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

    7
    ReputationRep:
    If the porn was entirely acting and the child was not getting screwed you would have a point with murder, but televised violence is normally acted so your original argument does not stand.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k_bourne)
    I agree that if the act of watching child porn funded the production of it, then it would be a good thing to disallow people from doing so. But I'm not convinced that this is what actually happens. Conciousness has made most of the points I was going to make, but I will repeat that the vast majority of "child porn" is not produced as a result of abuse. Most of it is from teenagers taking pictures of themselves, or videoing themselves having sex. This, obviously, is not a market, as no one makes any money.
    I suspect you're right, but do you have any evidence to back that up?

    (Original post by k_bourne)
    The question for me would be whether the minority's effects can warrant a ban on the majority. A more sensible solution seems, to me, to be disallowing websites for child porn, but allowing people to view content that is not money-making, as this does not increase the amount of abuse done. This is how the reality is at the moment (except for the legality, of course), so nothing would have to change.
    It's just simpler and more effective to have a blanket ban on the content. Why would the Government bother with a nuanced and probably loophole-riddled alternative in the conspicuous absence of campaigners for people's right to watch child porn freely?

    (Original post by k_bourne)
    This is probably the real reason for it. I suppose my idealistic view of the government actually having reasons for the things they do is not realistic. That's not to say that there are no compelling arguments in their defense, but this is, one would suspect, the reality. That's one of the problems in a democracy - if enough people want something, it can happen regardless of whether it is justified.
    Rational justification would be great. Ultimately, though, politics in a democracy is the art of taking money from the wealthy and votes from the poor under the auspices of protecting each from the other, and if you can't convince both that you're serving their interests you won't last. Doesn't really matter whether your policies are rationally consistent, or even whether they will benefit the country. What matters is 'cui bono'.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conciousness)
    I keep hearing this argument, however how does 'watching' something create 'demand'?

    Lay out the causation for me. Economics 101, surely the supplier needs some sort of reason or motivation to specifically meet this demand?
    No idea. It's just what we use by way of explanation in my area of work... Makes sense on a simple level to me though. Many of these porn sharing sites demand share for share and many you do pay for.

    In many circles there's a lot of communication between users encouraging more of it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There is actually no valid argument for making possession of Child pornography illegal, it's just that people are so blinded by the hysteria that they can't see it. The Simple possession of something not directly harmful to anyone, and if the person is not associated with making the pornography, then the person should be treated as someone with possibly an addiction problem (sort of like drug addicts), or maybe in need to mental health treatment. In any case, treating them as criminals and lock them up for hundred of years (in the US, for example) simply for downloading some photos online is unreasonable. If possession of drugs are being decriminalized, so should the possession of child pornography, unless, they're involved in making that child pornography, then it should of course, remain a criminal issue.
    Not supporting child pornography, but there should be more reasonable approaches, after all, pedophilia is an existing urge some people have, it's no less naturally occurring than homosexuality, pure repression and witch hunting does not help. Compassion and understanding does help.

    I'm glad you brought this up k_bourne, you know you'll never get the thumb up. But we need some serious discussion on this issue.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Genocidal)
    Part 1

    Since most people seem to agree on the whole child porn is wrong because they're children and can't consent I didn't really feel the need to spend time on such a thing.

    Well that depends on your definition of right and wrong, which is highly subjective. Many people simply use the law as a definition of right and wrong. And there are different types of wrongs. On a legal level it doesn't really matter what we think because it's illegal. On a moral level I simply don't agree with it because children can't consent. But, as I said, the definition of right and wrong is highly subjective and the so-called 'measuring stick' is different for every individual.

    Part 2

    Taking aside the communities of people who are into child porn, those who watch in secret still promote it. The people who make it are aware when people watch it. I agree many of the videos are made for the maker's own sexual gain, but they also look to make money from it. If you watch these videos you could easily be indirectly funding them through web traffic and ads. Of course, there are also the paid porn options.

    From a legal standpoint, I would assume much of their thinking comes from a sort of 'infection' point of view. If someone enjoys watching child porn alone it might one day develop and boil over. They could participate themselves (although unlikely), speak to their friends about it, and get involved with the marketing. I don't necessarily agree with this threat as particularly pressing, but it does exist.

    Well the supply and demand thing is when you start getting into the sordid underbelly of government and national structures. Like you said in your example, it's all about money.

    To link that with my next point, though. I agree there needs to be some emphasis on treatment rather than just hitting people with the law. In my view, there needs to be a healthy dose of each because otherwise you segregate people and essentially exile them from society. But sadly there's very little political or public will to do such things so we are stuck with what we have today.

