~sigh~ Hullo.

I don't want this to turn into a flame. If you find my words rude or wrong, please correct me politely and I'll apologize for them.

Well... you failed. ~shrug~ It happens. Keep your apology, one learns to get pretty stone in this life, 'n you might've even done the best you know how...

I'll gladly take you up on the former, though.

When I was about eight, an unknown man tried to make me go into his car...{rest of paragraph}

Y'know... every violent homophobe has some often-exaggerated story about "that one gay guy who kept hitting on him even though they were straight," usually following it with the universal advocacy of homophobic violence, some muttering about how they're "tolerant" because "they don't hate homosexuals as long as they never find out," and a few more mutterings of violent fantasies.

On a similar note, a common troll/advocacy tactic is to drag up one photo of a leather queen and try to pull the "this is why you shouldn't have nice things," going off about "why do you act like such freaks" while ignoring the entire rest of the community, yadda yadda.

If you found the chat you sought, and someone wandered in and tried either of the two common tactics above, would you even consider them pertinent or relevant to you or anyone there in the least?

Why or why not? If not, why can you be a human endowed with dignity, depth, and respect no matter what some homophobic troll asserts - but not other people?

Can you even tell me what it has to do with your questions? Are the targets of your prejudices the most appropriate place to attempt theraputic venting of your prejudices? Why or why not?

, don't try to prove me wrong on this point

Generally, in conversation, if you have to try to refuse other points of view from adressing your assertions, you should probably not say it in the first place... no matter what the assertion.

Just for future reference.

Normally, blurting out "I'm scared of 'people like you'" is also a giant red flag of nonconstructive discourtesy as well, but you actually tied it in on the end of the last paragraph, so I'll leave it... but, yeah. The above might be helpful when approaching any group.

Your first request covered ;), I'll move on to the questions...

Why do you think you're attracted to LG? Please, don't answer that with "Just because" or "Why are you attracted to men/women?" because I can answer that. I really want a truthful answer to this one.

Unfortunately, "just because" is the most honest answer. It's a predicate premise of my existance as me, and stands as a cause, rather than having a cause.

As for how 'just because' came to be, the heritability studies suggest that it's genetic... a recessive, maternally-transmitted bit of genetic superiority which, frankly, evolution decided to select heavily in favor of for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Some of the MRI/CAT studies hint at coding for structures in the hypothalamus, but it's also a problem that it's unknown whether such scans were dealing with the convicted (majority nonpaederotic), or whether they actually isolated a non-incarcerated sample of paederotic indivduals.

As for how "just because" manifests... there are far, far more structural differences between, as one example, the preadrenarchic state and the average person in their thirties, than there are between genders. Locations of fat deposition, the structure of the hand, the distance between the base of the eye socket and the tip of the nose, the distance between the bottom lip and chin, size of the brain pan in relation to the other features of the head, the curve of the shoulders...

How do you tell in a photograph if someone is a "child" or an "adult" if there are no references on size? Right... now, how do you tell if someone is male or female with deviation from gender-role hair length if their chest is covered? Right...

You teliohetero/homosexuals are far, far more in a void wasteland devoid of differentiating characteristics. It seriously makes me wonder... if you can't tell, how can you even claim to have an orientation?

As for the differences... I cherish every one aesthetically. Not that I had a choice. ;)

If a pedophile molests/has sex/tries to have sex/takes nude pics of a LG *I'm not talking about a teen here, I'm talking about a child*, do you think that is a correct behaviour? Or s/he should go to jail?

What worries me is not what you leave in your questions - but what you leave out of them. The moral confusion and equivocation is actually absolute enough that I have to wonder if you're a clear physical danger to the people around you.

Do you believe that sticking knives into people is right or wrong? If you say 'right,' you've just sanctioned murder. If you say 'wrong,' you've just outlawed lifesaving surgery and condemned hundreds of thousands of people to senselessly die.

There's pretty much no act whose ethical weight isn't governed exclusively by how one goes about it - and it's frightening that you left that out. If something increases the happiness and welfare of all parties involved, it is definitionally a good thing. If something decreases the happiness and welfare of all parties involved, it is definitionaly a bad thing. As shown in the surgery example, the actual act involved is meaningless to the equation - "stabbing people" is as disambiguous as it gets, and yet it can bring life, or it can bring death.

To drag back to the last of your examples... I'm going to use what some would consider the least, photographic nudity. On... well, any... community photo site, there are people, now adults, who have decided to publish the bathtub/streaking/etc photos of themselves, from their own childhood, to the world - it's quite popular, in fact...

IMO, it's pretty unequivocal that there is no negative moral weight whatsoever from seeing such a thing. They wanted to publish it, they published it, done.

Conversely, at the other extreme, your question would also include creeping into your neighbor's yard and photographing their daughter in the shower/changing/whatever through the window, and broadcasting this to the world.

Most people would consider this negative.

IMO, there is absolutely no question that there is a huge moral difference between the two, and it honestly frightens the crap out of me that you cannot differentiate them morally - I don't know whether you've just been programmed to hate us, or whether you truly have no moral capacity or conscience. I'll let you answer that question, but... for the reasons discussed, the structure of your question is... odd.

Where do you trace the no-no line?

At the free will, welfare, and happiness of - in this case - the child. In other cases, "the first parties directly affected"...

Would it be different if it wasn't illegal or you trace it there thinking about the children and not just the law?

:) In much of europe in the 1940s, it was illegal to save a Jew from the death camps; in the US south through much of the 1800s, it was illegal to teach a slave to read.

I don't give a rip about the law, and find it the most flawed moral compass possible.

IMO, the only possible determining effects on the ethics of a situation would be its clear, present, and direct effect on the parties directly involved. As given in the surgery example - it's not what you do, but how you conduct yourself and your regard and treatment for other people, which determines the rightness or wrongness of an act.

In the subtopic in question, a child whose lasting, lifelong happiness is permanently increased as an effect is a good thing. A child whose lasting, lifelong happiness is permanently decreased as an effect is a bad thing. Blanket decree are... not only ludicrous, but downright batshit insane, frankly... and in essence are downright meaningless.