Exactly, it was only international armies and an international court that stopped his country from exporting genocide to the rest of the world. Among survivors of that generation, many still hold views that genocide and the compendium of cruelty that went with it are not only justifiable, but preferred directions. Now it is only laws against genocidal speech that keep his countrymen from renewing their murderous campaigns. In the cultural setting where they were created, Eriks remarks are far from the extreme indeed. Thank George Soros’ Open Society Institute for funding Erik’s residency in the United States, where he his free to express whatever dangerous, self-indulgent notion that floats to the top of his addled mind.

Globalist socialists – the new nationalist socialist party.

One comment is that the world is not the same as before WWII. That’s undeniably true but it doesn’t mean it’s better, fairer, more just now. In fact, we seem to be just more hung-up. I loved the HUMAN feel of the story above, whether truth or fiction. It’s much the same today: they’d still ship the poor innocent off to be butchered far from home rather than charging him with statutory rape.

All aspects of sexuality we can imagine have been going on since humankind crawled out of the egg. There’s no new coupling we can invent.

What has changed is our access to quick information. That doesn’t make it reliable. These horrific cases get reported because they’re, by definition, so unusual; that’s why they call it news, and it is 100% ALWAYS somebody’s spin.

Our universal access to information has meant we come up with bogus psychobabble like ‘appropriate’ to make ourselves feel better and fit in. We tie ourselves in knots over political correctness.

I doubt many of you have really read Moller’s article in depth, easily machine translated on Google. He cites an interesting example: nudist magazines. Nudist magazines were the Playboy of a bygone age but they always include “children”. The law has gone far overboard in trying to protect us from ourselves. (Has anyone noticed we mostly elect lawyers to be politicians who, in turn, follow their training and write more laws!)

Moller may be more accurately characterised as a pop psychologist or amateur philosopher than a menace to society. The US is parochial and isolationist. Most “perps” are nabbed by entrapment, both by police and as public entertainment.

If you are against all manifestations of censorship worldwide, please sign FACT’s petition.

And by the way, sophomore can be used as an adjective, and when done so, it typically has different connotations than sophomoric does. I carefully chose to use sophomore in this case because I wanted to emphasize the uniformed angle more than the “exhibiting great immaturity and lack of judgment” angle. Don’t question my word choice! :-P

Frankie, I wasn’t aware that pedophiles were “running rampant on” Wikipedia. Seems like you have to go looking for them; you won’t pull up an article on Newtonian physics and find it has pornography in it. Luckily the vast majority of contributors seem to be more interested in creating a positive, useful work and don’t bother getting involved in these scrabbles.

Cyde, your last argument unfortunately embodies the sort of “sophomore(sic.) philosophizing” you use to describe Erik’s writing (especially that last phrase). If you really want to argue the point, I suggest you look up the Kinsey reports. Wikipedia has a pretty good writeup.

Zen, aside from ad-hominem attacks, you seem to be arguing that science does not inform morality, but rather overrides it entirely. I doubt that even you truly believe that.

It’s laughable that you say Erik has “done some thinking and research”. Really? What psychology journals has he published his “research” in then? Oh, that’s right. Research journals don’t publish sophomore philosophizing and moralizing. Read some actual research on the subject and you’ll see Erik’s views (and apparently yours as well) are far, far out of the mainstream.

And as for the division of adult and child being purely arbitrary — are you willing to discard all of reality in your blind defense of Erik? Have you never heard of puberty? That is the difference between children and adults. It seems this argument needs the injection of some real science, not whatever brand of bullshit you and Erik are spewing.

Puberty marks the transition from biological childhood to biological adulthood. It’s the difference between when you cannot reproduce and then when you can. Sex after puberty serves a useful purpose, and so humans are programmed by evolution to have sexual desires in response. Sex before puberty serves no useful purpose (and is actually damaging to children in many ways), and as a result, children do not have sexual desires. Yes, children will have their silly games and their schoolyard romances, but the urge to fuck comes with puberty.