    I think that child porn should remain illegal because viewers need to know what they're doing is wrong, but at the same time we shouldn't just lock them up and place a black stamp next to their names for life like we do now.
    I appreciate your views, and I agree with some of it, I like honest discussion.
    One of the events that made me decide to always look at the US with a unfavorable view was this.
    20 photos downloaded sentenced to 200 years in prison without parole, it is insane, this is not a modern society.
    http://althouse.blogspot.ca/2007/02/...otographs.html
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    The fantasy will never be socially acceptable as long as there are legal—and more significantly—moral objections to the act. By and large, it is acceptable to say, "I want to have a sexual relationship with this pornstar and have fantasies over this notion" because the actual act is legally and morally acceptable. The same cannot be said about the actual act of paedophilia (at least, not under the current moral climate) or the act of raping the pornstar, so the corresponding fantasy and the holder of this fantasy will never be treated as equal. Regardless of whether the paedophile wants to violently sexually assault the child or form what they consider to be a loving and caring relationship (like you could reasonably do with a pornstar), it is still considered rape and all the legal, moral and emotional objections to it manifest themselves. Suggesting they are equal but still upholding this absolute legal and moral distinction in their liberties cannot work. Legitimising the thought invariably helps to legitimise the act, which is what Itzin (2002) meant when he said child pornography is "instrumentally causal [though not solely causal] in the etiology of sex offending." If you're constantly told you and your thoughts are acceptable, there is a greater chance that you will convince yourself that the act is also acceptable, especially when you see the rest of your apparently equal citizens with such liberties.
    I am going to completely disagree with you even though I know where you are coming from. I agree with you, that children, down to a certain age should be protected legally, meaning if someone having sex with 9 years old, it will always remain an illegal act.
    With that said, what I disagree with you is that morality is highly subjective and it changes from one country to another and it changes through time. Saying the act of pedophilia will never be accepted is different from saying the urge of pedophilia will never be accepted, I agree with the former statement but not the ladder.
    Every point of your argument can be used 200 years ago made against homosexuality. Yet our ancestors who executed gays and married 13 years old will never have thought morality would shift and in modern society what they had taken for granted can go though a 180 degree change, where gays are no longer prosecuted, and marriage to 13 years old is no longer permitted. What I'm trying to say is, morality is ever changing, you cannot predict the future. what I can predict though, is that we as a society, is becoming more civilized and tolerant of difference than ever before. and one of the keys defining how civilized we are, is how far we stray from our gut instincts. If our gut instinct is kill those who commit crimes, kill those who's sexual attraction differ from us, beat up those who disagree with us politically, then civilized society abolishes death penalty, tolerate different ideas and cultures, and legalizes homosexuality.
    Our society is becoming more tolerant of differences than ever before, sexual paraphilias exist and you cannot deny that. There's nothing fundamentally different from sadomasochism and pedophilia, however people are more comfortable with one but not the one. I'm going to argue that people will slowly understand that pedophilia is uncontrollable, therefore, it's not their fault they're attracted to children, just like it's not gays' fault attracted to the same gender.
    Once the society begin to understand and differentiate between a criminal act (sexually violating a child) and a sexual paraphilia (pedophilia), we will disassociate pedophiles from child molesters, as you know, right now they're synonymous terms. We as a society will likely eventually accept the urge of pedophilia but not accepting the act of raping a child.
    The final point I want to make, is that I disagree with you that accepting pedophilia will make them convince themselves that they can go out and commit crimes. Our current legal system demonize these people, imprison them for years, register them from sex offender registry for the rest of their lives, and they lose their jobs, family and all friends, because of the stigma associated with this attraction. Also because of this, people who haven't commit crimes wouldn't seek out treatment because they're afraid, this, is exactly what causes crimes -- social segregation. When your family and friends and the entirely society see you as a monster, and you feel isolated and alone, that's when you lose your social responsibility and commit crimes, because you've already got nothing to lose. If we accept pedophilia, have real discussions, treatments, counselling for those who are attracted to children, lots of crimes may be prevented. If pedophilia is destigmatized, and pedophiles feel that they have something to lose by committing a crime, and if families and friends will love them regardless of who they naturally are, it will prevent crimes.
    Prohibition and witch hunting does not always prevent crime, compassion and true understanding does.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Curious_Lawyer)
    1) It is illegal because that is the law.

    2) Hypothetically speaking, would you like to see your 10 year old sister to be part of a porn set?

    It is morally wrong and if it were legal, it would be subject to widespread abuse from certain members of society.
    this is exactly the type of response most in the society would give, and this is part of the problem, you refuse to think more... But to make societal progress, you always need to think more.

    (Original post by k_bourne)
    I am arguing for the freedom to write down and plan terrorist attacks, but obviously I don't believe you should be allowed to build bombs, that's an entirely different matter. Christopher Hitchens explains the freedom to write down terrorist plots very well, though I can't find the speech in which he talked about it. It might be this one - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM - but I can't quite remember.

    I consider freedom of expression and freedom of thought to be non-negotiable*, universal constants, but I am aware that most people - yourself included - do not agree, and many find it difficult to understand why I think this.

    *Not to mean I won't discuss it and consider others' opinions, but that I make no exceptions for it within my morality.
    I agree, I cannot believe out society has come to the point of prosecuting people for what they write on facebook, twitter, or a piece of paper.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ncsoftlover)
    I am going to completely disagree with you even though I know where you are coming from. I agree with you, that children, down to a certain age should be protected legally, meaning if someone having sex with 9 years old, it will always remain an illegal act.
    With that said, what I disagree with you is that morality is highly subjective and it changes from one country to another and it changes through time. Saying the act of pedophilia will never be accepted is different from saying the urge of pedophilia will never be accepted, I agree with the former statement but not the ladder.
    Every point of your argument can be used 200 years ago made against homosexuality. Yet our ancestors who executed gays and married 13 years old will never have thought morality would shift and in modern society what they had taken for granted can go though a 180 degree change, where gays are no longer prosecuted, and marriage to 13 years old is no longer permitted. What I'm trying to say is, morality is ever changing, you cannot predict the future. what I can predict though, is that we as a society, is becoming more civilized and tolerant of difference than ever before. and one of the keys defining how civilized we are, is how far we stray from our gut instincts. If our gut instinct is kill those who commit crimes, kill those who's sexual attraction differ from us, beat up those who disagree with us politically, then civilized society abolishes death penalty, tolerate different ideas and cultures, and legalizes homosexuality.
    Our society is becoming more tolerant of differences than ever before, sexual paraphilias exist and you cannot deny that. There's nothing fundamentally different from sadomasochism and pedophilia, however people are more comfortable with one but not the one. I'm going to argue that people will slowly understand that pedophilia is uncontrollable, therefore, it's not their fault they're attracted to children, just like it's not gays' fault attracted to the same gender.
    Consent. I really cannot imagine a future where consent laws are abolished completely that would give rise to a situation where sadomasochism amongst two or more consenting adults and an adult-child/baby relationship are morally and legally equivalent.

