Notes

Allow me to help you understand why I made that remark.

In one comment you asked, rhetorically, *"Having images of preteens sucking off & having sex with a horse and admitting to being aroused by it is weird at worst?? It's absolutely EVIL.."* In response, I asked *"What makes you think it's evil?"* You answered with *"What makes me think having sex with animals and children is evil? Is that a serious question? Lol."* This was the first of many strawman's I couldn't be bothered to call out until now. Not to mention the fact that you quite literally came up with the question to begin with.

Later, in the same comment, you asked, again, rhetorically, *"Wait are you suggesting that destigmatizing and normalizing this shit will help combat it?"* I did not suggest normalization as a legitimate solution, only, and specifically, destigmatization. You would later go on to claim *"I never said destigmatizing and normalizing were one in the same?? But one definitely leads to the other.."* Now, I understand why you would want to boil this down to semantics, but you and I both know there's much more to it than that, and I think it's important to clarify why. While it is true that destigmatization *can* lead to normalization, they're neither synonymous, nor mutually-inclusive processes. Take depression, for example; although there has been a significant push to destigmatize the illness, which we sought to portray as a legitimate medical condition rather than a weakness or character flaw, the normalization of depression has not occurred. Nevertheless, a significant amount of progress was made in terms of diagnoses and treatment. The same could be said of drug addictions, among other things, which we'll get to later.

In the following comment, you opened with *"You're kind of not really responding to any of my questions or points lol."* Then, asked "*You are also not explaining how jacking off to CP would help a pedophile get better? lol."* While it is true that I did not explain how *"jacking off to CP would help pedophiles"* because it's an obvious mischaracterization of my actual argument *(in other terms, a strawman)*, I did explain why destigmatization could lead to better outcomes *"By stigmatizing and demonizing pedophiles without providing avenues for support, you risk driving them into hiding, where they would be less likely to seek help or be held accountable for their actions. In turn, increasing harm to children."* You would, later, go on to challenge the argument with *"I also never once said pedophiles shouldn't have avenues for help?"* Which is only *technically* true. Shame and ostracization, actions you demonstrably advocate for, have a significant impact, indirect or otherwise, on the likelihood of individuals to seek help.

Next up - let's ignore the fact that *"Your HIV example isn't analogous.."*, *"Pedophiles can and have gotten better."*, and *"destigmatizing and decriminalizing drug use has had the complete opposite outcome that you are describing would happen. Drug use and addiction has only increased."* are all either refutations, or fundamental to your position, yet, none were substantiated - and address the crux of your argument *"You could use drug addiction: I am an addict for example, a year sober. Do you think sitting and watching movies with tons of drug use would help me in my recovery? Of course not. I'm only sober now because of complete abstinence."* Here, you boil down my argument to a simple, ineffective prescription *(you guessed it, a strawman)*. Besides the fact that I never actually put forward a single prescription, what I advocate for is a better, safer environment for pedophiles to seek help, at which point it would be up to professionals to figure out what a realistic solution would look like. In essence, doing the exact opposite of *"sitting and jacking off to CP"*. I'd love nothing more than to explore how destigmatization played a role in increasing awareness, improving access to treatment, and reducing social barriers for alcoholics seeking help if you demonstrated any amount of good faith.

I could go on, but you get the point. Let's jump ahead to my favorite portion.

*"Again, you failed to engage with a single point I made or question I asked.. Not sure how you expect to have a discussion when you refuse to engage with my points??"*

In conclusion, you're an idiot. Have a good one.