|
That thread is freakin big so some people might like a summary of some of the things that have been brought up.
More importantly, I realised that a lot of the HATE, KILL THEM sentiments might be due to a simple misunderstanding...
Reading a guys post, I realised that from HIS point of view, pedophiles (such as the ones we hear about getting done for "child porn") are people who have an EXCLUSIVE sexual interest in children. From MY point of view, when talking about pedophiles, I always think of people who have a RANGE of sexual attraction - they like both adults and minors, but have a preference for minors.
This suddenly revealed to me, perhaps, why some people are so vehemently hateful of their perception of pedophiles - their version is people who are absolutely limited and frustrated because they have no outlet whatsoever for their sole sexual desire. To ME, I just considered pedophiles to be people who prefer minors, but still have some attraction to adults, so their "frustration" is not an actual problem, in the same way that I want a mercedes but will happily settle for a metro since i cant ever get one.
On the to summary....
(Disclaimer: provocative paragraphs used for the sake of invoking new perceptions/points of view)
Original thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=282979
THIS IS ALL WRITTEN WITH REGARDS TO THE GUY WHO DOWNLOADED ILLEGAL STUFF FOR FREE AND GOT JAILED FOR IT. ITS NOT ABOUT ANY DIRECT CHILD ABUSER. REFER TO THE BIG THREAD BECAUSE THIS IS A RESPONSE TO THAT THREAD AND THE IS ABOUT THE POSSESSION OF ILLEGAL STUFF - NOT THE PRODUCTION OR SHARING OF IT (added quickly so i dont get flamed lol)
Why allowing the viewing of underage girls is Wrong:
1) You're a "proven" risk to society for finding pleasure in it.
- This, to me, assumes that the person's EXCLUSIVE, ONLY sexual interest is in children.
A mentally ill (eg depression, psychosis, alcoholism) person - pedo or not - is a risk of committing crimes such as rape.
However, speculation indicates that life must be EXTREMELY frustrating to a person whos EXCLUSIVE sexual interest is completely unobtainable (children).
Therefore, when a person whos EXCLUSIVE sexual interest is children is discovered, they must be considered a "risk". If they become mentally unstable, and unable or no longer willing to control themselves, then they are a much greater risk of committing a serious crime than another person.
You can also state, to give some perspective to this, that a black man in a high-prejudice/racist neighbourhood is also a high-risk person, as the frustrations of living will be great and hence so will be the potential and consequences of him becoming mentally unstable.
- To what extent does this hold true for pedophiles who are NOT exclusively attracted to minors (ie they also interested in adults)? As far as I know, the vast majority of what we consider pedophiles actually come under this catagory. Are not "exclusive" pedophiles are extremely rare?
- To what extent is the downloading of underage girls material "proof" that you are, on the whole, an unstable or frustrated individual with damaging potential - regardless of whether your interest is exclusive, preferential, or occaisional?
2) You're potentially supporting it by "showing" people that there is a demand
- Nomatter HOW small, whether you are providing ad income on a forum (reddit?), or if you accidently seeded 1MB of a file, or if you just made the click-counter go up by 1 hit, you are actively supporting whatever you downloaded and telling people out there - "hey, there's demand, go make more and maybe someone will buy it".
Does this make you a contributor to child abuse? Should you care? Does, for instance, second-hand smoke from your cigarette make you a child abuser? Does buying Levi's jeans and other USA companies make you a child abuser (link)? Does bringing your child up under a particular religion (compared to no religion, or compared to a different religion) make you a child abuser? Does paying your taxes make you a child abuser (war etc)?
Again, food for thought on generating perspective around these issues.
3) Obscenity
Sick shit causes unhealthy, wasteful thoughts and breeds and encourages depravity. People should be celebrating life and cultivating high standards of living and behaviour. "Celebrating" obscene things like urination pornography, lolicon, bondage/rape fantasies and underage websites (reddit) is NOT the way forward for a healthy, stable and pleasant society. Whether you are "harming" another person or not, obscene things should be against the law.
 
|
Reading some of that thread the most frightening thing for me is how people justify things like this by "what if you were the victim/related to the victim" arguments.
I mean, if some guy stole your girlfriend you'd probably want to run him over. But that by no means makes running the guy over the right sentence to be imposed by a judge. I thought laws were made so that we can have a better society? Not to fulfill your revenge fantasies, guys. I don't get the glorification of vigilantism.
Anyway, if someone is attracted to children and can't do anything about it he or she needs help, not isolation. That being said, if you are an adult you know that there are things that you cannot do, and one of those is possessing child porn. It's the pedophile's responsibility to look for someone to help them resist their urges imo. If you don't like the law, then you work toward getting it changed; it's not an excuse to break it in the mean time.
|
what the fuck yo... what are you on and wtf would compel you to write about this?
pedo's are sick bastards no matter how you approach the situation and try and word it.