    In respect to the rest of your post, I said the following:

    "The fantasy will never be socially acceptable as long as there are legal—and more significantly—moral objections to the act."

    If you accept the moral problem associated with the act of child molestation/rape will exist in future, you cannot simultaneously expect that those who fantasise about this will be seen as equal. Similarly, if I fantasise about raping somebody, people will not want to associate with me. It isn't comparable to homosexuality because the moral argument (a religious one) against it declined with increasing secularisation, education and critical thinking: as there is no moral argument against it, it is becoming destigmatised.

    Once the society begin to understand and differentiate between a criminal act (sexually violating a child) and a sexual paraphilia (pedophilia), we will disassociate pedophiles from child molesters, as you know, right now they're synonymous terms. We as a society will likely eventually accept the urge of pedophilia but not accepting the act of raping a child.
    I doubt it for the reasons I've explained above. Having an urge to commit a criminal act necessarily means that person will not be treated the same as those who do not have an urge to commit that criminal act. All things being equal, I cannot conceive a present or future situation where a parent would rather leave their child in the hands of a paedophile than a non-paedophile.

    The final point I want to make, is that I disagree with you that accepting pedophilia will make them convince themselves that they can go out and commit crimes. Our current legal system demonize these people, imprison them for years, register them from sex offender registry for the rest of their lives, and they lose their jobs, family and all friends, because of the stigma associated with this attraction. Also because of this, people who haven't commit crimes wouldn't seek out treatment because they're afraid, this, is exactly what causes crimes -- social segregation. When your family and friends and the entirely society see you as a monster, and you feel isolated and alone, that's when you lose your social responsibility and commit crimes, because you've already got nothing to lose. If we accept pedophilia, have real discussions, treatments, counselling for those who are attracted to children, lots of crimes may be prevented.
    How does one 'treat' a biological urge to have a sexual and/or emotional relationship with children? How can you claim they are acceptable whilst suggesting they need treatment? How can anyone feel normal and accepted when they're told they are clinically abnormal and need fixing? Separate but 'equal' does not work. They will gravitate towards other paedophiles and are likely to enact their fantasies (due to confirmation bias).

    As long as the act is illegal, the people who have an urge to commit the act cannot be considered equal to those who do not have an urge to commit the act.

    If pedophilia is destigmatized, and pedophiles feel that they have something to lose by committing a crime, and if families and friends will love them regardless of who they naturally are, it will prevent crimes.
    Prohibition and witch hunting does not always prevent crime, compassion and true understanding does.
    I've explained in the post you quoted why fantasising about that which is legally and morally objectionable will never be destigmatised.
    • Offline

      16
      (Original post by ncsoftlover)
      I appreciate your views, and I agree with some of it, I like honest discussion.
      One of the events that made me decide to always look at the US with a unfavorable view was this.
      20 photos downloaded sentenced to 200 years in prison without parole, it is insane, this is not a modern society.
      http://althouse.blogspot.ca/2007/02/...otographs.html
      Whenever I see those silly cases in America I'm honestly not sure whether to pity them or laugh at them. I still recall the American earlier this year who racked up lots of minor offenses and got a few hundred years without parole due to how they stack them.

      I would have thought they would have at least had the common sense to place a maximum on it, or at least use some basic cognitive powers.
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by ncsoftlover)
      I agree, I cannot believe out society has come to the point of prosecuting people for what they write on facebook, twitter, or a piece of paper.
      That's a separate issue.

      Many of these were fantasies, thoughts or plans. Should prosecution/intervention only take place after the act has occurred, or should they be obviated where there is reason to believe they will translate into a real act? Who benefits from the former?
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Ladyliesel)
      :facepalm:Don't even go there
      t-thh-think of the children!
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Genocidal)
      Whenever I see those silly cases in America I'm honestly not sure whether to pity them or laugh at them. I still recall the American earlier this year who racked up lots of minor offenses and got a few hundred years without parole due to how they stack them.

      I would have thought they would have at least had the common sense to place a maximum on it, or at least use some basic cognitive powers.
      The american justice system is the worst in the world, I consider it worse than Chinese system, which executes thousands of people each year.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by whyumadtho)
      Consent. I really cannot imagine a future where consent laws are abolished completely that would give rise to a situation where sadomasochism amongst two or more consenting adults and an adult-child/baby relationship are morally and legally equivalent.
      The difference is not really consent, pedophilia is an attraction not an act, fantasizing pedophilia does not involve a consensual issue. Answer me this: a sadist can go out and beat people for sexual pleasure, which would be illegal, or he could choose not to offend. Both options are available for pedophiles as well, so how's pedophilia different from other paraphilias ? they all can involve illegal act if acted upon forcefully. you can add bestiality and necrophilia to the list, they are all very comparable. The difference is that there's more hysteria surrounding anything involving children, that's all, most of such hysteria are counter productive, only true understanding and true help for those who seek help will be helpful, I'm arguing that the stigma attached to an uncontrollable attraction is detrimental not helpful, and unfair as well to those with the condition, it triggers suicides.



