Paedophilia and morality

[camouflage]

no, are you?

No I'm not particularly interested in paedophilia. I did wonder at the nature of your deep interest in the subject.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No I'm not particularly interested in paedophilia. .

No particular interest, but, a general interest?

 

[DotCommunist]

A paedo finder General interest?

 

[camouflage]

Woah, I didn't mean to go all paedo-finder general or anything, it's just that the "deep interest" in peadophilia kind of begged the question. I'm the sort of person that just blurts out begged-for questions.

 

[max_freakout]

No I'm not particularly interested in paedophilia. I did wonder at the nature of your deep interest in the subject.

i didnt mean im just interested in paedophilia, i mean im interested in human sexuality in general, i find it fascinating

we are SO different from other animals in the way we express our sexuality!

Paedophilia is one of the most extreme, taboo forms of human sexuality' but i think it's a lot more common than most people imagine it to be

 

[gorski]

That's because we're not animals.

And when we do become animals other Humans run away from us, as far and as fast as they can...

 

[DotCommunist]

Woah, I didn't mean to go all paedo-finder general or anything, it's just that the "deep interest" in peadophilia kind of begged the question. I'm the sort of person that just blurts out begged-for questions.

a quick pedants derail if you don't mind

Begging the Question.It doesn't mean what you think it means. Begging the question — from the Latin petitio principii — is a logical fallacy; it means assuming your conclusion in the course of your argument. If you say "Everything in the Bible must be true, because it's the word of God," you're taking your conclusion for granted. If you say "The defendant must be guilty because he's a criminal," you're doing the same. It's a kind of circular logic. The conclusion may be true or false, but you can't prove something by assuming it's true.
This is very different from raising the question, though people are increasingly using the phrase that way. It's sloppy, and should be avoided. Here, for instance, is a piece from The Times (London), 30 Nov. 2004:

The behaviour of ministers is a matter for prime ministers, who appoint and dismiss them. But this begs the question of who should find out what has gone wrong on behalf of a prime minister.​

No it doesn't. It raises the question; it prompts the question; perhaps it forces us to ask the question; maybe this question begs for an answer. But it doesn't beg the question.

 

[i-am-your-idea]

'These are the thoughts of all men in all ages and lands
they are not orginal with me,
If they are not yours as much as mine they are nothing or next to nothing.
If they do not enclose everything they are next to nothing,
If they are not the riddle and the untying of the riddle they are nothing,
If they are not just as close as they are different they are nothing.'

 

[Fruitloop]

But in order to get them, you'll have to have a few shags, or use the artificial method of a turkey baster.

Well yeah, but it won't have anything to do with sex drive. Particularly not the turkey-baster method.