Does this make you a contributor to child abuse? Should you care? Does, for instance, second-hand smoke from your cigarette make you a child abuser? Does buying Levi's jeans and other USA companies make you a child abuser? Does bringing your child up under a particular religion (compared to no religion, or compared to a different religion) make you a child abuser? Does paying your taxes make you a child abuser (war etc)?
Are you trying to justify sexual impulse towards children by making these ridiculous analogies? My vote is on you being a sick bastard that is having a hard time facing the fact that there is something wrong with your brain.
I'm guessing your not a parent, are you? Were YOU ever molested as a child? Do you have any idea what their life is like every day forward from the moment those actions took place? Pedophiles are THE lowest breed of human being on the world, worse then murderers and shit... because they are not just taking away a life, and they are stripping children not only of their clothing... but of their hopes and dreams and innocence to be a child and live the times of their life that in the future will be envied.
WTF is this man... i'll be honest and i read the first paragraph and skimmed through the rest, because i'm seriously just fudging disturbed that anyone would even want to discuss this type of shit. it's wrong.
|
United States24666 Posts
On November 07 2011 13:44 PR4Y wrote:what the fuck yo... what are you on and wtf would compel you to write about this? pedo's are sick bastards no matter how you approach the situation and try and word it. Show nested quote +
Does this make you a contributor to child abuse? Should you care? Does, for instance, second-hand smoke from your cigarette make you a child abuser? Does buying Levi's jeans and other USA companies make you a child abuser? Does bringing your child up under a particular religion (compared to no religion, or compared to a different religion) make you a child abuser? Does paying your taxes make you a child abuser (war etc)?
Are you trying to justify sexual impulse towards children by making these ridiculous analogies? My vote is on you being a sick bastard that is having a hard time facing the fact that there is something wrong with your brain. I'm guessing your not a parent, are you? Were YOU ever molested as a child? Do you have any idea what their life is like every day forward from the moment those actions took place? Pedophiles are THE lowest breed of human being on the world, worse then murderers and shit... because they are not just taking away a life, and they are stripping children not only of their clothing... but of their hopes and dreams and innocence to be a child and live the times of their life that in the future will be envied. WTF is this man... i'll be honest and i read the first paragraph and skimmed through the rest, because i'm seriously just fudging disturbed that anyone would even want to discuss this type of shit. it's wrong.
Let's be clear: pedophiles have not necessarily ever looked at child porn, nor sexually abused a child in any way. If you want to demonize a group of people (not that I agree) you need to be very clear as to what group of people you are demonizing (which you haven't).
If you think people raping children are worse than just about every other crime... something like that I could definitely understand.
Verbally assaulting the OP for attempting to discuss the issues surrounding pedos and child predators is actually making the problem that you are so upset by worse rather than better. Only with a level-headed approach to problems like these can we come to a proper understanding of how we should think about these issues and what reasonably should be done about them.
|
This blog concerns me. Here's why:
On November 07 2011 13:17 FFGenerations wrote:
Reading a guys post, I realised that from HIS point of view, pedophiles (such as the ones we hear about getting done for "child porn") are people who have an EXCLUSIVE sexual interest in children. From MY point of view, when talking about pedophiles, I always think of people who have a RANGE of sexual attraction - they like both adults and minors, but have a preference for minors.
This suddenly revealed to me, perhaps, why some people are so vehemently hateful of their perception of pedophiles - their version is people who are absolutely limited and frustrated because they have no outlet whatsoever for their sole sexual desire. To ME, I just considered pedophiles to be people who prefer minors, but still have some attraction to adults, so their "frustration" is not an actual problem, in the same way that I want a mercedes but will happily settle for a metro since i cant ever get one.
First and foremost: does it matter if someone is interested in BOTH children and adults? Exploring, in any manner, any potential sexual attraction to children is horrifying and morally unacceptable. Children are innocent, naive, human beings, whose brains have not developed enough to make life-changing decisions on their own. Exploiting this innocence is an act against mankind, and an act against all things holy.
Additionally, sexual matters cannot correlate to something like a car. It's not morally unacceptable to want a better car. It's not an act against civilization to want more money in order to buy a better car. Just because both are out of reach, doesn't mean they're out of reach for the same reason-- it's not wrong to fantasize about driving an awesome car; it is abhorrent to fantasize about children sexually.
However, speculation indicates that life must be EXTREMELY frustrating to a person whos EXCLUSIVE sexual interest is completely unobtainable (children).
Therefore, when a person whos EXCLUSIVE sexual interest is children is discovered, they must be considered a "risk". If they become mentally unstable, and unable or no longer willing to control themselves, then they are a much greater risk of committing a serious crime than another person.
