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

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ncsoftlover)
    .
    In fact, here's evidence to suggest that most paedophiles have no reason to seek treatment without stigma. Again, legitimising the thought legitimises the act. Just like allowing social circles of Al-Qaeda and Jihad sympathisers to remain untouched because 'it is just a thought and no action has occurred' is extremely dangerous, so too is allowing paedophiles the same amount of autonomy as any other person or group with a sustained biological and/or emotional urge to commit a criminal act. This analogy is not saying they are equally severe, but it is saying that both of them are not equal to somebody who hasn't got extremist/criminal tendencies. A situation where the sustained thought and inclination towards the act are absolutely acceptable but the actual act is absolutely unacceptable is unrealistic and untenable.

    "Pedophiles are either severely distressed by these sexual urges, experience interpersonal difficulties because of them, or act on them. Pedophiles usually come to medical or legal attention by committing an act against a child because most do not find their sexual fantasies distressing or ego-dystonic enough to voluntarily seek treatment" (Hall et al., 2007)

    Evidence that paedophilia is sustained, which makes it incomparable to short-term fantasies/desires:

    "The course of pedophilia is usually long term" (APA, 2000, 2007; Murray, 2000; Dickey et al., 2002; Abel and Harlow, 2007; Hall et al., 2007)

    This suggests many paedophiles are manipulative:

    "Generally, pedophiles do not use force to have children engage in these activities but instead rely on various forms of psychic manipulation and desensitization (eg, progression from innocuous touching to inappropriate touching, showing pornography to children). When confronted about engaging in such activities, pedophiles commonly justify and minimize their actions by stating that the acts “had educational value,” that the child derived pleasure from the acts or attention, or that the child was provocative and encouraged the acts in some way"
    (Hall et al., 2007)

    This suggests many paedophiles surreptitiously attempt to gain access to children:

    "Pedophiles often intentionally try to place themselves in a position where they can meet children and have the opportunity to interact with children in an unsupervised way, such as when babysitting, doing volunteer work, doing hobbies, or coaching sports. Pedophiles usually obtain access to children through means of persuasion, friendship, and behavior designed to gain the trust of the child and parent" (Hall et al., 2007)

    So, under your system, we have a situation where everyone trusts paedophiles, despite the fact that it is often this misplaced trust that puts children at harm. This is in addition to the fact that most cases of paedophilic sexual abuse go unreported by the children due to "fear (eg, worried about not being believed, will be physically harmed if child reports abuse), emotional reasons (needy child identifies with the pedophile), or guilt (feels responsible for what happened)" (Hall et al., 2007)

    What if they refuse to seek treatment? Do you maintain your pretence of apathy towards their potentially harmful inclinations? Would you still allow them around children simply because they claim they are trustworthy? It's also worth noting that most forms of sexual abuse involve groping/fondling.

    Evidence that the act can be preemptively stopped. It is reckless to pretend they do not have an emotional and biological urge to have sexual or emotional contact with children:

    "The notion of impulsivity as a personality factor in pedophiles is often debated. Pedophiles frequently report trouble controlling their behavior, although it is rare for them to spontaneously molest a child. The fact that 70% to 85% of offenses against children are premeditated speaks against a lack of perpetrator control" (Hall et al., 2007)
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I've found an article that describes a policy change with which I can agree. I maintain that pretending paedophiles are equivalent to those with non-paedophilic urges/histories is ridiculous and dangerous, and I also reiterate my position that this does not mean they should be automatically incarcerated*. They are not 'normal', and they are causes for concern, but they will not all rape a child at any given opportunity. Equally, somebody who is obsessed with guns is not 'normal', and is a cause for concern, but it does not necessarily mean he/she is going to be the next mass murderer. All of these cases must be assessed to see whether or not the person is a future threat to society; it is dangerous to pretermit their emotional and/or biological predispositions towards criminality in favour of a misplaced egalitarian ideology.

    "The present studies sought to improve accuracy of decisions regarding the “risk” posed by defendants convicted of possession of CP. Improved accuracy of decisions regarding likelihood of sexually assaulting children can reduce false positive petitions/certifications at initial screening by the district attorney or attorney general and false positive errors at time of litigation, thereby reducing litigation-related costs, as well as unnecessary, expensive incarceration when less costly management strategies might suffice. Providing empirically-based guidelines for assessment would foster procedural standardization, and improved accuracy and reliability among the experts that evaluate the defendants. Improving accuracy of decision-making may increase the homogeneity of defendants assigned to secure civil or prison treatment programs, thereby potentially improving treatment outcomes. For those defendants sentenced to less secure management, guidelines for probation officers that improve accuracy of assessing risk may enhance discretionary decisions and improve outcomes" (Lee et al., 2012).

    *I still do not believe they should be given unsupervised (if any) access to real children due to the covert and manipulative nature of the actual act of molestation and rape. Equally, I do not believe somebody who is obsessed with guns and mass murders should be given access to firearms. It's basic crime prevention.

