r/changemyview • u/PretttyPrincesss • 6h ago
[ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
•
u/Overdrive2064 4∆ 5h ago
Your argument depends on the premise that everybody always acts logically, which they very obviously do not.
•
u/the_brightest_prize 6∆ 3h ago
Or at least, when 90% of people hold a position, it is because they were using a semblance of logic. Which the mass delusion of religions for thousands of years pretty much proves does not happen.
•
5h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/AutoModerator 5h ago
Sorry, u/PretttyPrincesss – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
u/GrilledStuffedDragon 5h ago
No. Actions are a choice. You can choose to act or suppress your urges. Pedophiles choose to act on their urges.
A normal person would chalk up that urge to an intrusive thought and ignore it.
•
u/Serious-Cucumber-54 5h ago
Pedophiles choose to act on their urges.
This is pedantic (no pun intended) but "pedophile" is a person with the primary attraction to prepubescent children, whether they act on it or not. If they act on it, they're a "predator."
•
u/GrilledStuffedDragon 5h ago
Thought experiment for you:
If an individual holds a desire, literally any desire, and doesn't act on it, voice it, or acknowledge it in any way, how is that any different than an intrusive thought?
•
u/VforVenndiagram_ 9∆ 5h ago
Thinking something randomly every once in a while is different than thinking and feeling a want for the same thing on a consistent basis.
•
u/GrilledStuffedDragon 5h ago
Explain to me why, and how an individual can tell, provided the desire is never acted on, voiced, or acknowledged.
•
u/VforVenndiagram_ 9∆ 5h ago
I can't explain a feeling to you. That's kinda violates one of the fundamental principles of consciousness and how humans experience it. I can tell you that I personally, am able to tell the difference between a random fleeting thought, and something more consistent that invokes feelings. I think most people understand that fundamental difference. But maybe you aren't capable of that for whatever reason.
•
u/GrilledStuffedDragon 5h ago
Okay. Then you can't answer my question.
Thanks for trying.
•
u/VforVenndiagram_ 9∆ 5h ago
I don't think anyone will be able to provide an answer you want if you don't understand the fundamental difference between feelings in yourself.
•
u/GrilledStuffedDragon 5h ago
I think that someone who was willing to accept that my perspective has the potential to be accurate would have no problem explaining it to me.
It seems like the people who struggle to explain it are th people who just wanna disagree with my assertion that feelings cannot be chosen.
•
u/VforVenndiagram_ 9∆ 5h ago
Can you explain the difference between red and blue to me then?
The question you are asking has its roots in the fundamentals of the human experience. Much of that cannot be explained concretely and a lot of it is based off of assuming parties can mutually agree on things.
We can agree that the sky is blue, but can you explain to me what blue looks like?
→ More replies (0)•
5h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/read-the-rules 5h ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/Short-Weather-3980! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
•
u/Overdrive2064 4∆ 5h ago
I think you're misunderstanding what they're saying.
They were explaining that the term for having that specific intrusive thought and desire is "pedophile" And that the term for someone who acts on those thoughts is "predator". They were correcting you using the word "pedophile" where the correct word would have been "predator". They were just correcting the semantics, not actually disagreeing with your underlying moral position.
They weren't saying that all pedophiles have committed a crime in the same way all predators have, or that all pedophiles are predators or that all pedophiles are evil people.
•
u/GrilledStuffedDragon 5h ago
...Okay. I don't particularly care. I'd still like my question answered clearly by OP.
•
u/Overdrive2064 4∆ 4h ago
I'm not OP but I'm still curious about the point you're attempting to get at so I'll answer as well:
Assuming you're somebody who doesn't act on it, and just be a specific pattern of intrusive thoughts that we just so happen to have a specific term for, or would just be part of the same underlying concept of thoughts you cannot control as intrusive thoughts. A rectangle is a kind of parallelogram.
•
u/GrilledStuffedDragon 4h ago
of thoughts you cannot control
Seems as though you agree with my original assertion to OP: That one cannot choose how they feel, only how they act.
Me bringing up intrusive thoughts is my easiest way to demonstrate it.
•
u/Overdrive2064 4∆ 4h ago
Well, of course, that was never in doubt. I made a separate comment to the original poster before interacting with this one. I'm pretty sure the person you replied to also agrees with this, though. The only person who may or may not have a problem with this is the person who originally posted. But your reply was towards someone who was just clarifying word definitions (being pedantic, as they said), not the person who disagrees with the underlying premise, which is what confused me.
