Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Guys, in all honesty. I made this thread as a troll thread. I was expecting over 9000 funny neg reps. I'm surprised there is actually a debate going on.
    I do, however think paedophiles are treated too harshly by society.

    Example: Watch this video and I promise it will invoke a bit of sympathy. The guy is obviously a sheltered fool with a mental age comparable to the girl hes trying to sleep with, yet hes lumped in with murderers and rapists.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54BWW...eature=related
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    If you're black the chances of your being a rapist are significantly increased. What should we do about black people?
    Hehehe

    (Original post by Phugoid)
    That's up to you. But you must be able to see that a sexual preference for children is, in itself, not dangerous in the slightest to children.
    Okay, but I stand by my point that a sexual preference for children increases the chances of molestation of children. If you did not have a sexual preference for children, the chances of molesting a child would effectively be zero. I don't think it's "not dangerous in the slightest", as it is more potentially dangerous to children than having no paedophilic leanings at all. But I see your point, so I will reword mine: Paedophiles that have offended, i.e., child molesters, deserve no leniency.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    If they don't tell anyone or do anything illegal, no one will treat them badly. If they do, they probably deserve it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by punkyrocker)
    Okay, but I stand by my point that a sexual preference for children increases the chances of molestation of children.
    Attraction to women increases the chances of raping them, by the same logic.

    As does, as somebody has pointed out, being black.

    If you did not have a sexual preference for children, the chances of molesting a child would effectively be zero.
    If you did not have a sexual preference for women, the chances of molesting a woman would effectively be zero.

    I don't think it's "not dangerous in the slightest", as it is more potentially dangerous to children than having no paedophilic leanings at all.
    Again, you can treat heterosexual men in the same respect. You could say that a straight man is more dangerous to women than a gay man, and that she's much more likely to be raped than if the straight man had no sexual preference for women...

    But I see your point, so I will reword mine: Paedophiles that have offended, i.e., child molesters, deserve no leniency.
    I agree entirely, but that's not relevant to this threat.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GodspeedGehenna)
    Well, the DSM would disagree with you there, as it is clearly defined as a paraphilia. See: DSM-IV 302.2.
    The DSM, not so long ago, also defined homosexuality as a mental disorder (DSM-II, 1968).

    Such manuals are merely guides to the currently dominant psychological paradigm.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
    If they don't tell anyone or do anything illegal, no one will treat them badly. If they do, they probably deserve it.
    I think they should be able to tell people without repercussions. They shouldn't have to live in seclusion with a problem, if they have one. They should be able to get help.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    I think they should be able to tell people without repercussions. They shouldn't have to live in seclusion with a problem, if they have one. They should be able to get help.
    Yes, they should be treated well by medical professionals. Aren't they?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    The DSM, not so long ago, also defined homosexuality as a mental disorder (DSM-II, 1968).
    And doctors once believed in the four humors theory.

    Your point?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    The experience of... what?!

    I don't need to have experience of anything to be able to see that paedophilia is not a crime. Because:

    1) It doesn't make any sense for it to be a crime because it harms nobody, is a danger to nobody, and exists purely inside the mind of an individual.

    2) In law, it is not listed as a criminal offence.

    So, there you go. Paedophilia is, for a fact, not a criminal offence. Nor should it ever be turned into one.
    oh really...kids have not been affected by it? don't they rape them and shoot videos or something? in fact about few months ago it happened near where I lived to a girl and so I am always worried it MAY happen to my girlfriend...I always walk her home. She ***** herself if I don't. This definitely has affected me and her fella.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GodspeedGehenna)
    And doctors once believed in the four humors theory.

    Your point?
    My point being that just because it's in the DSM doesn't mean that it should be, only that dominant psychological thinking at present believes that it should. You used the DSM as absolute evidence of paedophilia being a mental disorder.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The OP's a paedophile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    My point being that just because it's in the DSM doesn't mean that it should be, only that dominant psychological thinking at present believes that it should. You used the DSM as absolute evidence of paedophilia being a mental disorder.
    The DSM defines mental illness as society defines it. A mental illness is to radically go against social norms as it is defined in that period of time, as well as additional definitions of suffering of the individual or others.

    Mental illness changes as societal norms change. Thus, diagnostic criterias are required to be as flexible. Currently, according to our societal norms and clinical definitions, paedophilia is a mental illness and hence defined by the most current diagnostic manual.

    Doesn't render my point unsupported.

    (Original post by Phugoid)
    His point being that what the DSM say is nothing but a matter of definition that could be very easily questioned and disagreed with.

    Simply because DSM have issued a definition does not make it a closed book matter.
    See above.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GodspeedGehenna)
    And doctors once believed in the four humors theory.

    Your point?
    His point being that what the DSM say is nothing but a matter of definition that could be very easily questioned and disagreed with.

    Simply because DSM have issued a definition does not make it a closed book matter.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    The OP's a paedophile
    agreed. :yes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mighty Grandiose Noble Knight)
    oh really...kids have not been affected by it? don't they rape them and shoot videos or something? in fact about few months ago it happened near where I lived to a girl and so I am always worried it MAY happen to my girlfriend...I always walk her home. She ***** herself if I don't. This definitely has affected me and her fella.
    Oh dear lord, they don't come much thicker than this, do they?

    The person you speak of was a child molester. That's why he affected you. It was not his attraction to children that affected people, but his raping of children.

