What if pedophile/s announced that "Toddlers and Tiara" plays into their hands?

By that logic, bars should be illegal because the existence of alcohol hinders a recovering alcoholic’s rehabilitation.

The gravity of the problem of Pedophiles is not that easily dismissable to me.

@MrItty Are you saying it’s OK to be a pedophile, just in moderation?

To answer the question, I don’t think pedophiles should have a say in what’s on television. If a pedophile did something bad because of that show, removing that show would simply make him go elsewhere.
I don’t like that show or what it stands for, but it’s up to them how to raise there kids.
Not us.

@IHateMusic – No he wasn’t. A bar can be enjoyed responsibly by someone who is not an alcoholic. But an alcoholic cannot drink in moderation. Each drink is, essentially, a harm or a danger.

This is the relationship to pedophilia, as their sexual tendencies can’t be realized without harm. So, others can watch toddlers and tiaras without having to go out and search for a child to molest, and any effect it has tangentially on a pedophile would be massive and unnecessary restraints on free speech. So, the comparison is extremely valid not to connect pedophilia and alcoholism, but to show that restraint on business or speech that serves a neutral purpose to normal customers is not the proper reaction to such business or speech having a negative impact on a peculiarly sensitive person. That is, in fact, a general restraint on the people’s rights – which is always the very last option.

It also does not take much restraint to not get cable if you can’t avoid watching that show if it’s on.

As for the parents, while I’m sure I would be suspect of most behavior I saw on it…parents push their kids to do ridiculous and demeaning and even damaging stuff a lot. I don’t know if you’ve seen a parent at a little league game…but…girrrrl…

So, in the first instance it’s the responsibility of the state and the parolee’s doctor, as well as himself, to assist in managing his recovery…not CPS, and definitely not creative media. And in the second instance, there’s a difference between abusing your child and scarring them. And hell – for some of the kids it may be the best thing ever. So again…no CPS.

@IHateMusic I didn’t say anything remotely like that, and for you to assert that I did is revolting. Shame on you.

The analogy is that something shouldn’t be banned just because some sick (mentally or physically) person finds it to be a hindrance to their recovery, even though other normal healthy people can enjoy it with no adverse effects.

Pre-emptive cautionary side note: This subject is notorious for triggering flinch reflexes. Let’s try not to let taboo-ness dictate what can and can’t safely be said. No drama, no accusations, no revulsion, no indignity over implications. Just calm reason.
I’m kind of looking at you right now, @MrItty. Relax.

@IHateMusic
“Are you saying it’s OK to be a pedophile, just in moderation?”
Hang on. If we can assume that the only alternative – not being a paedophile at all – is unattainable for these people, and if “being a paedophile in moderation” means being a paedophile as long as they don’t actually seriously consider sexually or romantically pursuing children… then isn’t that the best thing you can attain, without violating their civil rights? A well-behaved paedophile with proper self-control.
What else did you have in mind?

For the record, there is a benign outlet for paedophilic lust. It’s known as wanking.
There are weirder fantasies out there.

There are network/s who refused to carry it, I’m sure. So, the one/s who do can decide not to if they want to. So, no need for anyone to ban anything.

Wow sorry guys I just re-read my post and it was offensive.
I have no excuse.

@IHateMusic – I wouldn’t say offensive – just a little reductive, maybe curt.

But it’s the internet…that shit happens. ;-)

I have a lot to add to this, but why is alcoholism come to mind instead of the illegal drugs heroin etc.?

@flo Is addiction to and the abuse of a legal drug somehow better, somehow less destructive than addiction to and the abuse of an illegal drug? I’m not making a value judgment one way or the other but addiction to and the abuse of alcohol has caused more pain and misery and destroyed more lives and more families than all the illegal drugs combined, by several orders of magnitude. If I am wrong please correct me, if, in your comment, you were not somehow implying that addiction and abuse of illegal drugs is somehow worse and more harmful than the addiction to and abuse of legal drugs, alcohol being only one of them, then correct me, but if that is what you’re saying then I absolutely disagree.

@IHateMusic I don’t think you were wrong to respond “Are you saying it’s OK to be a pedophile, just in moderation?”

@MrItty would you replace alcohol and and alcoholism in your analogy? It doesn’t seem to me @IHateMusic was trying to be personal/insulting, but to point out the flaw in the arguement. I almost wrote exactly that.

@lillycoyote “If, in your comment, you were not somehow implying that addiction and abuse of illegal drugs is somehow worse and more harmful than the addiction to and abuse of legal drugs, alcohol being only one of them,..” No I don’t mean that. I will have to get back to this.

@flo I wasn’t trying to..
I’m really that stupid ok.