You can also state, to give some perspective to this, that a black man in a high-prejudice/racist neighbourhood is also a high-risk person, as the frustrations of living will be great and hence so will be the potential and consequences of him becoming mentally unstable.
I actually don't understand. Are you suggesting that people discriminate against pedophiles? That being sexually attracted to a child makes one a suspect class? One can choose not to be a pedophile-- one can recognize that being attracted to children is absolutely unacceptable and one can refrain from even tempting any sort of sexual drive for children.
I actually recognize now that I am sort of arguing against pedophiles as conservatives often argue against homosexuals (that it's a choice, that it's a sin, etc). I want to note that my argument is distinguishable from the "homosexuality is wrong" argument because homosexual men and women have the capacity, knowledge and ability to give clear and rationale consent before having sex with another homosexual (irrelevant information to the argument but I still want to make this clear: I have nothing against gay people-- love is love, period.).
- Nomatter HOW small, whether you are providing ad income on a forum (reddit?), or if you accidently seeded 1MB of a file, or if you just made the click-counter go up by 1 hit, you are actively supporting whatever you downloaded and telling people out there - "hey, there's demand, go make more and maybe someone will buy it". Does this make you a contributor to child abuse? Should you care? Does, for instance, second-hand smoke from your cigarette make you a child abuser? Does buying Levi's jeans and other USA companies make you a child abuser ( link)? Does bringing your child up under a particular religion (compared to no religion, or compared to a different religion) make you a child abuser? Does paying your taxes make you a child abuser (war etc)?
The answer to all of these questions is yes. To a minuscule extent, everyone who absorbs these messages will support it-- in a VERY small way. Second-hand smoke makes you a little bit of a child abuser-- of course, it isn't enough to meet the threshold of a CRIMINAL child-abuser, but when you smoke in the vicinity of children, they can be hurt a little bit.
However, when one possesses, distributes, sells, or otherwise handles child-pornography or otherwise engages in sexual conduct with a child, it IMMEDIATELY meets the threshold of criminal child abuse. One has become a danger to society, and one cannot function normally until the threat is rectified.
Children are easy to hurt. They are easy to exploit and trick, and it is up to responsible adults to recognize this. It is up to responsible adults to keep children safe and to make sure they can grow up to make rationale and reasonable decisions. The volatile, vulnerable state in which a thirteen year-old girl's mind operates could lead to a horrifying experience that scars her forever. To take advantage of an innocent youth is to rob that youth of his or her innocence, respect, tolerance, and perhaps every other virtue of hope that he or she once held. Child pornography is not a victemless crime.
EDIT: My post is slightly ironic-- I wrote a satirical essay about children as a proponent of child-abuse. Seems less funny now :/
|
uh, reply to the first guy:
hrm, i think everyone in general agrees that we shouldnt be knee-jerking to revenge etc (you cant expect 100% of replies on a forum thread to be deeply thought-out and purposefully rational), but what i didnt understand is WHY people knee-jerk in that way. now i do because i realised that my general definition of "pedo" is vastly different to what some other peoples definition is. when i hear that someone got jailed for child porn possession i think he is just a normal guy with a dodgy preference who clicked around on kazaa or whatever, but some other people think he is a constantly-frustrated and exclusively-attracted ticking time-bomb
now i can see that the fact that there isnt really any help for these people really is a big problem we should be addressing rather than dishing out sentence after sentence and hoping they will stop popping up
|
That guy is EXACTLY the type of people the OP is addressing this to. The point is that not all pedophiles are rapists or intend to hurt children. It's drawing the line between promotion of child molestation and those who just suffer from being attracted to kids. The point is also not whether it's right or wrong, but whether a guy who did not harm anyone nor fund anyone deserves a LIFE sentence for what he did.
What about people who have viewed terrorist videos of people being tortured and killed? Do those guys deserve life sentences as well?
|
On November 07 2011 13:51 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 13:44 PR4Y wrote:what the fuck yo... what are you on and wtf would compel you to write about this? pedo's are sick bastards no matter how you approach the situation and try and word it.
Does this make you a contributor to child abuse? Should you care? Does, for instance, second-hand smoke from your cigarette make you a child abuser? Does buying Levi's jeans and other USA companies make you a child abuser? Does bringing your child up under a particular religion (compared to no religion, or compared to a different religion) make you a child abuser? Does paying your taxes make you a child abuser (war etc)?
