Remember yesterday, when I said that once an entrenched cultural position begins 'winning' that people seeking to push the envelope will start crawling out of the woodwork?
I feel psychic.
Today in Gawker is an article that can only be described as 'pro-pedophilia'. Now, it never actually comes out and says that it is, in fact, pro-pedo, but the tone and take of the article is simply that those poor pedophiliacs are being unjustly persecuted for their sexual orientation.
It even starts with a pedo's graphic description of one of his crimes.
Now, one could make a very strong, rational case that the point of the article is that these men need help... and its always men, right? On the other hand it also ends comparing pedophiles to 'other' oppressed, powerless groups like:
More importantly is any lack of consideration at all for the victims. Not one mention is made of how, unlike those 'other oppressed, powerless groups', people who sexually prey on children wreak unimaginable harm on their 'partners'.
Failure to condemn is to condone.
It really is that simple.
On the face of it I encourage scientists to understand why people to fucked up shit to one another. Simply shrugging away the existence of 'Creepy Uncles', as we used to call them, is to ignore the problem. Arresting them and letting them out, without addressing the underlying issue is only better in that it removes them from their victim pool for a few years. Research should be squarely aimed at solving the problem, be it early identification for eradication, or actually curing them of their evil desires.
But make no mistake, if your research is presented in such a way as to make them sympathetic victims of biology?
You are wrong.
If you, as a journalist, discover such research and write an article that continues to treat them as sympathetic victims of biology?
You are wrong.
It really is that simple.
EDIT::: obviously I am not entirely familiar with Blogger yet. There is a direct quote in the middle of the story here, but I'll be damned if I can work out how to make it... well... quote.
I feel psychic.
Today in Gawker is an article that can only be described as 'pro-pedophilia'. Now, it never actually comes out and says that it is, in fact, pro-pedo, but the tone and take of the article is simply that those poor pedophiliacs are being unjustly persecuted for their sexual orientation.
It even starts with a pedo's graphic description of one of his crimes.
Now, one could make a very strong, rational case that the point of the article is that these men need help... and its always men, right? On the other hand it also ends comparing pedophiles to 'other' oppressed, powerless groups like:
...
Blacks, women, Latinos, gays and lesbians
More importantly is any lack of consideration at all for the victims. Not one mention is made of how, unlike those 'other oppressed, powerless groups', people who sexually prey on children wreak unimaginable harm on their 'partners'.
Failure to condemn is to condone.
It really is that simple.
On the face of it I encourage scientists to understand why people to fucked up shit to one another. Simply shrugging away the existence of 'Creepy Uncles', as we used to call them, is to ignore the problem. Arresting them and letting them out, without addressing the underlying issue is only better in that it removes them from their victim pool for a few years. Research should be squarely aimed at solving the problem, be it early identification for eradication, or actually curing them of their evil desires.
But make no mistake, if your research is presented in such a way as to make them sympathetic victims of biology?
You are wrong.
If you, as a journalist, discover such research and write an article that continues to treat them as sympathetic victims of biology?
You are wrong.
It really is that simple.
EDIT::: obviously I am not entirely familiar with Blogger yet. There is a direct quote in the middle of the story here, but I'll be damned if I can work out how to make it... well... quote.
No comments:
Post a Comment