      "The fantasy will never be socially acceptable as long as there are legal—and more significantly—moral objections to the act."
      don't agree, you always say things that are too absolute. Fantasizing morally objectable acts is celebrated in form of video games already, it celebrates murder. On top of that, you make it sound like there's an universal consensus on morality, there's isn't, don't forget there're countries today that execute gays and rape victims, and they see it as justified.
      Age of consent is 18 in most US states, but 13 in Japan and Spain. Possession of small amount of heroin is completely decriminalized in Mexico and Portugal, but a mandatory hanging to death in Singapore.
      The world is much too complex for your simple sentence to cover it all. Morality is fluid and subjective, and it changes from society to society, from time to time. I'm betting on the general public realizing pedophilia is different from child molestation, and offer understanding and help to those who needed it, and stop the current hysteria surrounding this sexual paraphilia, like they did with homosexuality (see my next paragraph)
      To be honest though, whether the society will see it as an acceptable attraction is not a major part of my argument, my argument is mainly that it should, for the better of everyone involved.


      It isn't comparable to homosexuality because the moral argument (a religious one) against it declined with increasing secularisation, education and critical thinking: as there is no moral argument against it, it is becoming destigmatised.
      It is rather comparable, the gut instinct is to hurt those who's attractions disgust us, but critical thinking does help us to realize it makes no sense to oppose or criminalize something they cannot control. I don't expect a fully accepting attitude toward pedophilia, because you're partly right.
      But the stigma associated with this attraction is at abnormal level right now, there's no reason to object to an uncontrollable desire by this much. prohibition/repression/demonizing people does not help. Critical thinking will help the public realize that. Also you kind of missed with the religious argument against homosexuality, in China, there was never a religious prosecution against homosexuality, it is becoming more accepted today simply because of improved education, critical thinking, and the society becoming more tolerant of people and things we find weird or even disgusting. That includes uncontrollable sexual attractions, so this homosexuality and pedophilia comparison is not unreasonable.

      I doubt it for the reasons I've explained above. Having an urge to commit a criminal act necessarily means that person will not be treated the same as those who do not have an urge to commit that criminal act. All things being equal, I cannot conceive a present or future situation where a parent would rather leave their child in the hands of a paedophile than a non-paedophile.
      An uncontrollable natural urge should not be stigmatized, the society already realized that with homosexuality. The act may be stigmatized, but not the urge. The public may be more progressive than you think, 200 years ago it would not be conceivable that a majority of the world's nations abolished death penalty. The justice system jump from retribution focused to deterrence focused and then to rehabilitation focused. Morality and laws rapidly progresses throughout history. Personally I don't care about whether that mother would leave her child in the hands of a pedophile, a rape victim probably want rapists all dead, what's your point? I care much more about the societal attitude. As I said previously, the more civilized a society becomes, the further the people stray away from their first instinct, they'd think and reflect about the most appropriate attitude toward pedophilia. and I have faith, that eventually, they'll find that blind hatred, misguided information, and the modern day witch hunt does not help the children, nor the potential offenders. Never say never, today, our society is more sane than it ever was, and it will become even better.


      How does one 'treat' a biological urge to have a sexual and/or emotional relationship with children? How can you claim they are acceptable whilst suggesting they need treatment? How can anyone feel normal and accepted when they're told they are clinically abnormal and need fixing? Separate but 'equal' does not work. They will gravitate towards other paedophiles and are likely to enact their fantasies (due to confirmation bias).
      I hope you're making a horrible joke. Are you seriously trying to inform me "separate but equal" doesn't work? Seriously, same sex marriage is the first on my social issue agenda, you think I don't know about "separate but equal"? You are the one encouraging social segregation by demonizing pedophiles and advocate for total prohibition because you think legitimizing the urge will legitimize the act. I argued otherwise because I believed in integration and inclusiveness, and I do not alienate pedophiles, I want to get to the root of the problem. You are in a position to inform me "separate but equal doesn't work?" :confused: Of course it doesn't work, what does work according to you though? Social segregation? total isolation? and absolute prohibition? Should we talk about war on drugs and how that went so well?
      What I was saying, and you misunderstood, was that non offending pedophiles should be treated equally as everyone else, they certainly will not be forced into mental treatment. However, if they feel like they cannot control their urges, then they should be encouraged to see addiction/counselling support. As of right now, they are afraid to do that because of the associated stigma, and they'll lose their families and friends if they did that. I think the stigma should be removed, they will seek help if they want and hopefully, it works to reduce crimes. I want them integrated within the society, not being thrown out and certainly not locked up for an uncontrollable desire, that's not their fault. As for those who did molest children, in that case, it is not unreasonable to have forced mental health treatment, but addiction treatment mainly, because I personally don't think pedophilia is a mental disorder. That's what I really meant, I hope I made myself clear this time.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by whyumadtho)
      That's a separate issue.

