able to recognize "love".

I don't see a contradiction there. Indeed, it just doesn't seem that complicated. People know who/what they are attracted to, and how they think of themselves, long before they are old enough for "consent".

 

Of course, however we dont allow this love if a person hasnt achieved a certain age.

Why is that ? Anything to do with mental development?

 

Is he asking for middle ground to masturbate in front of a kid? No, the only thing he described is what he did to AVOID molesting someone. Also, he isn't asking to be around kids in any capacity.

Yes, you are seeing sex everywhere when there isn't and reading into only what YOU want to see the article being.

- - - Updated - - -

And again, no one at Salon is advocating for it to be LEGAL for this guy to act on his urges.

 

The legality is coming, and I explained how. Your side is eroding the basis of rights from facts to feelings. These stories are trial balloons.

Has he been fired yet?

 

Of course. I said as much. But just because a person is not mentally developed enough to do one thing, doesn't mean they aren't mentally developed enough to do something else.

In order to legally consent to an activity, I have to be fully aware of what I am consenting to. A fifth-grader clearly is not "fully aware" of what they are consenting to when it comes to sexual intercourse. Which is why the "age of consent" legal standard exists.

But taking that and then assuming that a fourth-grader doesn't know if they like girls or boys is a logical fail.

Similarly, taking that and then assuming that a fourth-grader doesn't know whether they identify as a boy or a girl -- regardless of their biological sex -- is also a logical fail.

 

Yeah, no.

Why should he be fired? Has he done something wrong? Are you suggesting that people who admit they have a problem shouldn't be able to hold jobs? How do you envision that working out?

 

That is your opinion, but it isn't based in reality it is based solely on your fear and nothing more.

What does that have to do with anything? He was talking about violence.

 

If he used the "N-Word" he'd be fired. If he said he thought Marriage was only a Man and a Woman he'd be fired. But admitting he finds children attractive and telling the tale of having to take a break to relive himself...and a leftwing site doesnt fire him.


Thanks for helping my case Ray. Lot of sexual deviants on the left, their next "civil rights" cause is in the works.

 

Well of course it is my opinion, I thought that was obvious. You disagree, ok it's noted.

As to being fired it makes a huge statement about what the employer finds offensive and what they are ok with. Already explained this one to Ray.

Salon is A-Ok with Pedophile love.

 

Where does Salon or this guy approve of acting on those urges? Where, please point that out?

 

Maybe. Just like anyone who commits an unacceptable ACT in the eye of their employer.

LOL! No. Come on.

Has he done anything? No.

But I want you to walk through this with me.

Let's say that anyone who admits to being attracted to children loses their job.

How do you think that works out?

#1, most won't admit it, in order to keep their jobs. So their problem goes unaddressed. Do you think that's a good outcome, for anyone?

#2, so pedophiles can't ever work. So they go on welfare to survive. Now you have taxpayers supporting pedophiles.

Do those outcomes make sense to you?

 

He's using the Salon brand to carry his message Ray. What do you guys tell us when someone does something stupid on the companies letterhead or facebook page?


Guess left wing Salon, doesnt feel it's been embarrassed in any way with this one. That speaks volumes doesnt it?

- - - Updated - - -

By letting him keep his job as everywhere else we turn we see someone getting fired for doing or saying something dumb....and the left reminds us that free speech has consequences, or that the guy shouldnt have done it with the companies brand (be it facebook page or whatnnot)
This tells me Salaon doesnt feel this kind of thing hurts their image if they're keeping him on.

That doesnt say anything to you?

 

yeah and many conservative preachers have actually molested children.... they are sick, thankfully this guy never acted on his sickness

 

so because a guy was sexually assaulted and has come out and told about his urges and what he has done to curb them (i.e. not being around children), you think he should be punished and violently attacked?

Let me give you an example of a racists. If a racist came out in an article and said he was a racist, but believed it was wrong and he wanted help to not be a racists, I don't think that guy should be punished either.

People that say or do stupid things are punished because they think it is CORRECT or RIGHT to be that. THIS guy doesn't believe he should be able to ACT on his urges. BIG difference.

 

Interesting, what mental issues do you think liberals have?. Do you think everyone who disagrees with you is crazy?

 

Okay, I'm confused. What should Salon be embarrassed about? One of their writers admitted to having a problem, and wrote a thought-provoking article about it. Isn't that what journalism outlets do?

How many articles have we seen over the years from people admitting a problem and writing about dealing with it? Alcoholism, drug abuse, infidelity, mental illness, fundamentalist beliefs, etc. This is just another example of the genre.

This does not imply approval or acceptance of the problem. Indeed, the whole point the article exists is because it is an admitted PROBLEM.

As an example, from Biblical times through the Middle Ages, people with various kinds of mental illness (schizophrenia, for instance) were viewed as evil, or possessed by demons. THey were abused and shunned -- or better yet, subjected to all sorts of cruel methods of exorcism. People with leprosy were considered unclean and likewise shunned.

As we learned more about mental illness and leprosy, we began to view such people with compassion, not horror. Now we treat them rather than punish them.

I get the feeling that if you were living in the Middle Ages, and someone wrote an article about living with "demons", that you'd be railing against whomever published that article for trying to drum up sympathy for evil people. "Opening the door for the devil!" You'd say.

No. Trying to get a better understanding of the problem so we can address it in a more appropriate way.

And a basic axiom of existence is: If someone has a problem and asks for help, you don't punish them for coming clean -- you help them.

 

Ultra liberals despise all traditional values like monogomy, being heterosexual, love of country, marriage unless its same sex marriage etc etc so yes most are mentally challenged

 

If I was management at Salon I would fire him, yes he did nothing wrong legally, but this would be like saying he wanted to hang blacks but have fought the urge all his life

no reason for him to do this and not expect to be criticized for it

be like a preacher saying this and the church not doing anything or moving him to a new church

.

 

stop blaming this on all liberals, be like blaming all conservatives for a conservative house speakers actions

.

 

Okay, same question I posed to RichT:

If we fire all people who admit to having pedophilic urges, what do you think will happen? It seems to me that we'll have one of two things:

#1, most won't admit it, so the problem goes unaddressed. Does that benefit anyone?

#2, those who do admit it, being unable to find work, will go on welfare to survive. Is that a better outcome?

People who admit a problem and ask for help should be given help, not punished.

 

Ahhh but they didn't fire him did they. Ask yourself why

 

So, because he's a pedophlie with a heart of gold, I'm supposed to empathize with the guy?

 

You don't disapprove of such thoughts?