    Vast majority of paedophiles don't rape people, and hence it's entirely possible for paedophilia to exist without harming anybody.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    Attraction to women increases the chances of raping them, by the same logic.

    As does, as somebody has pointed out, being black.

    If you did not have a sexual preference for women, the chances of molesting a woman would effectively be zero.

    Again, you can treat heterosexual men in the same respect. You could say that a straight man is more dangerous to women than a gay man, and that she's much more likely to be raped than if the straight man had no sexual preference for women...

    I agree entirely, but that's not relevant to this thread.
    I think it is relevant to the thread, as I've said that I believe that paedophilia increases the chances of child molesting, and you have effectively agreed with me with your comparisons with a heterosexual couple - which I think is not a comparison that can fairly be made.

    To answer that you've said, I believe that rape is just as condemnable as active paedophilia - I'm not guilty of treating one worse than the other. The problem with your analogy is that any intercourse with a child would be rape - there's no other way around it. Therefore there is no case whatsoever in which it is acceptable. With your heterosexual couple analogy, it is only in extreme cases that it is unacceptable and illegal, i.e. rape. Otherwise, it is a healthy, normal and executable sexual preference.

    Anyway, the assumption is that paedophiles are treated badly as most people assume that they have offended, and are 'kiddy fiddlers' - that's what you've been arguing against, so obviously you acknowledge it's the problem that has to be tackled for paedophiles to be treated as you think they should be treated.

    Phugoid, I'm sorry if I've caused any offence at all as I didn't mean to, I was just stating my opinion - if it's irritating you too much to argue against me we can simply agree to disagree
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GodspeedGehenna)
    The DSM defines mental illness as society defines it. A mental illness is to radically go against social norms as it is defined in that period of time, as well as additional definitions of suffering of the individual or others.

    Mental illness changes as societal norms change. Thus, diagnostic criterias are required to be as flexible. Currently, according to our societal norms and clinical definitions, paedophilia is a mental illness and hence defined by the most current diagnostic manual.

    Doesn't render my point unsupported.
    There are many definitions of mental illness, as I'm sure you know, the deviation from social norms model being merely one (and not one that I'm personally happy with due to its inherent enforcement of neurological/psychological conformity).

    That's a circular argument anyway. Why is society against paedophilia per se? Well, it's a mental illness. And why is paedophilia a mental illness? Because society is against it, of course.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    Oh dear lord, they don't come much thicker than this, do they?

    The person you speak of was a child molester. That's why he affected you. It was not his attraction to children that affected people, but his raping of children.

    Vast majority of paedophiles don't rape people, and hence it's entirely possible for paedophilia to exist without harming anybody.
    Yeah I just read that thing you wrote in capital bold. Doesn't a child molester start off being a pedophile?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by punkyrocker)
    I think it is relevant to the thread, as I've said that I believe that paedophilia increases the chances of child molesting, and you have effectively agreed with me with your comparisons with a heterosexual couple - which I think is not a comparison that can fairly be made.
    You have yet to tell me WHY you think it's not a fair comparison.

    Also, yes, I do agree that being a paedophile makes you more likely to rape a child, statistically, just like being a heterosexual male makes you more likely to rape a woman, statistically. But the point I was making there was that the likelihood is SO SMALL and insignificant, that to worry about it this much is awful. Also, the point I was making was that if you are going to turn paedophilia into a crime because of the small increase in the chance of child molestation, then you should be making heterosexuality a crime for the same reason.

    To answer that you've said, I believe that rape is just as condemnable as active paedophilia - I'm not guilty of treating one worse than the other. The problem with your analogy is that any intercourse with a child would be rape - there's no other way around it. Therefore there is no case whatsoever in which it is acceptable. With your heterosexual couple analogy, it is only in extreme cases that it is unacceptable and illegal, i.e. rape. Otherwise, it is a healthy, normal and executable sexual preference.
    Doesn't matter. My point still stands. A paedophile who doesn't harm a child is EQUALLY AS HARMLESS as a heterosexual male who finds himself attracted to a girl, but does not approach her. A paedophile who has sex with a child is EQUALLY AS DANGEROUS as a heterosexual male who rapes a woman. The point of the comparison being that you can't treat paedophilia as the cause of child molestation, because the vast majority of paedophiles don't abuse kids, in the same way that you can't treat heterosexuality as the cause of rape, because the vast majority of heterosexual males do not rape women.

    Anyway, the assumption is that paedophiles are treated badly as most people assume that they have offended, and are 'kiddy fiddlers' - that's what you've been arguing against, so obviously you acknowledge it's the problem that has to be tackled for paedophiles to be treated as you think they should be treated.
    Yes, that's the problem indeed. The assumption that paedophiles are the same as child molesters - it is not justified.

    Phugoid, I'm sorry if I've caused any offence at all as I didn't mean to, I was just stating my opinion - if it's irritating you too much to argue against me we can simply agree to disagree
    I am not offended.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mighty Grandiose Noble Knight)
    Yeah I just read that thing you wrote in capital bold. Doesn't a child molester start off being a pedophile?
    Not always, no. It's quite possible to be a child molester without being a paedophile.

    But even if the answer was 'yes', what difference would it make? You could ask the question 'Doesn't a rapist start off being a heterosexual male', and using that extremely bad logic, you could start sending heterosexual males to jail because the might rape somebody. Obviously, that's just nonsense.
 
 
 
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: February 2, 2010
The home of Results and Clearing

1,206

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
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.