      Many of these were fantasies, thoughts or plans. Should prosecution/intervention only take place after the act has occurred, or should they be obviated where there is reason to believe they will translate into a real act? Who benefits from the former?
      Okay, this is going to be very long again, it's my habit of doing things, and this is your new year's gift
      You have a very totalitarian ideal, it's kind of ironic that I came from China where the political atmosphere is closer to what you described. Your believe is closer to the Chinese: “rather kill 1000 innocent, but not let the guilty go.” While my belief is closer to : “rather let 1000 guilty go, but not let one innocent suffer.” I’m not suggesting you want to kill them all, in case misunderstood.
      But even with that mentality, you've taken things to a strange extreme by somehow comparing planned terrorism attack to a natural inborn sexual tendency, which is one of the worst analogy I've seen in quite a while. I am for prosecuting people who actually buried bombs, carry illegal weapons unregistered, doing preparing work for an apparent massacre, in that case, there’s jury/judge to decide on the intent and motive and guilt, arrest does not mean guilt, of course. However, I am not for prosecuting people who write out on a piece a paper a planned out attack, and you might argue that out of every 10000 people who fantasize an attack , one or two might carry it out, but to prosecute 10000 people is a massively damaging action. Arrest randomly any 10000 child in a city and jail them for life without parole, I can guarantee that you've got 1 or 2 potential future criminals in there, but you tell me, is it worth it?
      Is planned bombing which involves buying/burying bombs really comparable to a simple sexual paraphilia? You are echoing a tone agreeing with prosecuting people for what they “might do”, or what they “potentially could do”. But who decides on who’s suspicious? The mobs who wants to burn witch at stakes, the crowd cheering when gays were executed just 200 years ago? The government which go ahead and sentence anyone to prison for the reason of having“suspicious thought”? “Suspicious” is highly subjective.

      Most if not all people have a split second or two thought of killing others, I know I have, I know you probably have. Many fantasized about violent rape, if you didn't know, those type of porn are actually quite popular. What are your thoughts on these “suspicious” people, which just about includes everyone on earth.
      According to your perception, pedophiles are more likely to molest children, and therefore they need to be controlled. But certainly a socially anxious 40 years old virgin is relatively more likely to rape women as well, according to that logic. Certainly a sadist is more likely to beat up someone for sexual pleasure (which is a crime), and people with necrophilia are just more likely to dig up bones from graves and have sex with them. Straight men are more likely to rape women because they desire women’s bodies (it’s suspicious, right?) and certainly gay men are more likely to rape other men. Certainly the aboriginals in Canada are statistically proven more likely to murder, rob and rape, the blacks in the USA are far far more likely to commit crimes than people from other racial backgrounds. Since pedophiles, aboriginals, blacks, sadists, necrophiliacs, straight/gays are all “suspicious”, what do you advocate now?
      What’s next?
      Arrest people verbally fighting on the bus, because after all, this is certainly more likely to escalate into a murder, much more so than two people holding hands.
      What’s next?
      Arrest murderer’s family and children, because they lived with a murderer and have been influenced and certainly become “suspicious”.
      You might think I’m taking the argument to an extreme, but you already did that with the analogy of terrorist bombing. I see pedophiles more like the 40 year old sexually repressed virgins who can’t function socially. I need proof from you, that pedophiles are more likely to molest children than a 40 years old sexually repressed socially anxious virgin raping women, I need proof from you that pedophiles are more likely to molest children than a murderer’s son to commit murder. If you have no prove that people who are sexually attracted to children are vastly more morally corrupt, then you have an unfounded prejudice against pedophiles, are you socially conditioned to feel this way? You are kind of “suspicious” yourself, you know.
      You don’t seem to understand that there’s a balance of extremes in just about everything. Suspicions work in escalating levels as well. Your suspicion toward someone who deposited bombs in a New York mall , is surely very different from the suspicion on a woman verbally fighting on a bus (on whether she’s going to kill), and is surely different from the suspicion of someone who can’t help their sexual attraction on whether he’d rape children or not.
      You lumped them altogether as if there’s no differences. The degree of suspicion is vastly different, and they will require different treatments. There’s is a degree of severity to everything and you failed to recognize this very simple logic. You cannot prosecute an innocent man (or woman) just because you dislike their sexuality, the gay comparison is actually more legit than you think.
      All nations have justice systems where they lock up offenders for a period of time for punishment and rehabilitation, and they let them go except for the few murders. Is that the best way to prevent crime? No! Let me tell you what’s the best way to prevent crime: kill everyone who has committed an offense, starting from speeding tickets up to mass murder, the society will be almost crime free that way, after all, anyone “suspicious” is dead, but then at what cost??
      Let me ask you this, suspicion itself is highly subjective, at what cost, would the society try to take control of those who fantasize about illegal activity ? (which includes almost every single human being). The cost is a police state, a totalitarian society.
      You don’t distinguish between degrees of suspicion, and you don’t distinguish between an action (buying and depositing bombs) to a thought (pedophilia, and writing things down on a piece of paper). That’s where your logics fail.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      its illegal because the law says so.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      since when are any of the othervideos you mentioned legal to watch? theyre generally counted as obscene material and banned...
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      WTF? No! Child rape is not 'equally bad' as robbery!

      As to why child pornography should never be legalised... think about what the implications of that will be.
      Government says child pornography is legal.
      It's as though the government is saying that it's 'ok' to like to watch child abuse. Child pornography becomes more 'accepted' within society.
      People that before might have felt too repulsed by their inclinations and paedophilic thoughts may now be more inclined to indulge them, knowing that it is legal and therefore less 'bad'.
      The market for child pornography increases.
      More children are raped and abused for child pornography purposes.

