Turn on thread page Beta

Sexual Deviants; are we too soft on them? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
    How about you actually attempt to dispute what I said instead of resorting to smilies, huh?
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Calling it a disease, is frankly offensive. I bet you are one of those people who believe homosexuality is a mental illness aswell. Go sort out your prejudices and get some common sense.
    Well it is a disease, that harms children!

    I suggest yo actually read as I said homosexuality is fine, as what consenting adults do is none of my business and tbf I like gays.

    Those I dispose are pedophiles and ther harming of children. How can you even defend these people?
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Sexual Deviant = Sex Offender?

    Deviant:
    "describes actions or behaviors that violate cultural norms including formally-enacted rules (e.g., crime) as well as informal violations of social norms"
    Some sexual deviants are really no harm to society. BDSM, roleplay, domination, orgies, swingers, etc are all considered deviations from the norms of sexual behaviour.

    Maybe we are soft on them... but surely they'd enjoy it if it were brutal
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Well it is a disease, that harms children!

    I suggest yo actually read as I said homosexuality is fine, as what consenting adults do is none of my business and tbf I like gays.

    Those I dispose are pedophiles and ther harming of children. How can you even defend these people?
    You are equating paedophiles to child molesters, it's about as logical as going around saying all heterosexuals are rapists.

    It's not a "disease" any more than homosexuality is a "disease". I'll defend people if they are the subject of unnecessary prejudice, from bigots like yourself, merely because of who they happen to be sexually attracted to! They have a right to be sexually attracted to who they like!
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Homosexuality is a "disease".
    Why do you keep saying this? there is nothing wrong with homosexuality!
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    I'll defend people if they are the subject of unnecessary prejudice, from bigots like yourself, merely because of who they happen to be sexually attracted to! They have a right to be sexually attracted to who they like!
    Being sexually attracted to children is wrong! I don't see any way in which it can be okay.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Why do you keep saying this? there is nothing wrong with homosexuality!
    Who said there was? What you don't seem to be able to understand is that if you think paedophilia a "disease" why don't you think homosexuality is one? It doesn't make sense.

    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Being sexually attracted to children is wrong! I don't see any way in which it can be okay.
    Why is it wrong?
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Who said there was? What you don't seem to be able to understand is that if you think paedophilia a "disease" why don't you think homosexuality is one? It doesn't make sense.
    Homosexually is not a disease! Liking children in a sexual way is wrong therefore a disease, homosexual paedophilia is a disease however but not homosexuality.
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Why is it wrong?
    Because children are innocent beings, not consenting adults. I honestly cannot believe you want to stick up for these sick perverts!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    "Sexual deviants" and "too soft" are two fantastic phrases to put in the same sentence
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Liking children in a sexual way is wrong therefore a disease
    Umm this is embarrassing. :facepalm: That's not how it works.

    In that case, I believe prejudice is wrong, therefore you have a disease. I suggest you refer yourself to a mental health practitioner immediately so you can be "re-educated".

    (Original post by tehFrance)
    homosexual paedophilia is a disease however but not homosexuality.

    Because children are innocent beings, not consenting adults. I honestly cannot believe you want to stick up for these sick perverts!
    What does children being innocent beings or not being able to consent have anything to do with the attraction being wrong?
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Umm this is embarrassing. :facepalm: That's not how it works.

    In that case, I believe prejudice is wrong, therefore you have a disease. I suggest you refer yourself to a mental health practitioner immediately so you can be "re-educated".

    What does children being innocent beings or not being able to consent have anything to do with the attraction being wrong?
    1. That's how it works to me.
    2. Don't care.
    3. The attraction is wrong as children have nothing there for a start, they are children and they cannot consent.
    4. I refuse to talk to you on this subject again as you clearly support these *******s.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    3. The attraction is wrong as children have nothing there for a start, they are children and they cannot consent.
    *******s.


    Inb4muhammadandreligiousflamewar
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Hmm. Interesting.

    For one, I don't think possesing material you did not make, or fund should carry such a harsh sentance. And it certainley have you treated the same as those who make it. Contreversial, but take Child Porn. If someone only downloads and looks at it, that person has not harmed anyone. If they do not distribute it and have it only for personal use? I think it should be taken from them, but they shouldn't be classed anything like the same as a predatory Paedophile. Lots of people have secret, and what would be termed by society 'perverse' desires, to live them out within the confines of your own mind, with perhaps some visual stimulant is not harmful. Just as every man that watches 'rough' porn is not a rapist, not every person that looks at Child Porn will go out and rape a child.

    But as for voyerism and crimes of that nature, I think there should be slightly harsher punishments. But mostly that person should then be open to civil suits from those recorded. The law must always be concerned with harm done / punishment ratio. I wouldn't want anyone to record me taking a piss, but equally I'm not sure that should carry the same punishmnet as stabbing someone. So, as for criminal law I think they should perhaps be put on a register and do community service. But, the law should be changed so they have little defense from civil suits for damages. Perhaps an amount should be set, say compensation of £2,500 for every time a person was recorded?
    But surely this wouldn't be the case if it was YOUR child that they were watching?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    You've used the term sexual deviants very loosely. Surely people with odd fetishes are sexual deviants, but I see no reason to not allow them to continue their lives.

    Pedophiles and rapists are different-and I wouldn't know where to begin...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    You are equating paedophiles to child molesters, it's about as logical as going around saying all heterosexuals are rapists.

    It's not a "disease" any more than homosexuality is a "disease". I'll defend people if they are the subject of unnecessary prejudice, from bigots like yourself, merely because of who they happen to be sexually attracted to! They have a right to be sexually attracted to who they like!
    What about the case of a man who, after years of normality and holding down a respectable job, suddenly became a pedophile and was caught with images of children on his computer? He was X-rayed and they found a tumour in his brain. After removing the tumour, his pedophilia stopped. Later, his tumour returned, as did the pedophilia. Clearly, the idea that they're just "sick" is idiotic-there is good support, from this case, that it's a disorder/disease.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Sovietpride)
    Inb4muhammadandreligiousflamewar
    Ah yes Muhammad and his paedophilia, another reason to dislike Islam.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Rouge*)
    But surely this wouldn't be the case if it was YOUR child that they were watching?
    And as I've said before, when making law you have to have emotional detatchment. Of course I wouldn't like it, but equally once the harm has been done, the initial abuse, subsidry media of that is not harm to the child.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingMessi)
    What about the case of a man who, after years of normality and holding down a respectable job, suddenly became a pedophile and was caught with images of children on his computer? He was X-rayed and they found a tumour in his brain. After removing the tumour, his pedophilia stopped. Later, his tumour returned, as did the pedophilia. Clearly, the idea that they're just "sick" is idiotic-there is good support, from this case, that it's a disorder/disease.
    That does not prove anything, it simply means the tumour caused him to have paedophile tendencies. The only reason it does this is because tumours can affect the inner workings of the brain, can make people angry and violent, or incredibly depressed.

    This doesn't mean that EVERYONE who is angry and violent or incredibly depressed has a "disease". Most people have sexual orientations which aren't affected by tumours. Of course anything affecting your brain can potentially change your personality/sexual orientation etc.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,509

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Will you be tempted to trade up and get out of your firm offer on 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.