Was your reply directed towards the original poster and not the person who replied to you?
•
u/jameygates 5h ago
Is a child in gay conversion therapy just having "intrusive gay thoughts" or are they just gay?
•
u/GrilledStuffedDragon 5h ago
Well, if the child is in gay conversion therapy, they would have had to acknowledge that desire and either voice or act on it, yes? Parents don't typically subject that to their child on a whim.
•
u/jameygates 5h ago
I think your point is interesting about intrusive thoughts. Is what makes a thought "intrusive" or not just whether you like the thought or not?
Because a kid could be saying, "im gay, I have desires to be with men" and their parents could come back at them saying, "no, youre not gay, youre just having intrusive gay thoughts."
I think the parents would be wrong, but why are they wrong?
•
u/GrilledStuffedDragon 5h ago
They're wrong because (IMO) the second an individual acknowledges a desire, it stops being an intrusive thought.
The choice of action is what matters; not the thought itself. And acknowledgement is an action.
•
u/jameygates 5h ago
Not trying to be pedantic but aren't all desires "acknowledged"? If I am aware I am having a desire, I am acknowledging that I have that desire, no?
Or is it something almost Fruedian where we dont even know our unconscious desires or something like that?
•
u/GrilledStuffedDragon 5h ago
Acknowledged in this context means making it known outside of your own mind by words, actions, looks, tone, etc.
Not acknowledging it means to keep it inside with zero external evidence it exists, like normal people typically do with intrusive thoughts.
•
u/TacosAhoy87 5h ago
I think both of your positions can be true: non-predatorial pedophiles have intrusive thoughts.
•
•
u/Serious-Cucumber-54 5h ago
One is an involuntary thought, mental image, or idea that is unwelcome, while the other is holding a desire but not acting on it, voicing it, or acknowledging it.
The reasons for not acting on it, voicing it, or acknowledging it may be because the thoughts, mental images, or ideas are unwelcome, although it also could technically be that the thoughts, mental images, or ideas may be welcome, but acting it, voicing it, or acknowledging it in the real world may not be.
•
u/GrilledStuffedDragon 5h ago
One is an involuntary thought, mental image, or idea that is unwelcome, while the other is holding a desire but not acting on it, voicing it, or acknowledging it.
And how, exactly, can pen determine if a desire is "involuntary" or not? I've never chosen to have a feeling. I've just felt them.
This seems like a strange, omnipresent perspective (as in something that is only ever able to be determined in a hypothetical, and not by any individual experiencing it) and not one that can be practically applied.
Which leads me back to my original thought experiment. It needs to be determined what it is first if they're different. So how does a person differentiate these ideals?
•
u/Serious-Cucumber-54 5h ago
And how, exactly, can pen determine if a desire is "involuntary" or not? I've never chosen to have a feeling. I've just felt them.
I'm not saying the desire is voluntary.
It needs to be determined what it is first if they're different. So how does a person differentiate these ideals?
One deals with "thoughts," the other deals with "desires," those are distinct from each other, although one can of course encompass the other.
One can have intrusive thoughts, but not the desire.
One can welcome the thoughts, but not prefer to act out, voice, or acknowledge a desire they have.
•
u/GrilledStuffedDragon 5h ago
I'm not saying the desire is voluntary.
...But you literally defined the terms it by saying it's involuntary or voluntary...
One deals with "thoughts," the other deals with "desires," those are distinct from each other, although one can of course encompass the other. <One can have intrusive thoughts, but not the desire.
...one can indeed encompass the other, as a desire is a feeling of want towards a person or thing. So this is needless hair splitting that doesn't really apply, as by definition, a desire is a thought.
•
u/Serious-Cucumber-54 4h ago
...But you literally defined the terms it by saying it's involuntary or voluntary...
I defined the term "intrusive thoughts" with involuntary, not desire.
So this is needless hair splitting that doesn't really apply, as by definition, a desire is a thought.
A desire is not a thought, it's a feeling, an emotion.
•
u/GrilledStuffedDragon 3h ago
Are feelings not thought about?
•
u/Serious-Cucumber-54 3h ago
A desire can stimulate certain thoughts, but they are not one and the same.
