Are we defining pedophiles as people who have a strong attraction to children, or who exclusively have a strong attraction to children?
The idea that most pedophiles don’t try to pursue relationships with children seems pretty obvious. It would take quite a bit of evidence to convince me otherwise. What’s the point of the post?
I tried to avoid the complication of exclusivity. The argument that pedophiles offend because they have no other sexual outlets falls away for non-exclusive pedophiles—though exclusivity is on a continuum.
If people find it obvious that most pedophiles don’t pursue relationships with children, great! I suppose it’s occasionally worth thinking about why what you think is obvious really is, though you of course might not get to it with other competing priorities. There really are a lot of vocal people who don’t believe this—maybe none of them are on LessWrong.
This post is step one. Others are coming if no one makes convincing arguments against it.
The content of the article is obviously true. The existence of the article has potentially severe downsides for the site, and while we may wish this wasn’t so, reality is what it is. I would prefer if JoshElders voluntarily retracted it, but I’m in no position to ask that; this is a question for the moderators.
It is, on a meta level, interesting that the article’s current score is 0⁄0 despite the number of comments.
LW is not a pulpit for political change. LW is not intended to be a personal soapbox. LW is for rationality and topics on improving thinking. Since your goal seems to be to change minds about your personal beliefs, it would be best to do it on your own, personal web pages.
Are we defining pedophiles as people who have a strong attraction to children, or who exclusively have a strong attraction to children?
The idea that most pedophiles don’t try to pursue relationships with children seems pretty obvious. It would take quite a bit of evidence to convince me otherwise. What’s the point of the post?
I tried to avoid the complication of exclusivity. The argument that pedophiles offend because they have no other sexual outlets falls away for non-exclusive pedophiles—though exclusivity is on a continuum.
If people find it obvious that most pedophiles don’t pursue relationships with children, great! I suppose it’s occasionally worth thinking about why what you think is obvious really is, though you of course might not get to it with other competing priorities. There really are a lot of vocal people who don’t believe this—maybe none of them are on LessWrong.
This post is step one. Others are coming if no one makes convincing arguments against it.
Writing about low-status topics is low-status. This topic is low-status. Making LW low-status goes against the goals of most readers, I guess.
I don’t know how convincing this argument is, I just can’t ignore it.
It’s pretty convincing.
The content of the article is obviously true. The existence of the article has potentially severe downsides for the site, and while we may wish this wasn’t so, reality is what it is. I would prefer if JoshElders voluntarily retracted it, but I’m in no position to ask that; this is a question for the moderators.
It is, on a meta level, interesting that the article’s current score is 0⁄0 despite the number of comments.
LW is not a pulpit for political change. LW is not intended to be a personal soapbox. LW is for rationality and topics on improving thinking. Since your goal seems to be to change minds about your personal beliefs, it would be best to do it on your own, personal web pages.