Controversial views

[robvalue]

for me I guess it would be that I believe pedophiles are not the same as child-molesters, and shouldn't be treated as demonic outcasts rather be approached with kindness and offered proper help and +treatment so they don't become actual child-molesters.

I agree. I think the biggest problem here is with language. Most people treat these terms as being the same. So much so, that you have to qualify the first with "non active" or something if you're not talking about the second.

The second biggest problem is hysteria/bigotry. It's just not possible to "come out" as a pedophile. It should be, without instantly being branded a criminal and a threat. People should be supportive instead. I share your view that they are much more likely to actually offend when they have to deal with it on their own. If someone told me they were a pedophile, I'd be fine with it. I would be supportive. I wouldn't go report them to the police or whatever, or smear their name. And I wouldn't think any less of them. In fact, I'd consider them brave for having told me.

Around here?  That god belief isn't the great satan of delusional thinking.  No one should get special privileges in relation to their private beliefs but neither should they be harangued for them.

I agree also. As long as they're not harming anyone, or pushing their beliefs onto others, I'm happy to let people be. I don't pick fights with people over their beliefs, either IRL or on the forum. But if someone presents their beliefs here on the forum, they shouldn't be surprised if they get analysed. I'm not endorsing insulting the person as well though.

My own most controversial view would be that happiness and suffering are not in the same currency. I don't think you can compare the two and come up with "overall this person's life was good/bad". In other words, happiness doesn't automatically compensate for suffering. Of course, an individual may feel that this is actually the case, with regard to their own experiences.

The upshot of this is that I consider bringing any sort of sentient life into being to be a morally dubious proposition. Even if you can be very confident that the happiness will probably "outweigh" the suffering, I think it's still dubious. I'm not saying it's simply wrong, I'm saying it's not clear cut right. And this is of course only my opinion. I wouldn't feel comfortable bringing any life into the world, because I would be deciding on its behalf that it's life is overall likely to be "good" or "worth living". I don't feel I can make that judgement, in advance, for a life which needn't ever be here at all. I understand the objection that you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, but the fact is there is no actual need to keep creating more life. We do it because we want to, essentially. Put simply, I don't automatically think life is better than non-life.