Are you trying to justify sexual impulse towards children by making these ridiculous analogies? My vote is on you being a sick bastard that is having a hard time facing the fact that there is something wrong with your brain. I'm guessing your not a parent, are you? Were YOU ever molested as a child? Do you have any idea what their life is like every day forward from the moment those actions took place? Pedophiles are THE lowest breed of human being on the world, worse then murderers and shit... because they are not just taking away a life, and they are stripping children not only of their clothing... but of their hopes and dreams and innocence to be a child and live the times of their life that in the future will be envied. WTF is this man... i'll be honest and i read the first paragraph and skimmed through the rest, because i'm seriously just fudging disturbed that anyone would even want to discuss this type of shit. it's wrong. Let's be clear: pedophiles have not necessarily ever looked at child porn, nor sexually abused a child in any way. If you want to demonize a group of people (not that I agree) you need to be very clear as to what group of people you are demonizing (which you haven't). If you think people raping children are worse than just about every other crime... something like that I could definitely understand. Verbally assaulting the OP for attempting to discuss the issues surrounding pedos and child predators is actually making the problem that you are so upset by worse rather than better. Only with a level-headed approach to problems like these can we come to a proper understanding of how we should think about these issues and what reasonably should be done about them.
+ Respect.
I just can't even talk about any of this, and should of stayed out of this topic in the first place. I know too many people too close to my heart that have been affected by this bullish, and having witnessed first hand what it can do to people / families, know all too well how terrible of a thing it is.
You guys want to talk about pedo's, go ahead. Sorry to burst in here with guns blazing but you can't say you didn't at least SOMEWHAT expect a response like mine. This subject is extremely touchy.
GG
|
United States24666 Posts
On November 07 2011 13:52 mbr2321 wrote:
I actually don't understand. Are you suggesting that people discriminate against pedophiles? That being sexually attracted to a child makes one a suspect class? One can choose not to be a pedophile-- one can recognize that being attracted to children is absolutely unacceptable and one can refrain from even tempting any sort of sexual drive for children.
I actually recognize now that I am sort of arguing against pedophiles as conservatives often argue against homosexuals (that it's a choice, that it's a sin, etc). I want to note that my argument is distinguishable from the "homosexuality is wrong" argument because homosexual men and women have the capacity, knowledge and ability to give clear and rationale consent before having sex with another homosexual (irrelevant information to the argument but I still want to make this clear: I have nothing against gay people-- love is love, period.).
This doesn't make sense to me. You say the difference between being able to choose not to be a pedophile (someone who is attracted to children) and being able to choose not to be gay (someone who is attracted to the same sex) is that in one case the 'target of affection' is able to consent and in the other case the target cannot consent. How does this affect your ability to control your sexual orientation in any way? You have not at all explained why you think people should be able to suppress their sexual desires (no I'm not saying they will actually do anything illegal with children or child porn). Whatever research I've read has said that you cannot choose for yourself to not be gay, nor attracted to children.
|
On November 07 2011 13:51 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 13:44 PR4Y wrote:what the fuck yo... what are you on and wtf would compel you to write about this? pedo's are sick bastards no matter how you approach the situation and try and word it.
Does this make you a contributor to child abuse? Should you care? Does, for instance, second-hand smoke from your cigarette make you a child abuser? Does buying Levi's jeans and other USA companies make you a child abuser? Does bringing your child up under a particular religion (compared to no religion, or compared to a different religion) make you a child abuser? Does paying your taxes make you a child abuser (war etc)?
Are you trying to justify sexual impulse towards children by making these ridiculous analogies? My vote is on you being a sick bastard that is having a hard time facing the fact that there is something wrong with your brain. I'm guessing your not a parent, are you? Were YOU ever molested as a child? Do you have any idea what their life is like every day forward from the moment those actions took place? Pedophiles are THE lowest breed of human being on the world, worse then murderers and shit... because they are not just taking away a life, and they are stripping children not only of their clothing... but of their hopes and dreams and innocence to be a child and live the times of their life that in the future will be envied. WTF is this man... i'll be honest and i read the first paragraph and skimmed through the rest, because i'm seriously just fudging disturbed that anyone would even want to discuss this type of shit. it's wrong. Let's be clear: pedophiles have not necessarily ever looked at child porn, nor sexually abused a child in any way. If you want to demonize a group of people (not that I agree) you need to be very clear as to what group of people you are demonizing (which you haven't). If you think people raping children are worse than just about every other crime... something like that I could definitely understand. Verbally assaulting the OP for attempting to discuss the issues surrounding pedos and child predators is actually making the problem that you are so upset by worse rather than better. Only with a level-headed approach to problems like these can we come to a proper understanding of how we should think about these issues and what reasonably should be done about them.
sorry i added a big bolded thing to the OP, i can see how he misunderstood what i was talking about if he wasnt following that other thread
|
On November 07 2011 13:54 Itsmedudeman wrote:
That guy is EXACTLY the type of people the OP is addressing this to. The point is that not all pedophiles are rapists or intend to hurt children. It's drawing the line between promotion of child molestation and those who just suffer from being attracted to kids. The point is also not whether it's right or wrong, but whether a guy who did not harm anyone nor fund anyone deserves a LIFE sentence for what he did.