@flo Thanks! I really do appreciate you’re acknowledging my issue. I do the “I’ll have to get back to you” thing. Some nights, even though I really want to respond to someone, I just don’t have the brainpower to do it at the time, but I like to put a bookmark in the discussion, to let them know that I haven’t just blown them off, like you. Thanks :-)

@IHateMusic
It’s cool, everyone says stupid things sometimes.
Please stop insulting yourself.

@flo No, I will not replace anything in my analogy, because it is a perfectly valid one. Alcohol and Children’s pageant shows are both perfectly legal and perfectly harmless when enjoyed appropriately. The fact that there is a minute percentage of the population who has a mental illness or instability which is exacerbated by their existence does not remotely mean that they should be banned.

@Fyrius you can “look” at me all you want. When someone makes a disgusting implication about my views, I will respond to them.

Please ignore the ’’...should end….’’ part of my detail, . I don’t mean paedophiles should be leading/dictate us. I meant if they asked society to help them…what are you willing to do to help reduce the harm out there?

The fact that something is legal does not necessarily mean that it is a good thing, and that people can’t do without it. Some people voluntarily, happily give up their hobby, hunting, and owning guns in general simply because it is a small sacrifice compared to the harm that is caused by them.

Why wouldn’t one of the major things CPS is invoved in be whether or not a parent is willing to take the slightest chance of sacrificing his/her child to serve as a tease to all the kidnapers/ perverts/out there? We are talking about putting it out there to inform the however many millions of people (even if were within their family or local community) It is far from a ’‘minute number’’ by the way.

@iamthemob ’‘So, in the first instance it’s the responsibility of the state and the parolee’s doctor, as well as himself, to assist in managing his recovery…not CPS’’ It is supposed to protect them from their parents who are doing the opposite of protecting them.

’’....And in the second instance, there’s a difference between abusing your child and scarring them. And hell – for some of the kids it may be the best thing ever. So again…no CPS. Just curious which one is an okay thing to do? abusing or scaring them?

@flo

CPS should step in only when there is evidence of harm to the child. Putting a kid in a pageant is not evidence of that. Pedopheliacs often go where children can be found. Playgrounds, schools, etc. A parent shouldn’t be expected to withhold having kids participate in an objectively neutral activity simply because it’s something that attracts pedophiliacs. Kids wouldn’t be able to leave the house…

And I said scarring, not scaring them. Scarring is something you do without knowing. Demanding top grades from your child can scar them if you are unintentionally too harsh, or your child reads you as loving them only if they do so. Abuse is something that, from a legal perspective, must be fairly clearly recognizable or defined. If it is not, then government authority can intrude far too much into private family life.

Neither okay. Scarring is understandable in many instances, regrettable, preventable, not okay in the end – but a private matter. Abuse is dangerous, illegal, and a matter for the authorities.

@iamthemob but then, ’‘And hell – for some of the kids it may be the best thing ever.’’ so…
there you go.

CPS should step in only when there is evidence of harm to the child.
By the time the harm is done, it is too late. Beauty pageants for kids, where they acting sexy is hair raising stuff.

Some people voluntarily, happily give up their hobby, hunting, and owning guns in general simply because it is a small sacrifice compared to the harm that is caused by them.What are you willing to do to help reduce the harm out there?

@flo – Was that last post to me? I’m not really sure what you’re asking now…

I also don’t know what you’re saying with “so…there you go” also…I’m not sure what that’s in response too…

I don’t like the pageants – at the same time, I’m not a little girl. They get to dress in crazy, flashy things like a grown up and have a bunch of people clap while they do it. That has to be fun for them in some cases. If mothers or parents get crazy about it, I would hope someone in their personal lives would step in. CPS is far, far too drastic, and a bad precedent.

wait…is that second post for another thread?

@iamthemob No it wasn’t, I would have addresssed you. We are on opposite sides on this topic.

I edited my last post a bit Some people voluntarily, happily give up their hobby, hunting, and owning guns in general, simply because it is a small sacrifice compared to the harm that is caused by them. What are you willing to do to help prevent/reduce the incidents of paedophilic crimes?

@flo – As a parent, I don’t believe there’s anything one can do to in terms of decisions about what the child should or shouldn’t do activity-wise to stop affecting or eliciting feelings from a pedophiliac. Fearing all the “hidden dangers” stops them from being productive.

It’s about teaching your kids to be smart, responsible, and confident – as well as monitoring their more “passive” exposures…television, the internet, etc., as much as possible. Be aware, not scared.

@iamthemob
“I don’t believe there’s anything one can do to in terms of decisions about what the child should or shouldn’t do activity-wise to stop affecting or eliciting feelings from a pedophiliac”
We can stop bending over backward to maintain it.

”...for some of the kids it may be the best thing ever. So again…no CPS.”

