Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Australian judge says incest and paedophilia may no longer be a taboo Watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Architecture-er)
    People will probably **** themselves blind with terror and criticise him for no good reason, but he's right.

    Allowing one type of non-harmful unconventional relationship but not others is hypocritical and indefensible. Acting paedophiles would quite rightly remain despised because their actions are rape. However I wouldn't be surprised if non-acting paedophiles become more accepted by society and viewed as people with no control over their sexual preferences, just as homosexuals / transponders etc are viewed today


    edit: As to the particular case he was presiding over, I have no opinion
    I thought that was already the case. I for one certainly feel sympathy for anybody with a sexual attraction towards children (as long as they don't act on it). After all, who actually chooses what turns them on?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexKay99)
    It also confirms that you are allowing your personal opinions to dictate your argument when you must be impartial and agree to consider all both sides of it which I am demonstrating to you; From the perspective what what a paedophile may argue. Or are you totally incompetent of comprehending that?
    I haven't "allowed my personal opinion to dictate my argument". What I have done is assessed both sides, and come to a conclusion.

    Or are you incapable of comprehending that once you have assessed all the evidence and arguments, you come down on one side or the other? You seem to be saying that because paedopihiles might argue a certain thing, I'm somehow bound to accept it.

    I will say again; paedophiles have no rights now (which is good)


    What on earth are you talking about? Paedophiles have precisely the same rights as everyone else.

    Paedophiles have the right to life, the right to be free from enslavement, the right not to be tortured, the right to liberty and security, the right to a fair trial, the right to due process of law, the right to privacy and a family life, to freedom of thought and conscience.

    The mere fact you have said "paedophiles have no rights" is a profound demonstration of your lack of understanding of the law. Every inhabitant of the United Kingdom enjoys the rights I listed above.

    will may be accepted as a sexual orientation


    How would accepting it as a sexual orientation require us to allow paedophiles to **** children? We may well accept it's a sexual orientation, that has absolutely no bearing on whether they should be allowed to have sex with someone who cannot give consent.


    thereby undermining/contradicting the rights of a child.


    DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?
    I clearly understand it far better than you do. Do you know what a "balancing exercise" is? I mean, you don't have to answer that; if you did, you would already have mentioned it in this

    "All the rights we have under the law are identical." So you don't acknowledge that rights can contradict each other when all rights are identical and therefore equal to each other?
    Again, do you know what a balancing exercise is? I didn't say all rights are identical, I said all people have identical rights. Are you denying, for example, that paedophiles do not have a right to freedom of religion?

    You seem rather ignorant of how balancing exercises work in human rights caselaw, and ignorant of the fact that just because one right is judged to be superior to another in its assessment in a balancing exercise, it doens't mean the person asserting the right ajudged to be inferior in that case doesn't have that right, it simply means exercising that right doesn't encompass the act they asserted.

    Again, as I said I think we have to stop here. You're getting very angry and making this extremely personal. And if you want to bring up where I did my degree and get personal, let's do it. I think you'd really struggle at Cambridge; if you manage to get past the interview and get an offer (it's possible, I don't know what your grades are but I think your proficiency with the English language is not quite up to most of my fellow undergraduates at Oxford when we were in our first year), I think you will struggle with the tutorial system, to understand debate and have your ideas challenged.

    Your approach to debate lacks precision and clarity, and frankly maturity, and I think you find it challenging to think on your feet and modify your arguments and points as they are challenged and debunked. And I think you struggle to see when you're arguing a losing point.

    Remember how this debate became hostile in the first instance? It was when you arrogantly said something along the lines of "You may not be familiar with the law". What's occurred in this debate is that you've made it fairly clear that the person unfamiliar with law is you. You rate yourself more highly, in intellectual terms, than you are.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jackdaubs)
    I haven't "allowed my personal opinion to dictate my argument". What I have done is assessed both sides, and come to a conclusion.

    Or are you incapable of comprehending that once you have assessed all the evidence and arguments, you come down on one side or the other? You seem to be saying that because paedopihiles might argue a certain thing, I'm somehow bound to accept it.



    What on earth are you talking about? Paedophiles have precisely the same rights as everyone else.