Pedophiles are NOT a suspect class. It is erroneous to state otherwise. Pedophiles deserve to suffer from being attracted to kids-- IT'S WRONG. It is WRONG to be attracted to children. I don't care if the ACLU throws a pride-parade for fucking PEDOPHILES, it is WRONG TO BE ATTRACTED TO CHILDREN. It HURTS children when child-porn is produced. It HURT the 6-12 year-old boys in the videos to give that pedophile sexual pleasure. How dare you suggest otherwise? How dare you e-look me in the e-eyes and tell me that this guy did not harm anyone? Despicable. Pedophilia is despicable. The man was tried on 500 different counts. It doesn't matter if he had 500 videos of different children, or 500 videos of the same child. He is still hurting people, and, for 500 DIFFERENT counts, he deserves life in prison.
User was warned for this post
|
On November 07 2011 13:57 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 13:52 mbr2321 wrote:
I actually don't understand. Are you suggesting that people discriminate against pedophiles? That being sexually attracted to a child makes one a suspect class? One can choose not to be a pedophile-- one can recognize that being attracted to children is absolutely unacceptable and one can refrain from even tempting any sort of sexual drive for children.
I actually recognize now that I am sort of arguing against pedophiles as conservatives often argue against homosexuals (that it's a choice, that it's a sin, etc). I want to note that my argument is distinguishable from the "homosexuality is wrong" argument because homosexual men and women have the capacity, knowledge and ability to give clear and rationale consent before having sex with another homosexual (irrelevant information to the argument but I still want to make this clear: I have nothing against gay people-- love is love, period.).
This doesn't make sense to me. You say the difference between being able to choose not to be a pedophile (someone who is attracted to children) and being able to choose not to be gay (someone who is attracted to the same sex) is that in one case the 'target of affection' is able to consent and in the other case the target cannot consent. How does this affect your ability to control your sexual orientation in any way? You have not at all explained why you think people should be able to suppress their sexual desires (no I'm not saying they will actually do anything illegal with children or child porn). Whatever research I've read has said that you cannot choose for yourself to not be gay, nor attracted to children.
My argument is that pedophiles have a civic duty to repress their sexual feelings for children. Homosexuals do not have a civic duty to repress their feelings for their own gender, nor should they.
EDIT: made it more clear
|
United States24666 Posts
On November 07 2011 14:03 mbr2321 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 13:57 micronesia wrote:On November 07 2011 13:52 mbr2321 wrote:
I actually don't understand. Are you suggesting that people discriminate against pedophiles? That being sexually attracted to a child makes one a suspect class? One can choose not to be a pedophile-- one can recognize that being attracted to children is absolutely unacceptable and one can refrain from even tempting any sort of sexual drive for children.
I actually recognize now that I am sort of arguing against pedophiles as conservatives often argue against homosexuals (that it's a choice, that it's a sin, etc). I want to note that my argument is distinguishable from the "homosexuality is wrong" argument because homosexual men and women have the capacity, knowledge and ability to give clear and rationale consent before having sex with another homosexual (irrelevant information to the argument but I still want to make this clear: I have nothing against gay people-- love is love, period.).
This doesn't make sense to me. You say the difference between being able to choose not to be a pedophile (someone who is attracted to children) and being able to choose not to be gay (someone who is attracted to the same sex) is that in one case the 'target of affection' is able to consent and in the other case the target cannot consent. How does this affect your ability to control your sexual orientation in any way? You have not at all explained why you think people should be able to suppress their sexual desires (no I'm not saying they will actually do anything illegal with children or child porn). Whatever research I've read has said that you cannot choose for yourself to not be gay, nor attracted to children. My argument is that pedophiles have a civic duty to repress their sexual feelings for children. Homosexuals do not have a civic duty to repress their feelings for their own gender, nor should they. EDIT: made it more clear
When you say repress their sexual feelings do you mean stop being attracted to children or just not commit crimes related to children? You are very unclear. I am not aware of any significant research which has shown it's possible to stop being a pedophile (or homosexual etc) because you want to. That doesn't excuse child porn or child abuse, of course.
|
Canada13389 Posts
This is a hard subject to approach. There are a number of schools academically and professionally.
Some people will urge child rapists to view child pornography to avoid raping children. I don't agree but I have met prison therapists who actually say this is a good part of helping the child rapist to get "better". To be fair the main purpose of these people in prison as therapists is to solve the issue of why the offender is in prison - in this case child rape specifically. So viewing child porn is less harmful than viewing rape in the view of some prison therapists.
This all being said people who have a sexual attraction to youth is problematic. I believe that the main goal to treating them is helping them not act on their impulses (this includes viewing child porn). However there are a number of different types of pedophiles as pointed out in the OP. Some are exclusively attracted to children, some are attracted to one sex over the other and yet others are still attracted to adults.