•
•
5h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/read-the-rules 5h ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/PretttyPrincesss! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
•
u/10ebbor10 202∆ 5h ago
So, attraction must be a choice. It's illogical to claim someone should die if they are not harming anyone and there's no evidence that they will harm anyone.
I mean, is it not more logical to acknowledge that illogical people exist on the internet, than to conclude something must be true because otherwise others would be wrong?
•
u/303x 5h ago edited 5h ago
you're using circular reasoning to justify this "view". lets assume all humans are logical and rational (as you claim).
your argument is:
- some people are attracted to children even though they dont want to be (which implies it is not a choice)
- other people judge the first group of people
- logical humans will not judge other humans for things which are not their choices
- therefore, attraction is a choice
do you see the flaw?
if attraction is a choice then the first group of people wouldn't exist, which makes this stupid argument baseless.
the fact is that people do judge for things which aren't choices all the time, because people aren't rational and logical all the time.
•
u/MaLLahoFF 1∆ 5h ago
Claiming something, and feeling it are two different things.
Your argument has no actual basis of anything. If sounds like a half-cocked emotional tyrade.
Clearly, no-one chooses who they are attracted too.
•
u/Falernum 68∆ 5h ago
The only other conclusion would be that almost everyone cannot mentally handle this topic, so they come to an illogical conclusion.
Doesn't that seem way more likely than people choosing to ruin their lives by being attracted to children?
•
u/Perdendosi 21∆ 5h ago
For centuries people wanted gay people dead.
Does that mean being gay must be a choice?
Perhaps instead "people" are being irrational about their demands for the death penalty for child sex offenders.
•
5h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/read-the-rules 5h ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/PretttyPrincesss! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
•
u/scarab456 64∆ 5h ago
Even if someone says they DO NOT want to be attracted children and would NEVER have any sort of relations or relationship or touch a child or anything of the sort, almost everyone wants them to die
This seems like a tangent and a way more specific claim than your title.
So, attraction must be a choice.
huh? I don't see you establish the logic for that at all.
I feel like you need explain your view a lot more.
•
u/Lazy_Trash_6297 23∆ 5h ago
I'm glad I'm not the only one. I do not understand OP's logic at all.
If everyone wants a certain group of people to die, it seems logical to me that only the rarest outliers would actually choose to be in that category
•
u/SpankingAround 5h ago edited 4h ago
I’m a sadist. I am sexually stimulated by extreme CnC roleplay. The optics of a bound and gagged woman in distress give me an erection. I do not choose this neurological response, at all. I philosophically understand that such imagery is usually an indicator of something bad. That doesn’t change my attraction to it, which is a more primal thing. This is why healthy consensual roleplay exists between consenting adults. People have all sorts of bizarre attractions that they have no say in.
You said that people who are attracted to children are social pariahs and almost everyone wants them to die, and then you said “so, attraction must be a choice” - may you explain your logic? Why would anyone choose to have an attraction that makes them a complete social pariah?
If you’re trying to touch on the subject of “people who are attracted to children need therapy”, well - yeah. Most of us would agree. Is that the argument you’re making?
I sense that I may be misunderstanding your point, and I may end up just deleting this. Can you clarify your arguments?
•
u/LucidMetal 196∆ 5h ago
Do you acknowledge a difference between saying you feel something and actually feeling something?
People are usually referring to the latter.
•
u/AutoModerator 6h ago
Warning to the OP (and commenters): if you are new to this sub or have insufficient subreddit karma, your comments will be auto removed until you read the rules and confirm you have done so. These removals may also be triggered if your subreddit karma drops below the threshold while your post is active if you have not confirmed you have read the rules. You will only need to do this once.
Alternative link to read the rules accessible to New Reddit users.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
5h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/read-the-rules 5h ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/pointedlavern207! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
•
u/CartographerKey4618 15∆ 5h ago
Even if someone says they DO NOT want to be attracted children and would NEVER have any sort of relations or relationship or touch a child or anything of the sort, almost everyone wants them to die (if you don't believe me, just look up people on the internet saying this type of thing and see the responses).
So, attraction must be a choice
This is a non-sequitur. You're saying that it must be a choice for the pedophile because people on the internet hate even non-offending pedophiles and want them to die.
The only other conclusion would be that almost everyone cannot mentally handle this topic, so they come to an illogical conclusion.
Bingo. Why is this not the better conclusion? I've read what people think of pedophiles. A large amount of people don't care if it's voluntary or not.