      It's disgusting.
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by ncsoftlover)
      The difference is not really consent, pedophilia is an attraction not an act, fantasizing pedophilia does not involve a consensual issue. Answer me this: a sadist can go out and beat people for sexual pleasure, which would be illegal, or he could choose not to offend. Both options are available for pedophiles as well, so how's pedophilia different from other paraphilias ? they all can involve illegal act if acted upon forcefully. you can add bestiality and necrophilia to the list, they are all very comparable. The difference is that there's more hysteria surrounding anything involving children, that's all, most of such hysteria are counter productive, only true understanding and true help for those who seek help will be helpful, I'm arguing that the stigma attached to an uncontrollable attraction is detrimental not helpful, and unfair as well to those with the condition, it triggers suicides.
      I'm sure people would feel just as unsafe around someone who fantasised about non-consensual sadism, bestiality and necrophilia than they would around someone who fantasised about paedophilia. I imagine the difference in focus is because people are naturally protective over human children and express greater hostility towards potential sources of harm to them.

      don't agree, you always say things that are too absolute. Fantasizing morally objectable acts is celebrated in form of video games already, it celebrates murder.
      The person's emotional urge to kill is limited to the game; if he/she has a life-long emotional urge to kill in real life, he/she becomes synonymous with paedophiles in my argument.

      On top of that, you make it sound like there's an universal consensus on morality, there's isn't, don't forget there're countries today that execute gays and rape victims, and they see it as justified.
      Age of consent is 18 in most US states, but 13 in Japan and Spain. Possession of small amount of heroin is completely decriminalized in Mexico and Portugal, but a mandatory hanging to death in Singapore.
      The world is much too complex for your simple sentence to cover it all. Morality is fluid and subjective, and it changes from society to society, from time to time. I'm betting on the general public realizing pedophilia is different from child molestation, and offer understanding and help to those who needed it, and stop the current hysteria surrounding this sexual paraphilia, like they did with homosexuality (see my next paragraph)
      To be honest though, whether the society will see it as an acceptable attraction is not a major part of my argument, my argument is mainly that it should, for the better of everyone involved.
      This is not in disagreement with my argument. I said where there is a legal and moral objection to the act, it is seen as socially unacceptable. In those societies, there is a legal and moral objection to the act; hence the fantasy is socially unacceptable. Paedophiles are sexually attracted to real, human children and have a sustained, long-term desire to satiate this attraction. People who play violent video games do not have such an obsession (and if they do, should be treated the same way as a paedophile).

      It is rather comparable, the gut instinct is to hurt those who's attractions disgust us, but critical thinking does help us to realize it makes no sense to oppose or criminalize something they cannot control. I don't expect a fully accepting attitude toward pedophilia, because you're partly right.
      Yes it does when that something predisposes them to a morally and legally objectionable act (once the 'icky factor' and religious connotations are removed, unlike homosexuality, there is still a moral objection to the act of paedophilia with the issue of consent), but this does not necessarily mean imprisonment. If they are psychologically predisposed to commit a crime, it is in the public interest to treat them differently to those who do not have such a predisposition. It it reckless to automatically treat them the same way as everyone else; checks must be put into place to ensure they can be entrusted to behave the same way as everyone else.

      But the stigma associated with this attraction is at abnormal level right now, there's no reason to object to an uncontrollable desire by this much. prohibition/repression/demonizing people does not help. Critical thinking will help the public realize that. Also you kind of missed with the religious argument against homosexuality, in China, there was never a religious prosecution against homosexuality, it is becoming more accepted today simply because of improved education, critical thinking, and the society becoming more tolerant of people and things we find weird or even disgusting. That includes uncontrollable sexual attractions, so this homosexuality and pedophilia comparison is not unreasonable.
      The education and critical thinking allowed them to see there is no moral objection to homosexual acts.

      An uncontrollable natural urge should not be stigmatized, the society already realized that with homosexuality. The act may be stigmatized, but not the urge. The public may be more progressive than you think, 200 years ago it would not be conceivable that a majority of the world's nations abolished death penalty. The justice system jump from retribution focused to deterrence focused and then to rehabilitation focused. Morality and laws rapidly progresses throughout history. Personally I don't care about whether that mother would leave her child in the hands of a pedophile, a rape victim probably want rapists all dead, what's your point? I care much more about the societal attitude. As I said previously, the more civilized a society becomes, the further the people stray away from their first instinct, they'd think and reflect about the most appropriate attitude toward pedophilia. and I have faith, that eventually, they'll find that blind hatred, misguided information, and the modern day witch hunt does not help the children, nor the potential offenders. Never say never, today, our society is more sane than it ever was, and it will become even better.
      The very notion of a natural urge that predisposes somebody to a morally and legally objectionable act means it will always be stigmatised, ipso facto. If that natural urge predisposes somebody to a morally and legally objectionable act, then it is reasonable to treat them differently to somebody who does not have that same natural urge.

      I'm not of the opinion that we should pretermit harmful differences simply because they are natural. If somebody is predisposed to violence then they are not equal to somebody who is not predisposed violence: fact. Society will treat them differently in the interests of their safety and the law (which protects society) will treat them differently to ensure their violent tendencies do not cause societal harm. I'm not convinced that somebody can truly feel 'normal' when they are constantly told to seek help, and they are constantly in a biological and emotional battle with the law and their urge to have a sexual/emotional relationship with children.