I haven't focused on pedophilia as an area of study so I can't add much more to the discussion though. In the end though I will always support rehab instead of prison in almost every case.
|
On November 07 2011 14:03 mbr2321 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 13:54 Itsmedudeman wrote:
That guy is EXACTLY the type of people the OP is addressing this to. The point is that not all pedophiles are rapists or intend to hurt children. It's drawing the line between promotion of child molestation and those who just suffer from being attracted to kids. The point is also not whether it's right or wrong, but whether a guy who did not harm anyone nor fund anyone deserves a LIFE sentence for what he did. Pedophiles are NOT a suspect class. It is erroneous to state otherwise. Pedophiles deserve to suffer from being attracted to kids-- IT'S WRONG. It is WRONG to be attracted to children. I don't care if the ACLU throws a pride-parade for fucking PEDOPHILES, it is WRONG TO BE ATTRACTED TO CHILDREN. It HURTS children when child-porn is produced. It HURT the 6-12 year-old boys in the videos to give that pedophile sexual pleasure. How dare you suggest otherwise? How dare you e-look me in the e-eyes and tell me that this guy did not harm anyone? Despicable. Pedophilia is despicable. The man was tried on 500 different counts. It doesn't matter if he had 500 videos of different children, or 500 videos of the same child. He is still hurting people, and, for 500 DIFFERENT counts, he deserves life in prison.
So you're saying closet pedophiles, people who are in possession of child porn (whether that be 1 or 1 million pictures), child molesters, and guys who lead a giant ring of underground child molestation should all fall into the same category and should all receive the same punishment?
|
Canada13389 Posts
On November 07 2011 14:06 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 14:03 mbr2321 wrote:On November 07 2011 13:57 micronesia wrote:On November 07 2011 13:52 mbr2321 wrote:
I actually don't understand. Are you suggesting that people discriminate against pedophiles? That being sexually attracted to a child makes one a suspect class? One can choose not to be a pedophile-- one can recognize that being attracted to children is absolutely unacceptable and one can refrain from even tempting any sort of sexual drive for children.
I actually recognize now that I am sort of arguing against pedophiles as conservatives often argue against homosexuals (that it's a choice, that it's a sin, etc). I want to note that my argument is distinguishable from the "homosexuality is wrong" argument because homosexual men and women have the capacity, knowledge and ability to give clear and rationale consent before having sex with another homosexual (irrelevant information to the argument but I still want to make this clear: I have nothing against gay people-- love is love, period.).
This doesn't make sense to me. You say the difference between being able to choose not to be a pedophile (someone who is attracted to children) and being able to choose not to be gay (someone who is attracted to the same sex) is that in one case the 'target of affection' is able to consent and in the other case the target cannot consent. How does this affect your ability to control your sexual orientation in any way? You have not at all explained why you think people should be able to suppress their sexual desires (no I'm not saying they will actually do anything illegal with children or child porn). Whatever research I've read has said that you cannot choose for yourself to not be gay, nor attracted to children. My argument is that pedophiles have a civic duty to repress their sexual feelings for children. Homosexuals do not have a civic duty to repress their feelings for their own gender, nor should they. EDIT: made it more clear When you say repress their sexual feelings do you mean stop being attracted to children or just not commit crimes related to children? You are very unclear. I am not aware of any significant research which has shown it's possible to stop being a pedophile (or homosexual etc) because you want to. That doesn't excuse child porn or child abuse, of course.
Yeah, there's no way to repress their feelings but they can learn to not act on them in any way with proper therapy and if they themselves make the decision. But I wouldn't call it a civic duty to be honest. I think its a good idea but in no way is it a duty thats just misconstruing the concept of civil duty 
|
Disgust and moral judgement are a dangerous combination. I believe many, if not most, people would have a stronger emotional reaction to someone being a pedophile than a parent killing his child in anger. Unless you are acustomed to tempering your snap judgement with rational analysis you _will_ have a harsh reaction to what that guy did.
|
On November 07 2011 13:52 mbr2321 wrote:This blog concerns me. Here's why: Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 13:17 FFGenerations wrote:
Reading a guys post, I realised that from HIS point of view, pedophiles (such as the ones we hear about getting done for "child porn") are people who have an EXCLUSIVE sexual interest in children. From MY point of view, when talking about pedophiles, I always think of people who have a RANGE of sexual attraction - they like both adults and minors, but have a preference for minors.
This suddenly revealed to me, perhaps, why some people are so vehemently hateful of their perception of pedophiles - their version is people who are absolutely limited and frustrated because they have no outlet whatsoever for their sole sexual desire. To ME, I just considered pedophiles to be people who prefer minors, but still have some attraction to adults, so their "frustration" is not an actual problem, in the same way that I want a mercedes but will happily settle for a metro since i cant ever get one.