    Paedophiles have the right to life, the right to be free from enslavement, the right not to be tortured, the right to liberty and security, the right to a fair trial, the right to due process of law, the right to privacy and a family life, to freedom of thought and conscience.

    The mere fact you have said "paedophiles have no rights" is a profound demonstration of your lack of understanding of the law. Every inhabitant of the United Kingdom enjoys the rights I listed above.



    How would accepting it as a sexual orientation require us to allow paedophiles to **** children? We may well accept it's a sexual orientation, that has absolutely no bearing on whether they should be allowed to have sex with someone who cannot give consent.

    But what if the age of consent was to be lowered? (I've been saying this throughout my posts and you've yet again missed the point. I said what if paedophilia was accepted as a sexual orientation and the age of consent was lowered?)



    I clearly understand it far better than you do. Do you know what a "balancing exercise" is? I mean, you don't have to answer that; if you did, you would already have mentioned it in this



    Again, do you know what a balancing exercise is? I didn't say all rights are identical, I said all people have identical rights. Are you denying, for example, that paedophiles do not have a right to freedom of religion?

    What does that even mean? I'm not denying that paedophiles have human rights.

    You seem rather ignorant of how balancing exercises work in human rights caselaw, and ignorant of the fact that just because one right is judged to be superior to another in its assessment in a balancing exercise, it doens't mean the person asserting the right ajudged to be inferior in that case doesn't have that right, it simply means exercising that right doesn't encompass the act they asserted.

    How do you judge this right? For example in Ireland abortion is illegal because they are pro-life thereby denying the right of choice to people but in England its the exact opposite. Is that fair balancing when one country picks whats more valuable to it on the basis of religion/ethics etc and another doesn't?

    Again, as I said I think we have to stop here. You're getting very angry and making this extremely personal. And if you want to bring up where I did my degree and get personal, let's do it. I think you'd really struggle at Cambridge; if you manage to get past the interview and get an offer (it's possible, I don't know what your grades are but I think your proficiency with the English language is not quite up to most of my fellow undergraduates at Oxford when we were in our first year), I think you will struggle with the tutorial system, to understand debate and have your ideas challenged.
    What makes you think I'm going to apply to Oxbridge? I admit I was thinking of it but I haven't yet and how do you know I will struggle in the tutorial system when I'm used to self studying independently for 2 years now. I fast tracked my previous exams on my own and received all A*s without the help of a teacher or anybody and it was bloody hard. Anyway why is this even being discussed? Its off-topic. It only proves to me that you blindly judge people you don't know and come out completely wrong, judging my 'command of english language' on a social forum when I type quickly and don't concentrate on my grammar is a great basis to determine my command. The fact that I'm a freelance journalist published in the Times and Guardian (although those articles did not concern law or politics but something else I specialise on) makes your claim very ironic.


    No you have not, you have asserted your point and dismissed everything everyone said on the basis that 'you think this' or because you have a degree your are right. That is not consideration.

    By paedophiles having no rights, I mean NO RIGHTS TO CLAIM EQUALITY WITH HOMOSEXUALS precisely for the reason that they are regarded as mentally ill instead of having a sexual orientation. Or are you seriously that dumb to think that I'm saying they literally have not a single right after I've said they do in a previous post? Complete idiocy.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jackdaubs)
    [/B]

    Your exact words were

    I will say again; paedophiles have no rights now (which is good)



    Ah right. So when you make insulting personal comments, that's okay. But when I fire back, it's "off-topic". Interesting.



    You don't even know the meaning of the word unprofessional, and you claim to be a published journalist for The Times and The Guardian?



    Nonsense. I have comprehensively responded to your points, in fact with far more consideration than you have.

    I always quote precisely what I'm replying to, and give you the consideration of addressing the points you make.

    You tend to @reply the whole thread and then just complain about how I've "failed to understand". To be honest, you really do lack maturity and you obviously struggle to debate and have your ideas challenged. And this is why you would struggle at Oxford or Cambridge.



    You're saying that if someone is regarded as mentally ill, they have no rights? The reason paedophiles cannot sleep with a child is because it is illegal to sleep with a child.

    But please; cite me the ECHR case that says "the reason paedophiles can't make a human rights claim to strike out age of consent laws is because it is considered a mental illness". Find that case that you keep banging on about and claiming exists.