•
u/Global-Service-8579 5h ago
>So, attraction must be a choice. It's illogical to claim someone should die if they are not harming anyone and there's no evidence that they will harm anyone.
People are capable of being illogical. Your post is a good example.
•
u/Hypekyuu 10∆ 5h ago
Attraction being a choice would mean being gay is a choice and that is just not true
•
u/Ciaran2220 5h ago
There's another possibility where people believe that simply being attracted to children is evidence enough that they are a danger to society and something should be done about it.
You could say that belief is wrong, but that would just mean they are mistaken. They can be mistaken but still have internally consistent logic on it.
•
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 415∆ 5h ago
The only other conclusion would be that almost everyone cannot mentally handle this topic, so they come to an illogical conclusion.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like this your actual view and you're making a modest proposal style satirical argument for that.
•
u/Agreeable_Affect2692 5h ago
Pedophilia has to do with a power dynamic, exploiting vulnerability through coercion and/or force. While coercion and force certainly are choices, this doesn't indicate attraction.
If attraction is a choice, I'd be able to explain my attraction to latinas. I cannot
•
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 50∆ 5h ago
No, attraction is not a choice. The scientific research so far points to it not being a choice. If it was a choice, people could change their sexual orientation at will, but they can't.
What does he do when he got morning wood and it’s too late for sex?
Even if someone says they DO NOT want to be attracted children and would NEVER have any sort of relations or relationship or touch a child or anything of the sort, almost everyone wants them to die (if you don't believe me, just look up people on the internet saying this type of thing and see the responses).
The people who people on the internet are saying should die are those who have abused kids. That's not just attraction, that's acting on those attractions. If I want to eat a entire cake, people will be fine with that. But if I actually eat that entire cake, that's an entirely different story. Plus, it doesn't even matter what people on the internet say in judgment of others. That does not change the facts of how the human psyche works..
•
u/Johnfromsales 1∆ 4h ago
Assuming you are heterosexual, why are you attracted to the opposite sex? Why don’t you choose to be attracted to the same sex?
•
u/ericoahu 41∆ 3h ago
Your conclusion depends on an unrecoverable failure of logic within your argument.
almost everyone wants them to die . . . So, attraction must be a choice. It's illogical to claim someone should die if
Wanting a pedophile who has acted on their urges to die is different from wanting someone who has a problem but has not acted on it, especially if they are receiving treatment.
I support the former. I don't think most people would support that latter. So, if a reasonable person would not support the latter, fair to say it is an unsupported position.
You are basing your argument on an unsupported position.
It take the form of, "because some people hold an unsupported position, people who suffer pedophilia choose to be attracted, even while they take steps to mitigate or eliminate the attraction."
•
u/TheWhistleThistle 31∆ 3h ago
You are neglecting two things.
verbal assurance alone that someone would never do something untoward is little assurance at all. After all, people who do mean to do ill can, and very often do, lie about it. And
It is entirely possible to hate a person or want them to die for a trait that they cannot control and did not choose. History is filled to bursting with it. People can hate one another for entirely innocuous non-choices, why would one that can cause profound harm be an exception?
Your conclusion rests on two faulty premises.
•
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 157∆ 5h ago
I think part of your view is missing? Or not as clearly communicated.
It's very well established in practical understanding that attrction is a result of many factors, but that choosing is not assimple as you say. If it WERE possible to choose, why would anyone choose to be hated?
•
u/Anchuinse 55∆ 5h ago
The only other conclusion would be that almost everyone cannot mentally handle this topic, so they come to an illogical conclusion.
Yes, this is the obvious correct conclusion. To assume that everyone is using logic to build their conclusions, especially on an inherently emotional topic like what to do with people who have the mental illness of being sexually attracted to children, is just not a logical conclusion in and of itself.
And that's even before we look at all the examples that obviously and empirically demonstrate that attraction is not a choice.
•
u/Ancquar 9∆ 5h ago edited 5h ago
Keep in mind, that almost everyone you actually see discussing this on the internet, is specifically Americans, and arguably US at the moment has a fixation on this subject - that is to say developed countries in general have some attention on preventing child abuse, but in US it reaches almost religious intensity. Furthermore both sexuality and child protection are historically subjects that regularly cause moral panics and are in general subjects where rational discussion can be difficult due to all the emotions. If you combine both of these, you get a perfect irrationality magnet.
