Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Higus, Dec 5, 2017.
There is absolutely nothing natural about those urges.
Yes, and what's your point? Racism can be a belief based on experiences, your incentive for being racist being that you want to believe what you hold to be true about the world. Pedophilia isn't a belief, the two aren't comparable. Also, this is about pedophiles who want to change and resist their impulses, if someone who is racist said that they felt remorse for being racist and wanted to change then that should be commended as well.
Natural as in that's the way their brain is wired, but the validity of that is the basis of our whole debate and now it's just going to devolve into yes it is no it isn't and it's 130 am here. To be clear, not that I should even have to make this clear, I think the idea of a man being sexually attracted to a child is as weird and messed up as anyone. Regardless of how repulsive I find the idea, I'm still going to treat someone with some level of understanding and decency if I believe it's not something they have any control over, provided they resist those urges and don't harm any children.
Anyways, you were civil about it and I appreciate someone who can have a debate about a sensitive subject like this and not be an ass, not many people in the world capable of that anymore it seems.
I just think people are generally mistaken about people being "born" to a particular sexual orientation or "appetite".
This concept, which seems to be the prevailing one on the subject nowadays, mistakes "human nature" to such an extreme extent that it is going to lead to some very, very dire consequences societally if we continue to exercise that type of thinking. Because it encourages irresponsibility from both the individual and the society, as the phenomenon is deemed to be such that it cannot truly be addressed, and is thus deemed "natural".
But, as usual, it remains one of those theories that we are going to have to experience for ourselves, to see, once again, where the truth lies. Once we reach latter era Roman/Greek/Ottoman civilization levels of degeneracy, I suppose we will be able to "call it a day", in that regard, and revert back to the understanding that monsters are largely made, not born.
The incentive for using your real-life experiences to form your beliefs could simply be a desire to develop an accurate picture of the world, so as to better inform the actions and decisions you take in the world. It's not about what you "want" to believe, when experience is responsible for teaching you what to believe.
Not sure why that wouldn't be obvious.
They're both predatory mindsets. They're both the result of experience more often than "just being born that way". They're both unhealthy for all involved. In this day and age, neither is beneficial (except in self-destructive ways) and nobody has ever said to themselves that they want to be either of these things.
Are they identical? No. But there's certainly room for comparison, regarding how one responds to each.
If a pedophile that isn't acting on his/her belief that children are attractive, is worthy of commendation, then so is a racist who is not acting on his/her belief in the inferiority of other races.
Women shouldn't work in offices with men or be involved in politics, if only for the simple fact that it's like throwing a steak into a pit of hungry dogs. Yes, these dogs have some measure of self-restraint, but it's a pained one.
Collectivists are disappointed with their pathological collectivism.
Progressoturds will believe anything.
Article about "Alt-Right" attacking its own written for Salon by white woman with MA in journalism and Africana studies from NYU. Why am I not leaping at the chance to absorb this information?
All politics aside, that motherfucker isn't missing a chance to put his name on anything. I'm surprised that he hasn't reserved a special font that only he can use.
By having no status.
So men are emotionally incapable of restraining themselves?
Women should be aware that they have an effect on men, and they behave responsibly with that in mind... but you're taking it to an extreme.
See how whataboutism works?
LOL @ people taking a Salon article seriously.
weren't you the guy who said something similar to "when leftists run out of arguments, they attack the source"?
Title of article is "Alt-Right Women are upset at alt-right men"
They cite one woman, and some random tweets made by her.
They made a bold claim, and created a false narrative around tweets from ONE person.
Yeah, I'm attacking the source, because the article is horse shit.
Right, so it's the article but not Salon. Thanks.
I was just listing labels that people would use the separate the Cameroonian man from a "real" German. "Black" is equally as disingenuous as "white" because Africa is the most culturally diverse continent on the planet. Americans have an obsession with west Africans due to their history with the slave trade and all of a sudden everyone from Africa is "black" I highly doubt a "black" man from Ethiopia or South Africa identifies very much with a "black" man from Senegal.
Separate names with a comma.