The case for tolerance
4 August 2007The more you marginalize people … the more likely they are to actually commit crimes. They don’t feel associated with the society that rejected them, so why keep society’s rules?
I’m quoting Bethan Tuttle, a director with Mothers Against Sex Predators (source). The inverse of the statement follows: the less you marginalise people, the less likely they are to commit crimes. The logical consequence is that the universal, unconditional hatred against all minor-attracted adults is counter-productive in a very dangerous way. People force those attracted to minors to hide that part of themselves, and they do their best to make them feel like despicable, worthless Untermensch just for being what they are, even if they are powerless to change and they have never acted illegally or immorally on it. People force them into this shadowy hell because they think it somehow lessens the probability that they may harm children. But as every psychologist worth their degree will confirm, Bethan Tuttle is exactly right. The well-meaning, but uncontemplated and inhuman condemnation actually has the opposite effect.
If you care about children, you will find that you can tolerate a friend’s minor-attraction without tolerating sexual abuse. Those unwilling to accept this, have to ask themselves one very inconvenient question: what is it you care for the most; children, or your hatred? Pick one, and the other will suffer.
15 Responses to “The case for tolerance”
August 4th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Interestingly, Mrs Tuttle actually hates Jack and has publicly criticised him, which adds further weight to the credibility your argument.
“Those unwilling to accept this, have to ask themselves one very inconvenient question: what is it you care for the most; children, or your hatred?”
Sadly, people believe that they can claim to care more about the former, despite the fact that they care more about the latter. They will not be able to hide this forever, however.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:31 am
There could be a few things at play here. The first is that you are just creepy in general and this is why people avoid you. Its not hate but a concern that a creepy guy wants to be near children.
I wouldn’t trust a kleptomaniac with house keys, why trust someone like you with children? Then in turn if we don’t trust you with children you will rape them out of revenge.
Its best that you just keep clear of us and we keep clear of you.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:22 am
“The first is that you are just creepy in general”
Who’s creepy? This post was not authored by Jack McClellan, it was written by a minor-attracted person who you know nothing about.
I can assure you that nobody in real life considers me to be creepy.
“why trust someone like you with children?”
http://www.attractedtochildren.org/2007/understanding-fantasy
“Then in turn if we don’t trust you with children you will rape them out of revenge.”
That’s an insane statement. I’d like to know why you think that.
I don’t know who you’re talking to, but your ideas about paedophiles are insane even for a “normal” person.
August 7th, 2007 at 10:04 am
The case for tolerance is that if you are not accepted a number of pedophiles will act out? Is that incorrect, if so please tell me what the “opposite effect” will be.
We also do know much about clayboy. His suspensions and closed blogs do not give the impression of a non-creepy individual.
Normal people hate pedophiles because of child porn, and rape. You say you are not going to act on your sexual attractions? Prove this to be true, tell me how we can trust you to not act on them.
How many of your cohorts were arrested in the past few weeks? Were they also claiming to be pedophiles who did not break the law?
August 7th, 2007 at 11:34 am
“The case for tolerance is that if you are not accepted a number of pedophiles will act out? Is that incorrect, if so please tell me what the “opposite effect” will be.”
Clayboy is agreeing with Mrs Tuttle. He feels that the more you marginalise someone, the more likely they are to commit crimes. He feels that marginalising a paedophile increases the risk of that person committing a crime. If you want a specific answer, wait for Clayboy to reply to you.
“We also do know much about clayboy. His suspensions and closed blogs do not give the impression of a non-creepy individual.”
They were suspended because of manipulative anti-paedophile camapigns, as you know.
“Normal people hate pedophiles because of child porn, and rape”
That is not true. This blog was set up to be an anti-contact organisation, but we still get attacked frequently. Although I avoid child porn purely because it is illegal, I still avoid it, so please explain how anything I do harms children. I think that you hate paedophiles because of their attraction to children.
“You say you are not going to act on your sexual attractions? Prove this to be true, tell me how we can trust you to not act on them”
If you ask a question, please read the response -
http://www.attractedtochildren.org/2007/understanding-fantasy
“How many of your cohorts were arrested in the past few weeks? Were they also claiming to be pedophiles who did not break the law?”
How many of them were set up? Is it purely coincidental that two of the people were also the “featured article” on the main page on the CSO wiki for a month?
August 7th, 2007 at 11:44 am
So if you feel marginalized will you rape a child?
What is the end result of your blog? To be accepted? What would that acceptance consist of? Trust? With the likes of boychat members, not likely.
If child porn was not illegal in your area would download it?
Get to the point with this blog what is it that you want from us?
Remember here we have some anon. bloggers talking about how if they are marginalized they may commit crimes against children or even babies. How does society marginalize you? Does it upset you that the public finds your ideas about children sexuality disturbing?
Lets get some straight answers for a change. Not studies, double speak, and hero worship of child stalkesr.
Also, explain how Jim Finn was setup.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
If child porn was not illegal in your area would download it?
And here friends is where we see once again it is our thoughts that they object to, not our conduct.
–I*Love*Green*Olives
PS: I’ve been lurking bit have been busy lately; will be back in the swing of things ASAP though…
August 7th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Are you saying there are no actions connected to child porn?
August 7th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
The quote is most certainly not a “threat” of “rape” and “revenge”. It is a statement of a sociological phenomenon which applies to all people who are made to feel detached from the rules of a society. If you want to stop child sexual abuse, you have to have an understanding of why it happens. I believe the marginalisation of people who are attracted to minors but are powerless to change is an important effector. The quote states that by tolerating those people, fewer of them would commit crimes. Society gains as a whole if people would be judged for their actions and not for some immutable mental state.
So the post was a suggestion for reducing sexual crime against children, not some absurd threat of increasing it.
August 7th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
“Are you saying there are no actions connected to child porn?”
I think you misunderstood ILGO’s statement. The fact that you want to know whether or not we would do something if it were legal isn’t a question about our actions. It’s a question about our thoughts.
Anyway, read this article - http://www.attractedtochildren.org/2007/should-the-possession-of-child-pornography-be-illegal
August 7th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Let ILGO explain for himself…
The comment made was:
although I avoid child porn purely because it is illegal
I wanted to know if the person who made the comment would look at it if it were not illegal.
The quote states that by tolerating those people, fewer of them would commit crimes.
What do you want people to do? What kind of tolerance do you want?
August 7th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
RibbonCutting,
You don’t have any right to tell me what to do here.
You keep asking questions, despite the fact that you can find many of the answers simply by reading the blog.
The fact that you insist on questioning everyone’s thoughts, have a clear affiliation with PJ and are the only non-paedophile who posts via Tor forces us to question your motives.
Read the articles we’ve posted links to, read the About pages and read the Author pages.
We’re not here to be a place for harvesting quotes for a sensationalist article or wiki entry.
Regards,
admin.
August 7th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
I think its very telling that you won’t respond to simple questions and instead dance around everything.
Let your other commenters speak for themselves, they are capable of doing that right?
August 7th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
“I think its very telling that you won’t respond to simple questions”
You are looking for quotes to take out of context and use in order to attack us. Obviously, we’re not going to give you that pleasure.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
The tone is most certainly “PJ”. If anything, “XVE”.