First and foremost: does it matter if someone is interested in BOTH children and adults? Exploring, in any manner, any potential sexual attraction to children is horrifying and morally unacceptable. Children are innocent, naive, human beings, whose brains have not developed enough to make life-changing decisions on their own. Exploiting this innocence is an act against mankind, and an act against all things holy. Additionally, sexual matters cannot correlate to something like a car. It's not morally unacceptable to want a better car. It's not an act against civilization to want more money in order to buy a better car. Just because both are out of reach, doesn't mean they're out of reach for the same reason-- it's not wrong to fantasize about driving an awesome car; it is abhorrent to fantasize about children sexually. Show nested quote +
However, speculation indicates that life must be EXTREMELY frustrating to a person whos EXCLUSIVE sexual interest is completely unobtainable (children).
Therefore, when a person whos EXCLUSIVE sexual interest is children is discovered, they must be considered a "risk". If they become mentally unstable, and unable or no longer willing to control themselves, then they are a much greater risk of committing a serious crime than another person.
You can also state, to give some perspective to this, that a black man in a high-prejudice/racist neighbourhood is also a high-risk person, as the frustrations of living will be great and hence so will be the potential and consequences of him becoming mentally unstable.
I actually don't understand. Are you suggesting that people discriminate against pedophiles? That being sexually attracted to a child makes one a suspect class? One can choose not to be a pedophile-- one can recognize that being attracted to children is absolutely unacceptable and one can refrain from even tempting any sort of sexual drive for children. I actually recognize now that I am sort of arguing against pedophiles as conservatives often argue against homosexuals (that it's a choice, that it's a sin, etc). I want to note that my argument is distinguishable from the "homosexuality is wrong" argument because homosexual men and women have the capacity, knowledge and ability to give clear and rationale consent before having sex with another homosexual (irrelevant information to the argument but I still want to make this clear: I have nothing against gay people-- love is love, period.). Show nested quote +- Nomatter HOW small, whether you are providing ad income on a forum (reddit?), or if you accidently seeded 1MB of a file, or if you just made the click-counter go up by 1 hit, you are actively supporting whatever you downloaded and telling people out there - "hey, there's demand, go make more and maybe someone will buy it". Does this make you a contributor to child abuse? Should you care? Does, for instance, second-hand smoke from your cigarette make you a child abuser? Does buying Levi's jeans and other USA companies make you a child abuser ( link)? Does bringing your child up under a particular religion (compared to no religion, or compared to a different religion) make you a child abuser? Does paying your taxes make you a child abuser (war etc)? The answer to all of these questions is yes. To a minuscule extent, everyone who absorbs these messages will support it-- in a VERY small way. Second-hand smoke makes you a little bit of a child abuser-- of course, it isn't enough to meet the threshold of a CRIMINAL child-abuser, but when you smoke in the vicinity of children, they can be hurt a little bit. However, when one possesses, distributes, sells, or otherwise handles child-pornography or otherwise engages in sexual conduct with a child, it IMMEDIATELY meets the threshold of criminal child abuse. One has become a danger to society, and one cannot function normally until the threat is rectified. Children are easy to hurt. They are easy to exploit and trick, and it is up to responsible adults to recognize this. It is up to responsible adults to keep children safe and to make sure they can grow up to make rationale and reasonable decisions. The volatile, vulnerable state in which a thirteen year-old girl's mind operates could lead to a horrifying experience that scars her forever. To take advantage of an innocent youth is to rob that youth of his or her innocence, respect, tolerance, and perhaps every other virtue of hope that he or she once held. Child pornography is not a victemless crime. EDIT: My post is slightly ironic-- I wrote a satirical essay about children as a proponent of child-abuse. Seems less funny now :/
your post (apart from the last part which is more of a random tangent) is really interesting and cool because it comes from a very ultimate viewpoint that we should always pursue the very best of what is conceivable (attracted to kids? stop being attracted! it can be done!)
i think you're right to take this standpoint on the whole but life/reality isnt so simple as this, if it was then we wouldn't be sitting on the computer here talking and instead would be , idk meditating or working on the farm or something?
i wasnt susgesting discrimination, i was describing how a frustrated life can lead to mental disability, and a mentally disabled pedophile is dangerous - moreso than a mentally disabled airplane driver? etc. (i was saying more than that though)
honestly i cant break it down much more, im spent lol. try reading again tomorrow if you dont follow me 
|
On November 07 2011 14:09 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 14:06 micronesia wrote:On November 07 2011 14:03 mbr2321 wrote:On November 07 2011 13:57 micronesia wrote:On November 07 2011 13:52 mbr2321 wrote:
I actually don't understand. Are you suggesting that people discriminate against pedophiles? That being sexually attracted to a child makes one a suspect class? One can choose not to be a pedophile-- one can recognize that being attracted to children is absolutely unacceptable and one can refrain from even tempting any sort of sexual drive for children.
