Turn on thread page Beta

Is Paedophilla always wrong? Should it be legalised? watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elliemayxo)
    It's absolutely vile, and anybody who thinks different must have a few issues themselves.

    The Ian Watkins case is something that I will never be able to get out of my head, I read the report on it and I wish I could erase it from my mind. Absolutely terrible, I cried when I read about what he done to those poor little babies. How can anybody physically or mentally hurt someone so little and innocent... I just can't even begin to understand. This thread annoys me hugely.
    You do know its a troll?

    The troll doesnt like that homosexuality is legal so he is trying to make the argument that homosexuality = pedophilia, so homosexuality should be illegal. Theres one of these threads all the time.

    This thread is not about pedophilia, its about homophobia and the people actually feeding the troll are simpletons *facepalm*
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cherie Amour)
    I am not insisting. Why are you getting angry? And how does this contribute to the discussion? You doubted my meaning of pedophilia so I proved it existed and listed a source. I already know where you got your definition and you remain humourously vapid.
    Because you have chosen the one definition that is completely different to most other definitions for -phile and refuse to acknowledge that the majority on this thread do not agree with your one definition. I am not getting angry, you're just a block head.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bassbabe)
    Yes, lets legalise sexual abuse of children. Plonker.
    That's what I was thinking! I mean, i'm all for people being open minded as I am myself, but come on.. for real? stuff like this is dangerous. I bet the peados are loving it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BugzyMalone)
    Paedophillia is prevalent in the bible and occurs in Middle Eastern countries.
    Oh well, we should accept it with open arms then. :indiff:

    Also we've become accepting of all sorts of bizarre sexual orientations-
    Right,,,
    homosexuality
    Bizarre? I think not.
    asexuality
    An absence of sexual attraction. Struggling to see why this is bizarre.
    [/QUOTE]necrophillia[/QUOTE]
    Point of order here, necrophilia is a paraphilia, not a sexual orientation. Big difference. There's almost no acceptance for necrophilia in society as dead bodies can't consent. It's also illegal.
    beastiality
    See necrophilia. Similarly illegal.

    The fact these are all accepted as the norm these days in society raises a quietly controversial question- should our views on Paedophillia change?
    Paedophilia is not a sexual orientation either. It's a paraphilic attraction to children. A paedophile is harmless to society providing that they don't act on their desires. Ordinarily, I'd be pretty supportive of peoples' sexual liberty, but the production of material for the consumption of paedophiles, or a sex act with a child would result in the exploitation children who are not legally capable of consenting.

    There's an argument for the legalisation of possession of pseudo-pornographic images whose subject/s may be under the age of consent; such as cartoon illustrations/non-realistic computer generated images, as no human is being exploited. Outside of that, the abuse of the child/ren in question is fundamentally what makes it so socially abhorrent.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's worrying that people are getting so bent up to defend pedophilia. It might be a subconscious need to be apart of the crowd as many posters so far agree with it.
    (Original post by Keyhofi)
    Since when did paedophilia always lead to molestation?
    You aren't very intelligent. Since pedophile was professionally used to identify someone who sleeps with children, nutcase.

    (Original post by Law-Hopeful)
    This confuses me. Attraction ≠ acting on the attraction.

    I may see an attractive girl in a bar, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go and have sex with her; I have self-control, something, for whatever reason, you seem to assume paeodophiles can't have.
    This isn't the first time I've had this conversation and I've head the "I don't sleep with every girl I like." However, if you did sleep with a woman aside from fornication you're not committing any weird sexual taboo or abuse. Unless you rape her.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elliemayxo)
    Yes, it could kill the child. But lets be honest here, they're both awful things to do, and just because one is worse than the other, doesn't mean that the first one is ok? it's like saying "I'm going to rape this woman, but killing someone would be worse.. so what I'm doing isn't actually bad".
    You're missing my point.

    You're also conflating an attraction/feeling with acting upon that attraction/feeling (by using paedophilia and rape interchangeably; they are not the same thing, even if you think one may sometimes lead to the other).

    1. Person 1 walks around in public feeling as though he wants to punch random children, but does not act upon this.
    2. Person 2 walks around in public and is sexually attracted to children, but does not act upon this.

    What makes person 2 worse than person 1?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moonstruck16)
    I am not equating them. I am giving you a ****ing example.
    You're unstable. Seriously, think about why you're getting so angry lool. We're done here. You're the only one swearing in the whole thread.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cherie Amour)
    I am not insisting. Why are you getting angry? And how does this contribute to the discussion? You doubted my meaning of pedophilia so I proved it existed and listed a source. I already know where you got your definition and you remain humourously vapid.
    You proved no such thing. You sourced the meaning of -phile, though you failed to understand that the definition you provided was full of logically disjunctive 'or' and then tried to claim that -phile necessarily requires a particular set of actions such as 'enjoying as a hobby'. Though this is clearly not the definition of -phile, ask anyone with formal training in English language, latin, or someone with expertise in sexual disorders who can provide to you the actual medically and legally recognized definition of 'pedophile' which you are here, rather foolishly, attempting to refute.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    See below.