    It's hard to know with you. You are extraordinarily imprecise in the language you use. You'll say something bizarre like "paedophiles have no rights", and when I respond and point out that's no true, you get angry and call me an idiot.

    Again, this is the maturity thing. If you are easily frustrated when you deal with other people, you might find university quite tough.

    Anyway, as I said before, I'm not going to keep responding to the same points over and over again, and trying to educate you about the law when you are clearly not interested in learning and filling the enormous gaps in your knowledge.
    I used the word 'unprofessional' assuming that you wish to be a solicitor. Why not start acting like it now?

    It is off topic, I don't understand why you keep assuming wrong things about strangers.

    Well, I doubt you studied Law at Oxford because of your outrageous accusations and blatant indifference so the fact that you think I wasn't published makes us equal.
    Of course if you'd really like to prove it to me, you can show me your degree.

    I appreciate that and I have learned a few things along the way but I don't appreciate you dictating your opinion to me like its the only one.

    And what if a person was not native? Does that make them an idiot? Although I'm Estonian, I was born in Ireland. It does not give you the right to make racist remarks. In fact, when I was fifteen, my first article was published concerning racist people like you.

    Here it is: http://www.irishtimes.com/premium/lo...acism-1.504451
    It was very popular.
    If you can't access it, you'll need to subscribe.

    Also with your derogatory and racist assumptions, I doubt you'll make it far so thank you for stopping the conversation there or at least for your own good.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's not my cup of tea, but I don't see anything wrong with incest. Consenting adults should be allowed to do as they please.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Paedophilia is not akin to homosexuality at all.... Paedophiles are 'sick' as they are attracted to someone who has not yet gone through puberty and become physically 'ready' for sex. It is rape and those who desire in that way will never be accepted....some may argue that they may not act on these desires but more often than not they try to, or they look for things online.

    As for incest, most people just view it as disgusting as they can't imagine seeing their own sibling or whatever in that way. I don't think we are supposed to sexually want someone from our own gene pool
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    He said JURIES might be accepting of incest or paedophilia. He didn't say "I think they're acceptable." However, if he was quoted in context, the worst thing he implied was that a woman who'd had sex with person A would be fair game for person B. Huh? Consenting to sex with person A one day does not imply consent to sex with person B another day, or even person A another day. And yet that seems to have been lost in the outrage.

    As far as "incest,", a clear distinction needs to be made between CONSENSUAL sex (which should not be a criminal matter at all) and ABUSE/ASSAULT, which is never acceptable no matter the sexual history of the people involved.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jackdaubs)
    To call it hypocrisy is blatant homophobia. Are you saying that gay people have some obligation to agree with incest, when homosexuality and incest are completely different (given you can have incest that is hetero or homo in nature)?

    Are you seriously saying that gay people who believe that it shouldn't be an issue for two consenting, adults to have sex behind closed doors, have an obligation to agree with any sexual practices, no matter how different from homosexuality?
    No, in fact, I hope that they DO have objections against some of the sexual practices that go on between consenting adults behind closed doors. The argument is that if anyone follows the 'consenting adults' argument through to its logical conclusion will find that they do not have legitimate grounds for objections - although hopefully they would have plenty of them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I thought this might be relevant to the thread: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/10/03...ampaign=buffer

    To respond generally to the thread topic, I wouldn't be surprised if these subjects were to become less taboo. There have been pushes for a long time to make them less taboo, and they are becoming slightly more normalized (like some have said incest porn is rather popular). Of course when I say they are being normalized I do not mean to imply that having sex with children unable to consent is being normalized, however merely having the desire is starting to be recognized more and more as a mental illness more than as a crime.

    Some people have raised conjecture about what could come of these normalizations. What if they become considered sexual orientations? What if we change laws around consent? I would respond to these that laws of consent are driven by science (psychology, and neuroscience) on when the brain is developed enough to make an informed decision. This can vary from culture to culture due to many factors, which explains the differing ages of consent. As such what would be your argument against these changes? If they are founded in science that younger and younger people have the capability to consent then what is your objection?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Probably with the advancement of technology in the not to distant future, sex robots will be commercialized. Pedophiles will be able to act on their urges without actually hurting anyone. Only in that sense, I can imagine it no longer becoming a taboo.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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