I actually recognize now that I am sort of arguing against pedophiles as conservatives often argue against homosexuals (that it's a choice, that it's a sin, etc). I want to note that my argument is distinguishable from the "homosexuality is wrong" argument because homosexual men and women have the capacity, knowledge and ability to give clear and rationale consent before having sex with another homosexual (irrelevant information to the argument but I still want to make this clear: I have nothing against gay people-- love is love, period.).
This doesn't make sense to me. You say the difference between being able to choose not to be a pedophile (someone who is attracted to children) and being able to choose not to be gay (someone who is attracted to the same sex) is that in one case the 'target of affection' is able to consent and in the other case the target cannot consent. How does this affect your ability to control your sexual orientation in any way? You have not at all explained why you think people should be able to suppress their sexual desires (no I'm not saying they will actually do anything illegal with children or child porn). Whatever research I've read has said that you cannot choose for yourself to not be gay, nor attracted to children. My argument is that pedophiles have a civic duty to repress their sexual feelings for children. Homosexuals do not have a civic duty to repress their feelings for their own gender, nor should they. EDIT: made it more clear When you say repress their sexual feelings do you mean stop being attracted to children or just not commit crimes related to children? You are very unclear. I am not aware of any significant research which has shown it's possible to stop being a pedophile (or homosexual etc) because you want to. That doesn't excuse child porn or child abuse, of course. Yeah, there's no way to repress their feelings but they can learn to not act on them in any way with proper therapy and if they themselves make the decision. But I wouldn't call it a civic duty to be honest. I think its a good idea but in no way is it a duty thats just misconstruing the concept of civil duty
well, every one of us needs to take personal responsibility for our own actions. unfortunately some people dont realise they need to improve some parts of themself, others are afraid to, others have given up, others have simply embraced it, others try to live with it and maybe one day fuck up ...and then sadly they are to blame, nomatter how remorseful they are.
this is why its so important for us to unite on ..well, any and every issue, rather than to react with this childish behaviour where we throw our hands up in digust and claim we have no responsibility for the wellbeing of the other people in our world
what i am saying is that our first reaction should be "what could i have done to help this world" rather than "what can i do to punish this other person"
|
Edit: Ninja'd in so many ways. Still gonna keep it up, I tried too hard. =P
Your "1)" is pretty much solved by the actual definition. To quote wiki it is "typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest"
Also if you get to the psychological basis there is a difference between "Pedophilia" (0-10), "Hebephilia" (11-14) and "Ephebophilia" (15-19)
Are you trying to justify sexual impulse towards children by making these ridiculous analogies? My vote is on you being a sick bastard that is having a hard time facing the fact that there is something wrong with your brain.
Yes, I do get that this is a very, very thin ice topic. However, please take a deep breath and consider these facts:
-Sexual impulse towards children (or animals, your mother or your grandpa for all that I care) is not "wrong" itself. It's an impulse. If you're a human being you will have impulses which indicate to rip someone elses throat out and shove a knife up his ass (hint, that's what your impulse towards the OP sounds like. Does that make me call you a sick fucker? No.).
-Acting on your impulses is a whole different story.
-The possibility to find close examples to your original impulse within a legal environment is, among people who actually care about the psychology behind it, often considered the best possible "treatment". There is a thin line between desensitizing and satisfying. Desensitizing is what happens a lot of the time when people are being isolated and get some kind of "material" about their original input. Satisfying is what happens when you (dingding) are confronted with your impulse in a socially accepted way.
For a brief time I used to do some workshops on an entirely different matter with a psychologist who is specialized in bringing out testimonies by pedophiles who actually did rape/molest children and assisting convicted ones during their prison time and we had quite some talks about that exact topic. In his opinion the people who actually DO commit those crimes are, emotionally, cornered between their "impulse", social (or rather emotional) isolation and their sense of what's actually right or wrong. Here's the trick: The more they isolate themselves from societies standards, the more likely they're going to act on their impulse.
Once this kind of "spiral" starts, no one cares about punishment anymore. It doesn't matter if they get sentenced for life or killed. There's just the initial impulse left and the thin string that keeps them from committing the crime (the knowledge that it's wrong) keeps getting thinner and thinner. THAT is where the real danger lies.
What I meant by "The possibility to find close examples to your original impulse within a legal environment" considering childporn would actually be (don't laugh, things like that exists e.g. in Japan) stuff like e.g. a brothel with legal girls who look as if they're not legal yet or lolicon. By giving people who have such impulses or conditions the possibility to legally get some kind of substitute you keep them socially integrated and the bond that says "This is my society, I know that my impulses are off the chart but, hey, this is not all of it but it's enough for me" gets stronger and people are less likely to commit actual crimes.
tl;dr: Anyway, if someone is attracted to children and can't do anything about it he or she needs help, not isolation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