      I hope you're making a horrible joke. Are you seriously trying to inform me "separate but equal" doesn't work? Seriously, same sex marriage is the first on my social issue agenda, you think I don't know about "separate but equal"? You are the one encouraging social segregation by demonizing pedophiles and advocate for total prohibition because you think legitimizing the urge will legitimize the act. I argued otherwise because I believed in integration and inclusiveness, and I do not alienate pedophiles, I want to get to the root of the problem. You are in a position to inform me "separate but equal doesn't work?" :confused: Of course it doesn't work, what does work according to you though? Social segregation? total isolation? and absolute prohibition? Should we talk about war on drugs and how that went so well?
      What I was saying, and you misunderstood, was that non offending pedophiles should be treated equally as everyone else, they certainly will not be forced into mental treatment. However, if they feel like they cannot control their urges, then they should be encouraged to see addiction/counselling support. As of right now, they are afraid to do that because of the associated stigma, and they'll lose their families and friends if they did that. I think the stigma should be removed, they will seek help if they want and hopefully, it works to reduce crimes. I want them integrated within the society, not being thrown out and certainly not locked up for an uncontrollable desire, that's not their fault. As for those who did molest children, in that case, it is not unreasonable to have forced mental health treatment, but addiction treatment mainly, because I personally don't think pedophilia is a mental disorder. That's what I really meant, I hope I made myself clear this time.
      And this is my separate but equal argument. You keep on declaring they are equal whilst suggesting they need help; I'm simply saying they are not and will not be seen as equal unless the act no longer has any standing legal or moral objections. Nobody can see themselves as the same when they are fundamentally different; it actually seems quite patronising to uphold this pretence of care and understanding whilst suggesting they need to be fixed. They will gravitate towards those who actually have an understanding (other paedophiles) and are likely to encourage criminal acts (as the various academic studies of paedophilic web forums have illustrated).

      Medical settings are confidential; why would they lose their families and friends if they made use of them? In the age of the Internet, they can very easily find organisations that support paedophiles or use online services run by medical professionals. I'm not sure why somebody would want to change something fundamental if it is not stigmatised, however.

      (Original post by ncsoftlover)
      Okay, this is going to be very long again, it's my habit of doing things, and this is your new year's gift
      You have a very totalitarian ideal, it's kind of ironic that I came from China where the political atmosphere is closer to what you described. Your believe is closer to the Chinese: “rather kill 1000 innocent, but not let the guilty go.” While my belief is closer to : “rather let 1000 guilty go, but not let one innocent suffer.” I’m not suggesting you want to kill them all, in case misunderstood.
      But even with that mentality, you've taken things to a strange extreme by somehow comparing planned terrorism attack to a natural inborn sexual tendency, which is one of the worst analogy I've seen in quite a while. I am for prosecuting people who actually buried bombs, carry illegal weapons unregistered, doing preparing work for an apparent massacre, in that case, there’s jury/judge to decide on the intent and motive and guilt, arrest does not mean guilt, of course. However, I am not for prosecuting people who write out on a piece a paper a planned out attack, and you might argue that out of every 10000 people who fantasize an attack , one or two might carry it out, but to prosecute 10000 people is a massively damaging action. Arrest randomly any 10000 child in a city and jail them for life without parole, I can guarantee that you've got 1 or 2 potential future criminals in there, but you tell me, is it worth it?
      Is planned bombing which involves buying/burying bombs really comparable to a simple sexual paraphilia? You are echoing a tone agreeing with prosecuting people for what they “might do”, or what they “potentially could do”. But who decides on who’s suspicious? The mobs who wants to burn witch at stakes, the crowd cheering when gays were executed just 200 years ago? The government which go ahead and sentence anyone to prison for the reason of having“suspicious thought”? “Suspicious” is highly subjective.
      This is a straw man. If an independent jury, a panel of experts across disciplines and a judge find the defendant guilty, then it is reasonable to presume he/she would have executed the act had he/she been allowed to roam freely.

      It is a simple aspect of crime prevention. We must indeed make judgements on what people might do, and if someone has a natural uncontrollable urge to form a sexual relationship with children, we must constantly be weary of a possibility that this natural urge will translate into an actual act. This is unlike video games and other fantasies, unless the person has a persistent and obsessive attitude towards the fantasy (like an indoctrinated extremist would, for example). There is a chance that every thwarted crime was just a fantasy and the convicts were never actually going to go through with it, but the judge, jury and panel of experts have analysed the evidence and reached a conclusion, beyond reasonable doubt, that the fantasy/plan would have been actualised if the person were left to their own devices.

      Most if not all people have a split second or two thought of killing others, I know I have, I know you probably have. Many fantasized about violent rape, if you didn't know, those type of porn are actually quite popular. What are your thoughts on these “suspicious” people, which just about includes everyone on earth.
      A split-second thought and an innate and/or long-term fantasy about a legally and morally objectionable act are not comparable. If someone fantasised about violent rape for several years, had pictures and videos of it, wrote about it, etc., I would indeed expect the police to watch them closely or refer them for evaluation. They cannot be treated the same way as everyone else when they are psychologically predisposed to criminality.