    As other posters have addressed, necrophilia and beastiality are not accepted norms in society today. However, there's an important terminological distinction that no one, including yourself and Reue have failed to address:

    Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children (typically ages 11 and under).
    Hebephilia is a sexual attraction to children currently 'undergoing' puberty (11-14)
    Ephebophilia is a sexual attraction to children who have just completed the main processes of puberty ages 15-19

    On its own, these descriptors describe a sexual attraction; not any form of action such as non-consensual rape of a child which is psychologically unable to provide valid consent. Why is sexual attraction 'wrong' (morally speaking) ever? A sexual attraction, on its own, causes no harm to another party (so you cannot derive a moral wrongness in terms of the harm principle). And why should a sexual attraction be illegal?

    One can have these sexual feelings but fail to ever to want act them out because they realize that this would constitute rape for legitimate psychological/mental reasons.
    I'm sorry but whoever came up with that must have had a very boring day at the office. Being attracted to a 18-19 year old (aka a a legal adult who can marry etc) is not is not any kind of *philia*. You will find that pretty much all men of all ages are sexually attracted to 18-19 year old women. Dismissed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by serah.exe)
    Pedophiles need mental help to prevent them from commiting an act.
    Yes. Because without the mental help, they will have sex with a child.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cherie Amour)
    You aren't very intelligent. Since pedophile was professionally used to identify someone who sleeps with children, nutcase.
    ABSOLUTE FALSE NONSENSE. Pedophile as a medical term doesn't mean someone who sleeps with children. Look at the DSM or ICD. Stop making things up.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Law-Hopeful)
    You're missing my point.

    You're also conflating an attraction/feeling with acting upon that attraction/feeling (by using paedophilia and rape interchangeably - they are not the same thing, even if you think one may sometimes lead to the other).

    1. Person 1 walks around in public feeling as though he wants to punch random people, but does not act upon this.
    2. Person 2 walks around in public and is sexually attracted to children, but does not act upon this.

    What makes person 2 worse than person 1?
    Trust me, I often feel like I could punch someone, usually when I get a rude customer at work. But NEVER have I thought of abusing children like that! there is a HUGE difference between the two, I'm sorry but I can't even understand what you are saying here? trust me, I am very understanding during debates/arguments, whatever you want to call it... but come on. Listen to what you're saying here.

    Thinking about punching someone is a natural feeling, I sometimes think I could punch my best friend in the face when we spend too much time together, but that doesn't make me weird.

    Having sexual thoughts about children is messed up, and disturbing. Anger is a natural feeling, we all feel it. Not everyone has sexual thoughts about children unless they are mentally unstable.

    What else?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cherie Amour)
    Yes. Because without the mental help, they will have sex with a child.
    There's absolutely no statistical evidence for this. You're literally just making crap up.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    You proved no such thing. You sourced the meaning of -phile, though you failed to understand that the definition you provided was full of logically disjunctive 'or' and then tried to claim that -phile necessarily requires a particular set of actions such as 'enjoying as a hobby'. Though this is clearly not the definition of -phile, ask anyone with formal training in English language, latin, or someone with expertise in sexual disorders who can provide to you the actual medically and legally recognized definition of 'pedophile' which you are here, rather foolishly, attempting to refute.
    I wasn't talking to you just there, calm down. Your post you just submitted has said enough and probably the same thing you've written here. I already understand you take issue with Cambridge's definition of phile.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cherie Amour)
    You're unstable. Seriously, think about why you're getting so angry lool. We're done here. You're the only one swearing in the whole thread.
    Aww cute, stopped debating have we. Well done.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cherie Amour)
    It's worrying that people are getting so bent up to defend pedophilia. It might be a subconscious need to be apart of the crowd as many posters so far agree with it.


    You aren't very intelligent. Since pedophile was professionally used to identify someone who sleeps with children, nutcase.
    Yo, it's not about defending to stand out of the crowd (although last time I checked most people are on my side). These people are unfortunate to experience these feelings. Like the same way that someone born with no legs is unfortunate. Now, the person born with no legs will get support, and rightly so. But the paedophile will instead be shunned and labelled a monster, and this can alienate them from society and make them more likely to abuse children.

    Do you not believe that paedophiles should be helped too? Do you not believe they have a misfortune? Do you not believe that they can be helped?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cherie Amour)
    I wasn't talking to you just there, calm down. Your post you just submitted has said enough and probably the same thing you've written here. I already understand you take issue with Cambridge's definition of phile.
    I don't take issue with the definition. The definition is fine. I take issue with the fact that you don't understand how to read the definition because you don't understand what a logical disjunctive is.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    There's absolutely no statistical evidence for this. You're literally just making crap up.
    Something tells me we're not going to get through to this doughnut any time soon.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keyhofi)
    Yo, it's not about defending to stand out of the crowd (although last time I checked most people are on my side). These people are unfortunate to experience these feelings. Like the same way that someone born with no legs is unfortunate. Now, the person born with no legs will get support, and rightly so. But the paedophile will instead be shunned and labelled a monster, and this can alienate them from society and make them more likely to abuse children.

    Do you not believe that paedophiles should be helped too? Do you not believe they have a misfortune? Do you not believe that they can be helped?
    I already responded to someone that I feel they need the help, yes. Someone born with no legs isn't going to potentially harm someone just because they have no legs. That is, unless they're a pedophile.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cherie Amour)
    Are you 12? You post like you're jumping up and down screaming for a cookie.
    Coming from the one who has failed to provide any kind of appropriate argument, display any relevant knowledge, and hasn't even been able to properly parse a logically disjunctive sentence; who then makes a claim without any sort of evidence as proof grounding the validity of the claim.

    You have no leg to stand on here.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 22, 2018
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.