Ask Your Question today
The point should be to gain a new perspective and understanding not frame the argument where you are forcing someone to agree with you. Why are you so afraid of people disagreeing? Grow a pair
| I completely agree | 20 | |
| I mostly agree | 12 | |
| I half agree | 3 | |
| I hypothetically agree | 0 | |
| I will eventually agree | 1 |
Who says you can't have a different opinion? Everyone is free to have opinions.
You're not free from the consequences of those opinions. And if you don't like the consequences of them...well...
On one hand it's true but should be a result of natural consequences but when someone uses the "consequences" argument to justify a mob weaponizing someone's opinions to destroy irrelevant elements of their lives then that's when the "consequences" argument should be thrown out the window.
That shouldn’t even have to be a question. Modern ‘liberals’ and their cancel culture are a social disease
I dunno...if I say that grown men shouldn't have sex with 2 year olds, do you think that should be up for debate?
Not up for debate but I'd totally want people to feel comfortable with voicing it so that I know who not to let babysit my kid.
I'm reading the comments on here & I think I interpreted this question differently than others. I do believe pedophilia should be discussed (it's necessary to talk about stuff like available therapeutic resources, prevention etc etc), I just don't think it's up for DEBATE.
As in...i don't think the notion of whether it is right or wrong to bang toddlers should even be a discussion. Not everything needs to be a point counterpoint shitshow. That's the problem with using absolutes like disagreeing should ALWAYS be allowed.
I mean, on most subjects sure...on some subjects, not so much. The problem with saying let's debate child molestation, everyone is free to disagree, is that it gives a platform to NAMBLA type bullshit & fuck that.
Some "disagreements" are just a hot pile of harmful, destructive garbage.
I suppose what you're saying is that the topic should not be eliminated but that nothing from the position of a pro-paedophile party would ever be convincing enough to make the conversation worthwhile and should be viewed with contempt? I agree with that.
I suppose an aspect that we're not considering is that perhaps by debating the topic it prevents individuals from falling into the trap that I'm sure groups like NAMBLA make to convince the unwitting into their cause, if you catch my drift?
different people have different openions.
& you have the freedom to choose your opinion.
I've seen some of my friends selected opinions that they don't like and selecting it just because their best friends choose it and forced them to choose it tooo...
I just hate when people slander people over having differing opinions. If you have to resort to slander you are losing the argument.
The only time you should not be allowed to disagree is if it's involving murder, rape or something serious. Like if someone says rape is bad, there's no argument there but for everything else especially less serious topics there should always be acceptance of an opposing view
I think even that should not be closed of from discussion entirely, even if they are wrong. And denying discussion is a far step from just disagreeing. I cant think of a case where rape would be justified, but for murder people cant even fully agree on what that actually is sometimes (even though the official definition requires it being illegal) and there are grayzones, like eg. whether euthanasia of terminally ill people (who consent) should be legal (I absolutely think it should). Of course the famous issue with abortion. Are soldiers killing in war (where they're required to) still murder? Even if it is I think people get overly obsessed by the word alone. But if you mean the kind of murder serial killers and school shooters commit I fully get your point, even for that I'm not for just shutting down discussions entirely, maybe its a way to convince those people it is wrong too
What about pedophilia? It's in my opinion that as soon as a pedophile acts on their urges we throw them on a pile of burning tires.
I agree with the part about punishing them, but that has nothing to do with whether it should be open to discuss or not. Pedophilia is terrible, especially when acted on, before that they are kinda just unfortunate. People should discuss how do deal with non-offending pedophiles. Something that maybe could be discussed is what the exact age of consent should be (although the actual pedophiles would want to push that way too low if they could), and that already varies from countru to country. 16 seems to be most common (at that point almost anyone would at least have hit puberty if they develop normally). Some places its 18, and thats when youre legally considered adult but its not based on something directly biological. Obviously at some point it would be without question too young
People disagree with each other all the time on here. Who is this post for?
There's no room for new perspectives nowadays. People have their tribes, some tribes have more power than others, and all of those powerful tribes with power will use that power to pollute the very concept of outside perspectives.