      According to your perception, pedophiles are more likely to molest children, and therefore they need to be controlled. But certainly a socially anxious 40 years old virgin is relatively more likely to rape women as well, according to that logic. Certainly a sadist is more likely to beat up someone for sexual pleasure (which is a crime). Straight men are more likely to rape women because they desire women’s bodies (it’s suspicious, right?) and certainly gay men are more likely to rape other men.
      Not comparable, as all of these parties can do such things with consenting adults. Paedophiles can never satiate their desires, regardless of how caring and kind they feel they are being to a child.

      and people with necrophilia are just more likely to dig up bones from graves and have sex with them.
      If somebody's desire for necrophilia is strong then they are synonymous with paedophiles in my argument.

      Certainly the aboriginals in Canada are statistically proven more likely to murder, rob and rape, the blacks in the USA are far far more likely to commit crimes than people from other racial backgrounds. Since pedophiles, aboriginals, blacks, sadists, necrophiliacs, straight/gays are all “suspicious”, what do you advocate now?
      Somebody's propensity to commit crime is related to their socioeconomic circumstances and the sociocultural traits they possess. Individuals who fit a specific socioeconomic and sociocultural profile should be targeted.

      What’s next?
      Arrest people verbally fighting on the bus, because after all, this is certainly more likely to escalate into a murder, much more so than two people holding hands.
      Intervene, at the very least (and this would certainly happen—police would not walk past people arguing like nothing is happening). It very well could escalate.

      What’s next?
      Arrest murderer’s family and children, because they lived with a murderer and have been influenced and certainly become “suspicious”.
      Refer them for psychiatric assistance if they've experienced a psychological/emotional change that is a cause for concern.

      You might think I’m taking the argument to an extreme, but you already did that with the analogy of terrorist bombing.
      My analogy wasn't extreme at all. I was simply saying that the police should ensure potential threats do not turn into real threats where there is reason to believe they might.

      I see pedophiles more like the 40 year old sexually repressed virgins who can’t function socially.
      That's what escort agencies are for. Paedophiles can never satiate their desires with an actual child.

      I need proof from you, that pedophiles are more likely to molest children than a 40 years old sexually repressed socially anxious virgin raping women, I need proof from you that pedophiles are more likely to molest children than a murderer’s son to commit murder. If you have no prove that people who are sexually attracted to children are vastly more morally corrupt, then you have an unfounded prejudice against pedophiles, are you socially conditioned to feel this way? You are kind of “suspicious” yourself, you know.
      I did not say they are vastly more morally corrupt, but that there is no guarantee that they will uphold their social contract over their biological and emotional urges and cannot be treated as equal for this reason. Most people in society do not have to deal with such sustained cognitive dissonance. I apply the same argument to anyone with deep biological or emotional urges to do something inescapably criminal (any kind of sex with a child is illegal, but it is legal for that repressed virgin to find an outlet in an escort).

      You don’t seem to understand that there’s a balance of extremes in just about everything. Suspicions work in escalating levels as well. Your suspicion toward someone who deposited bombs in a New York mall , is surely very different from the suspicion on a woman verbally fighting on a bus (on whether she’s going to kill), and is surely different from the suspicion of someone who can’t help their sexual attraction on whether he’d rape children or not.
      You lumped them altogether as if there’s no differences. The degree of suspicion is vastly different, and they will require different treatments. There’s is a degree of severity to everything and you failed to recognize this very simple logic. You cannot prosecute an innocent man (or woman) just because you dislike their sexuality, the gay comparison is actually more legit than you think.
      All nations have justice systems where they lock up offenders for a period of time for punishment and rehabilitation, and they let them go except for the few murders. Is that the best way to prevent crime? No! Let me tell you what’s the best way to prevent crime: kill everyone who has committed an offense, starting from speeding tickets up to mass murder, the society will be almost crime free that way, after all, anyone “suspicious” is dead, but then at what cost??
      Let me ask you this, suspicion itself is highly subjective, at what cost, would the society try to take control of those who fantasize about illegal activity ? (which includes almost every single human being). The cost is a police state, a totalitarian society.
      You don’t distinguish between degrees of suspicion, and you don’t distinguish between an action (buying and depositing bombs) to a thought (pedophilia, and writing things down on a piece of paper). That’s where your logics fail.
      I did not say they should be prosecuted necessarily, but that it would be reckless to treat them the same way as anyone else when they hold a biological and emotional predisposition to commit a crime. That's all my analogy was. The thought/fantasy may adumbrate the actual act, so those who have these thoughts cannot be seen as equivalent to those who do not have these thoughts. Itzin (2002) suggests child pornography is "instrumentally causal [though not solely causal] in the etiology of sex offending." Just like it is reasonable to monitor and/or arrest (if necessary) someone with long-term plans to blow up 10 Downing Street (yes, it could just be a harmless fantasy, but it could be indicative of a future plan to do something criminal—this should be assessed in court), it is reasonable to monitor and/or arrest somebody with sustained paedophilic fantasies. The same applies to somebody with a sustained fantasy to rape, kill, rob, etc. somebody.
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by jreid1994)
      Because, child pornography is watched and performed by pedophiles. So that means you have to be a pedophile to want to watch it, and as its a child who haven't fully physically developed yet so sex is usually painful for them.

      Posted from TSR Mobile
      Whilst you're on the right side of the argument, your reasoning is absolutely ridiculous.
      Online

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Elm Tree)
      I think it's illegal to close the market.

      If watching child porn was legal, this would require people forcing children to have sex. But as it's illegal this prevents the problem.
      This is the first post to identify the correct answer. Why this would get negged? rep is just... :rolleyes:
     
     
     
  1. 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.

  2. Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  3. 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.

  4. 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.