A provider of knowledge should not either. The WMF should defend Erik to the hilt. You would too if you had balls — and dude, that’s a different thing from throwing your weight around on a social networking site like Wikipedia.

And while I don’t want to take sides, I would like to point to the Avert’s age of consent page as likely evidence for people from other countries likely having a different view on what does and doesn’t constitute pedophilia, so that may need to be accounted for in the event that this is an international discussion, though I’m not certain it is as yet.

Avez-vous découvert cette diatribe de la peu fréquentable Alithia ?

http://wikipedia.un.mythe.over-blog.com/article-19464546.html

Incidentally, I don’t see how you can make the jump from “child on child is okay, so adult on child is okay”. You haven’t offered any evidence (in the form of links to the scientific literature), just your own uninformed sophomore philosophizing and moralizing on a damaging subject. You don’t have to look very far at all to find stories of women who had “consensual” sex as children with adults, didn’t make much of it at the time, but then became psychologically scarred as they grew up and realized how badly someone had taken advantage of them.

In short, you’re doing exactly what Erik is doing, so it’s not a surprise that you’re coming to his defense. But I don’t think you’ll find any sympathy with most of the rest of us.

hk: I’m not sure you’re getting it. If you read Erik’s comments, you’ll see he draws a careful distinction between pedophilia (attraction to pre-pubescent children) and ephebophilia (attraction to post-pubescent teens). His writings were in defense of pedophilia, so your example isn’t worth anything.

Actually, it’s you who doesn’t get it. You’ve wilfully misread and misunderstood the essay in question.

The title of the essay is “Kinder sind Pornos”, “Children are porn”. It’s meant to be a criticism of the current social treatment of any image of any naked child, no matter the circumstances, as pornographic or potentially pornographic. It’s a rhetorical question without the question mark – are children so naturally pornographic that even a photograph of a father’s child in a bathtub is child porn?

This subtlety seems to have eluded you on your headlong rush to lynch the guy; sorry to rain on your hate parade.

And I can’t find any part of the essay in which he makes any defense of pedophilia. He points out that children are well-known to have proto-sexual relations on their own, with each other – the game of “doctors and nurses”, for example, and that no harm is known or thought to come from that kind of experience. He is trying to point out that since we generally accept that child-to-child sexual experience is not harmful, we should have a good scientific reason for claiming that adult-to-child sexual experience *is* harmful.

Now you might think that the mere asking of such a question is a de facto gesture of support towards adult sexual abuse of children, but it’s not. He’s merely asking for missing evidence in a popular theory, which I would have thought was a righteous thing for any scientifically-minded person to do.

Your article is a misguided, misinformed, reactionary rant which rejects curiosity and the spirit of open enquiry and debate in favour of a mindless witch hunt for even questioning the consensus belief. Well, that’s your right I suppose, but I find it pretty cowardly.

And I highly doubt that other countries are as okay with pedophilia as you seem to claim.

There you are with the pedophilia again. Quite obsessed with dropping that term whereever possible, aren’t you? No-one is talking about “pedophilia” or defending it.

Child rape is a sickening, indefensible crime – and photographs or videos depicting it are not much better. But a father taking a picture of his daughter having a bath should not be called a crime, and the resulting images are not child pornography. This is Moller’s main point and I agree with it.

His other main point is that we lack solid evidence that mild consensual sexual experience in children automatically causes long-term harm. This is a controversial statement but emotions aside, it’s also undeniably true. We haven’t even studied it because folks like you become enraged when the evidential deficiency in our laws is even pointed out.

I think you’re just a sicko on the lunatic fringe.

Yeah, a sicko on the lunatic fringe of free speech, open debate, and dispassionate objectivity in writing laws. I guess we are pretty rare these days.

Anyway, that’s it from me, you can get back to your witch hunt now.

Also, I’m not sure of the subject of wompr’s comment. Is it this post?