”...kids participate in an objectively neutral activity simply because it’s something that attracts pedophiliacs. ....”

“I don’t like the pageants”??
I can go on and on.

@flo – No one is bending over backwards to maintain pedophilia! There is no intent in the show to do that. No one’s suggesting that we do.

I don’t know what you can go on and on about. But you have taken a lot out of context, and the middle one is especially disturbing. Pedophiliacs are attracted to kids. So gathering them up in one place is something that attracts them. That’s what that sentence is about.

Nothing suggests maintaining pedophilia. Considering most pedophiliacs take advantage of children they’re related to, or of families they know…perhaps we should just stpo having families at all. Or have adult friends meet our kids. Or send them to teachers at school.

The whole kid pageant thing, I think, is lame and a little creepy. But some people like it. It’s not my job, or yours, to tell them any different. There are already laws against pedophilia.

@iamthemob “No one is bending over backwards to maintain pedophilia!” it refers.
pageants for toddlers.
Again I can go on.

“It refers”? ... what does that mean…

…now I’m wondering if you’ve seen the show…

Anyway, I don’t know where you’re going on from…if you don’t want your kid to dress up and get in front of people because you’re afraid that the child will get molested, don’t do it. If you don’t like the parents that push their kids in it, don’t like them.

But none of that has anything to do with pedophiles…

@iamthemob ‘We can stop bending over backward to maintain it.’’ That is my own statement, right? I am telling you what the it in my statement is about. It is what we’ve been discussing – the subject of the OP There was a typo there, sorry. It should read ’’it refers to pageants for toddlers’’.

Let me just pick one statement out of so many of your satatements:
1)’’ There is no intent in the show to do that.’’ There is no intent on the part of the drunk drivers to kill/maim people either.
2)’‘Nothing suggests maintaining pedophilia. Considering most pedophiliacs take advantage of children they’re related to, or of families they know…perhaps we should just stpo having families at all. Or have adult friends meet our kids. Or send them to teachers at school.’’. You are comparing something living your life normally, and what amounts to peddling your children, and on TV?

’‘But some people like it. It’s not my job, or yours, to tell them any different’’. We are discussing a topic on a Q&A site.

Again, I should stop. You are doing it all for me. I must thank you.
’‘But none of that has anything to do with pedophiles…’’
If paedophiles are reading this, they would love you. That is what it has to do with paedophiles.

@flo

Listen, I know you just hate pageants and all, but putting in bold that pedophiles would love me… well, aside from just being illogical, is a nasty stab at me.

I’m really, really saddened by the fact that you are attempting to push an agenda that, if people disagree with you, requires that those people be are the darlings of pedophiles. I don’t take personal offense, because I know you’re wrong. But you’ve seriously discredited yourself.

Now, you can go on. ;-) I appreciate your thanks to me.

@iamthemob okay then.

If paedophiles are reading this, they would love me

@flo I actually laughed “lol’d” at that.

I’m a bit amused that you guys are treating “paedophiles would love you” as an insult.

I’m still thinking of paedophiles as troubled – if dangerous – human beings with serious mental problems, rather than some shady organisation conspiring to turn all children into strippers.

Cigarette manufacturers love addicted smokers who twist themselves into a pretzel saying:
-‘it is a legal product’,
-the government is making money from it,
-some smokers live smoked till he was 90, and on and on, instead of just admitting what is obvious.
@Fyrius I didn’t mean that they are conspiring. In order for harm to be there, it doesn’t need to be a result of conspiracy a shady organization. Just like the drunk drivers for example, individually they do their damage.

@IHateMusic I hope just momentarily though, since I didnn’t mean to humorous there.

@flo – Nor do you intend to be sensible. If you don’t like the show, or pageants, don’t support them.

Now, if we really want to focus on something that has been a haven for pedophiles, we should probably talk about disbanding the priesthood.

@iamthemob
” If you don’t like the show, or pageants, don’t support them.” If you go by that logic, you wouldn’t be answering this OP, right? you would just pass it.
Also, there wouldn’t be such a thing as law and order, human rights…

“we should probably talk about disbanding the priesthood.” More than one thing can be a heaven for paedophiles, it is not an either or thing.

From your previous to last post:
”...by the fact that you are attempting to push an agenda that,...” Aren’t we both doing the same thing. I just happen to be the one who started it with my OP.

By the way, when I wrote “I can go on” I meant I can go on but I should stop since you have been doing it all for me.

@flo – Pedophiles must love you. ;-)

@flo
I think drunk drivers are an apt analogy. Good choice.

As a side note, now think of someone telling you “drunk drivers would love you”.

@Fyrius thanks for the first part. But how do you do the confused emotiocon here? (re. the second part)

@flo
Sorry, did I confuse you? I’ll point out the relevance.