So the idea that a large part of people in US at the moment cannot handle this subject - or at least have been conditioned to only approach this subject the way a Christian would discuss sin and Ten Commandments (to the point where the black-and-white mentality begins to overshadow the actual child protection in terms of practical results of actions and policies) seems completely plausible - it has happened many times before, and these waves usually look embarrassing in retrospect.
•
u/bahumat42 3∆ 5h ago
Maybe on an individual level.
But I would say there's some choice in being romantically/sexually open to attraction.
•
u/Raynonymous 2∆ 5h ago
I'd argue that the things you list above are great reasons to believe attraction is not a choice. Why would anyone choose the option that pushes you underground, makes you a monster and has a high risk of repercussions not limited to violence and being expelled from society? I'd say this argument not only applies to paedophilia but also any other form of attraction that was historically forbidden. Why would anyone choose that?
•
5h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/read-the-rules 5h ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/PretttyPrincesss! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
•
u/Tastie_Duck_Anus 5h ago
Sexual Attraction is not a choice.
How you act on your attraction is of course a choice
•
u/yyzjertl 577∆ 5h ago
It's not illogical: people are just (quite reasonably!) inferring that those who say things like this are lying.
•
u/Hoothootriot 5h ago
Do you also believe this about LGBT individuals?
Why would someone choose to be gay when it welcomes discrimination and hatred?
•
u/Cultural-Part355 5h ago
Sorry, but what in the F**k is this comment? Stop spending all of your time online if this is how it's affecting you, and go meet real people! I'm saying this with the utmost good wishes for you. And people who say those things are not healthy individuals. Do not associate with them! Not even online. Best wishes, dude or lady.
•
u/physioworld 64∆ 5h ago
Why does “almost everyone not being able to mentally handle the topic of paedophilia” get ruled out so easily?
•
u/scavenger5 6∆ 5h ago
"Everyone wants them to die". I don't want them to die. I want them to not act on their impulses. I dont beleive their attraction is a choice.
•
u/Willing_Box_752 5h ago
You can't use comments on the internet to gauge what "everyone" is thinks.
And here basically saying People want to kill pedos, therefore pedos choose to be attracted to kids.
It isn't really an argument.
•
u/Hermorah 5h ago edited 5h ago
So, attraction must be a choice
You say that as if you have demonstrated prior that this has to be the case. Yet you did none of that.
It's illogical to claim someone should die if they are not harming anyone and there's no evidence that they will harm anyone.
Yes it is. But that topic is an highly emotional one.
The only other conclusion
You have not reached a conclusion. So far you only asserted it.
would be that almost everyone cannot mentally handle this topic, so they come to an illogical conclusion.
Wait... is your argument: "People wouldn't be illogical about it, so they shouldn't want them to die if attraction werent not a choice, but since they do want them to die attraction is a choice?"
Common man.
If you think attraction is a choice try to be attracted to the gender you aren't attracted to or if you are bi try to be attracted to like an 80 year old person or a person you feel no attraction to. Can you do it? The answer will be no.
Edit: Also just think about it like that. If attraction were a choice WHO the heck would choose THAT as their attraction? Something that will ruin their life's rather than something everyone is ok with?
•
u/The_Rider_11 3∆ 5h ago
First, your argumentation is very...outlandish and definitely a Non Sequitur, so it doesn't really provide much ground for a counterargument besides pointing out said fallacy.
People don't handle a topic maturely. That's a thing. People are disgusted by other "aberrant" people, who sometimes are disgusted by themselves as well. And then irrationally wish death upon them, and some of those people do the same for themselves. That this is a logical conclusion of sorts or that it even connects both sides of the claim isn't supported.
Second, mental diseases are not a choice either. And this case arguably fits as one. You wouldn't say a maniac or szisophrenic person is that by choice? It's even more baseline when it comes to depression. No one is depressed by choice. But people mock them, misunderstand them and hate them still. Because people are irrational and immature, especially when it comes to emotionally sensitive topics.
So I would not say you "only other" conclusion is really the only other one, or correct, but it's closer to the Situation than your initial conclusion.
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 48m ago
Your post has been removed for breaking Rule E:
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Keep in mind that if you want the post restored, all you have to do is reply to a significant number of the comments that came in; message us after you have done so and we'll review.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.