4 ms·

I think you're reading far more into this article than what he's actually asking for. I'm really not sure what your problem with the article being "all about t

I think you're reading far more into this article than what he's actually asking for. I'm really not sure what your problem with the article being "all about them" is? It is literally an article about them. What else would you expect? All they want is for you to treat them like a human being, instead of dismissing any kind of social interaction with them the instant you hear they're a paedophile. Of course you want to protect your children, but how much of a threat is a known paedophile really? Just don't leave your children alone with them, and there's pretty much no danger. Far more dangerous to your children are all the unknown paedophiles, who don't tell you because they're afraid of being socially ostracised.

voidz 11y ago
The writer's making a plea to be socially accepted. I'm explaining (a) why I think this is unlikely to ever happen; (b) the psychopathical elements I think exist in his argument; and (c) that the maternal / paternal instinct is as much of "a thing that can't be changed" as sexuality. The reason for me to reply at all is because I wanted to capture these things civilly and rationally, even though I am appalled. He said his piece, I said mine, in an attempt to find an alternative to what another commenter called, I paraphrase: medieval and irrational.
- aninhumer 11y ago
  >the psychopathical elements in the argument What exactly is psychopathic about their argument? You say they "don't understand" why parents are afraid, but of course they do. They're just asking you to reconsider whether that fear is rational, and pointing out the harm it does to them. >the maternal / paternal instinct is as much of "a thing that can't be changed" The instinct is just to protect children from danger. The recognition of danger is higher level, so it is something that can be changed.

voidz 11y ago

The writer's making a plea to be socially accepted. I'm explaining (a) why I think this is unlikely to ever happen; (b) the psychopathical elements I think exist in his argument; and (c) that the maternal / paternal instinct is as much of "a thing that can't be changed" as sexuality. The reason for me to reply at all is because I wanted to capture these things civilly and rationally, even though I am appalled. He said his piece, I said mine, in an attempt to find an alternative to what another commenter called, I paraphrase: medieval and irrational.

aninhumer 11y ago
>the psychopathical elements in the argument What exactly is psychopathic about their argument? You say they "don't understand" why parents are afraid, but of course they do. They're just asking you to reconsider whether that fear is rational, and pointing out the harm it does to them. >the maternal / paternal instinct is as much of "a thing that can't be changed" The instinct is just to protect children from danger. The recognition of danger is higher level, so it is something that can be changed.