Drunk drivers don’t consciously intend to harm people, but sometimes do so through irresponsibility and bad judgement. I believe paedophiles are much the same. Most of them do not, on a conscious, intellectual level, think it’s all dandy and fine to ruin a child’s life for one’s own sexual thrills. The ones that do are not just paedophiles, they’re also psychopaths.
Continuing with that analogy – and I called it a side note, because I think we’re done making a big deal out of this phrase – if you’d tell someone who defends beer commercials that the drunk drivers would love him for it, that wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense. The drunk drivers would only love him for it if they want to encourage everyone to get wasted and crash into people, and if they would tip their hat to anyone who helps them achieve that goal – like beer commercials and people who try to justify them on the internet.
Back outside the analogy, if you tell someone who defends child pageants that the paedos would love him for it, that would imply paedophiles deliberately want children to be sexualised, and would tip their hat to anyone who works in favour of their shady agenda.

Just trying to clear stuff up. I’m not nagging you for having said something wrong. Like I said, I think we’re done with that.

@Fyrius paedophiles like/love anyone who doesn’t actively work against them. Drunk drivers wouldn’t have a problem with anyone defends beer commercials. It makes them feel that much less guilty, maybe.

I just wanted to get to the original statement several posts ago:
“1)’’ There is no intent in the show to do that.’’ There is no intent on the part of the drunk drivers to kill/maim people either.”

@flo
“paedophiles like/love anyone who doesn’t actively work against them.”
Really? What a saint-like and big-hearted bunch of people they must be. If only everyone could be so nice.
Look, pal, you’re not making this any easier. I suggest you say “whoops” and we move on.

@Fyrius
“Look, pal, you’re not making this any easier. I suggest you say “whoops” and we move on.”
I will make it easier, please move on. This is my OP did you forget?

Not much, they might do what they think is a more robust background check of anyone working the pageant or excluding single men from the pageant, curbing picture taking of any child not yours, or unless you have a legit press pass, but the show would go on. Do you think all those ”quasi-model” sites on the Net where you have to get a subscription to the ”portfolio” in hi-res jpegs will get shut down or end soon? I bet the girls who are the ”alleged models” don’t even see a fraction of the money they are producing for those putting it out there.

@Hypocrisy_Central I don’t know if that answers my question.

^ I don’t know if that answers my question.
More pointedly, nothing would be done about the show or any pageant. CPS would not get involved; no legislator will touch it as far as regulation or more regulation. If there is anything done because someone with pedophilia says that, they will go harder at those who acted on it and have a record, or those whoever admitted it. They might make laws that say any therapist who hears such cravings from their client has to report them to the cops. That would mean anyone who does have it and want to get better will never do so less get branded in the worse way, a metaphysical hot poker up the anus. The show and pageants themselves would simply make it harder for any single man to view, participate, or even be in the building when the contest was going on. The show would go on, trophy companies will make their money, gown and makeup sellers will make their money, even halls and such will make their money, and hotels, etc. will make their money.

@Hypocrisy_Central But I was asking about the individual viewer. .

^ But I was asking about the individual viewer.
they would whine on some blog or at the checkout counter, but they will factor to nothing.

I thought I added Ignore the part about the Child Services in my last post.
The key word in the detail of the OP is “you”. I don’t mean you ,you by the way so please don’t refer to youself.

^ The key word in the detail of the OP is “you”. I don’t mean you ,you by the way so please don’t refer to youself.
Trying to follow the reasoning here, if the ”you” is not me, but people in general, I think I addressed that, and what they would do. If the ”you” is what I myself would do, I would do nothing because I have no ability to do anything less complain to the producers of the show, which I would not do because there is no legal standing that says they can’t and you have willing participants (we are talking of the parents who speak for the kids legally even if the kids were not totally onboard with it). It would not surprise me thought that some would think that, just as those other ”amateur model” one runs across sometimes that want you to subscribe or become a member to view the young girl’s portfolio.

Why do people stop smoking? Couldn’t they just say nothing would change, the cigarette manufacturers would continue to manufacture….legally….?

Why do people stop smoking? Couldn’t they just say nothing would change, the cigarette manufacturers would continue to manufacture….legally….?
Diverting off path a little, from what I have seen people stop smoking for various reasons, an illness causes them to rethink the position on the habit, their spouse doesn’t smoke, they do not wish to expose their spouse or kids to any danger of smoking, real or imagined, it becomes too expensive, there are less places to do it so it becomes a burden, etc. In reality, nothing has changed greatly, even with all the so-called knowledge of what smoking can do to a person medically there is always someone to take up the habit because of whatever reason. As long as Big Tobacco can make cigarettes, they will, and people will buy them, so, yeah, they will still make their money.