The semantics is that because we're loosely terming "sexual orientation" to include LGBT people that it's super confusing to you why we aren't including some other things that you could in another context call "sexual orientation".

It's not. You know full well the ****ing difference.

No, I dont.

Are you arguing that pedophilia is not a sexual orientation?

I dont know what you mean by "another context"

Again, its YOUR argument.
You want people protected on the basis of sexual orientation.

P1) people should not be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation
P2) homosexuality is a sexual orientation
C) homosexuals should not be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation

This is your argument, correct? You do realise that logic doesnt care about your feelings? The fact that you dont like that your own argument leads you to places you dont like , is irrelevant.

Of course, you are free to add in another premise to the argument so that it still holds, but excludes pedophiles. I have already asked you to do that, twice.

Seriously, you're asking me to litigate the difference between homosexuality and paedophilia.

The argument's been had plenty before now. Move on.

No, Im not

Im asking why your argument doesnt apply to pedophilia

Must you guys really just keep comparing homosexuality to pedophilia every time? Of all the examples you could use to make your terrible points, you really had to choose the one with the most disgusting history of homophobic comparisons to gay people? It's been 200 posts of debating using that comparison.

Move on.

Because it's not the same.

How is it a terrible point to ask why your argument doesnt apply to a group? If you have a valid reason why it doesnt apply, then great, I would like to hear it. All I have got so far is swear words.

The only way I am comparing them is as an example of a sexual orientation. I am not saying they are equivalent, morally or otherwise.

Its been 200 posts because we dont get an answer, just swear words and labels thrown around and "of course theres a difference"

Why is it so hard to get a straight answer?

thats not an answer and you know it. WHY isnt it the same? WHY does your argument not apply?

basically what you have said is

"why does your argument not apply to pedophilia?"
"because it doesnt"

It's an answer. It's not the answer you want, but it's an answer.

If you want to debate the differences between homosexuality and paedophilia then I've made it very clear that I'm not interested. It's not a new argument. It's a very old one. And, until this thread, I had hoped a settled one.

I'm quite happy to explain why your point is terrible, but I'm sorry I just refuse to engage with it if the only example you use is comparing homosexuals to pedophiles.

Again, that exact comparison has a long and disgusting history where gay people are negatively compared to pedophiles, by homophobes who try to deny gay people rights. It's disgusting. You may not feel you are part of this, that you are just raising valid points on the internet, but you should at least be aware of the existence of this toxic history. And you should be able to pick a different ****ing thing to compare gay people to.

If your point is really so flimsy that you absolutely MUST use pedophiles to make it, and can't use any other way to make your point, then it isn't even worth responding to.

"Its disgusting" is not an argument.

"because it is" is not an argument, and not an answer

Duh? I literally just told you I wasn't going to argue your point if the only way you could think of to frame it was by comparing gay people and pedophiles.

It's not only the distasteful nature of the argument. It's also that I don't believe anyone is so naive as to not be able to take a wild guess at why I might consider the two dissimilar in the context of this conversation. Either you're arguing in bad faith or you need to go away and do some serious thinking on your own before I help you.

again, its your argument that you are ( supposed to be) defending here. If you cant defend it, other than by refusing to defend it, what does that say about your argument?


Still not an argument.

What is this, Monty Python?

I don't care what you think it says about whatever argument you think I'm making. I'm not being secretive about the fact I don't want to nor do I have to argue on your terms. All I'm really posting for is to see you throwing toys out of the pram because I refuse to play your silly games.

+1

+1

I still think there is either too much ideology or not enough humility in this discussion for such a complex problem at the scale we are talking about. Theorizing based on fairness, justice, or logical consistency is not going to be good enough in my view - we are too ignorant and biased. Focusing on measuring the results and making minor tweaks is the way to go.

I used it because someone else already had. But I already asked you to suggest some other minority sexual orientation that you wouldn't have protected under the law, and I for one would be happy to use that one instead..

I'm not using it negatively. I'm using it to say pedophiles should be just as protected as homosexuals or heterosexuals, which are all 100%. The only other thing I could think of was zoophiles, which I didn't think you would react more positively to.

Of course you consider them dissimilar, because you cannot get out of your moral world view which considers pedophilia less moral than homosexuality. In EXACTLY the same way that many religious people consider homosexuality to be less moral than heterosexuality.

Personally I consider all sexual orientations as outside of the sphere of morality, so I can look at them objectively.

The above argument is logically valid. Hard to argue with P2. Is P1 true?

Wow.