    "A substantial percentage of offenders in our study who initially claimed to be at low (or no) risk of harm to children because they exclusively collected child abuse subsequently indicated they had committed acts of undetected child sexual abuse. In fact, the Internet offenders in our sample were significantly more likely than not to have sexually abused a child. The findings also indicate that the offenders who abused children were likely to have offended against multiple victims" (Bourke and Hernandez, 2009). Interestingly, Bourke and Hernandez note the polarised nature of the debate: "In the context of a criminal justice system that is frequently driven by extreme opinions (i.e., “CP offenders are not at risk of harm to children versus CP offenders are all dangerous sexual predators”) [...]" You and the OP seem to align yourselves to former, whilst many other people in this thread align themselves to the latter. It is clear that both are dangerous or problematic in different ways.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conciousness)
    You are not answering the OP's question, but rather answering your own question. He was not questioning the morality of "taking advantage of someone young and vulnerable and abusing them" he was questioning the morality/legality of watching a video depicting child sexual activity in the privacy of your own home.

    If you believe watching something is as bad as actually carrying it out, you have to provide an argument for why you believe this to be the case.
    The OP asks if viewing child porn should be made legal and says he thinks it should be. I simply put forward reasons why I believe it should not be made legal viewing. It is a full answer that acknowledges the connection between 'viewing porn' and supporting/condoning the ugly child porn industry behind it. I answered fully because the seriousness of the topic deserves a serious response and it seemed to me that the OP's question gave a certain flippant regard to such a weighty topic.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DH-Biker)
    Just as a side point, I don't disagree with your argument for the record, but sites like Bestgore.com are legitimate sites that show, as you may have guessed, gore and violence. Frequently clips on there show decapitations, disembowelments, car/other accidents, murder and scenes of rape, murder, etc.

    I use legitimate in a term loosely here, just because it hasn't been taken off the net doesn't strictly mean its legal, but supposedly the site gets some two million views or so a day; one of those must be someone associated or directly linked with an arm of the law that can disable such things, ergo I assume it must be legal.

    But again, I agree with your points made in answer to the OP's question, but just to clarify it must be legal in someway to watch the above mentioned because sites like Bestgore are, not only prevalent, but if the supposedly accurate number of views is anything to go by, apparently quite popular.
    Yes it would seem it is legal to watch sites like Bestgore with atrocities etc on them and I have no doubt how popular they are. Human thirst for the macabre has been around probably for as long as our existence. But saying that, I don't know anything about how the internet is regulated and how easy or difficult it is to police. I imagine it could be very difficult to trace some the people responsible for certain websites. A lot of sick stuff online does appear to be legal though.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conciousness)
    Society does not dictate morality, it is up to each individual person and their rational basis for deciding what is moral.
    And each individual is part of a society...
    swings and roundabouts my friend.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's illegal, first and foremost because of the "yuck factor", and then issues such as consent and vulnerability are brought in afterwards to try to justify its illegality. (I think this is the case for quite a lot of things, actually).

    Consider the following example: Suppose if pornographic material involving a child were to be created, and then when the child reached the age of 18, they actually consented for that material to be made available to the public. Would it still be illegal to distribute and view this material? Should it be illegal? Well yes, it would be illegal, and most people's immediate reactions would be to say "rightly so" - despite the fact that consent is no longer an issue.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by johnny09)
    "The age of consent is 18, persons under the age of consent are considered to be exploited because they are not able to give consent.
    As a society we have laws to protect children, such as the age of consent law,until the are old enough and hopefully mature enough to make their own decisions.

    As a society we agree that sex or sexual attraction to a child (prepubescent) is an aberration.

    Post pubescent children, although appearing to be mature physically, are not emotionally mature and are protected by law until age 18."
    I agree with your sentiment.
    On a side note and disregarding the context of child pornography, only in Europe the age of consent differs greatly and speaks tons about how subjective, emotional and cultural (as opposed to rational and objective) the age of consent is. Also while we all agree that "sex or sexual attraction to a child is an aberration" the precise meaning of "child" and "adolescent" is blurry.

    The bit below is aimed at OP but feel free to read and reply if you so wish.

    An argument against child pornography is that the requisite to be an adult to be a porn actor stands for good reasons among which:
    1. Actors will perform sexual acitvities
    2. Following from point 1. In child pornography, the actors, in our case children, would (as "child pornography" suggests) engage in sexual acitivities with or under the supervision of adults.
    3. Following from point 2. How many children would by their own wish to participate in pornography? I would say zero. Due to their ignorance and inmaturity about sexual matters. A counter-argument to this might be that there might be that some children mature faster than others. My counter-argument to that counter-argument would be that even if they are mature they are most likely not mature enough and if in the unlikely case they are mature waiting to reach their adulthood before being allowed to step in a very risky world won't harm anyone.
    4. Following from point 2. Child pornography, as I said, does by its own definition, involve children engaging in sexual activities with or under the supervision of adults. Regarding "children engaging in sexual activities" see point 3. Regarding "with or under the supervision of adults" read on. What reason (apart from the known ones) could an adult supervising AND video-recording children engaging in sexual activities with other children/adult possibly have?

    Knowing all these four points as intrinsic to all of child pornography, and therefore, realising that child pornography by its own definition implies sexual exploitation of children, then why would anyone (apart from paedophiles) want to watch child pornography?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k_bourne)
    It's perfectly legal to watch other horrific crimes like murder, torture, assault, and robbery. So why is it illegal to watch this equally bad crime?

    It's very difficult to find people who will talk seriously about this subject, because people have a bad habit of speaking upon their instant reactions - "How horrific, people who like that stuff are disgusting and should be locked up!" - so I am hoping that at least a few people will be able to make some rational arguments (on either side) here: what are your views?

    I myself am of the opinion that it probably should be legal to watch, but I am curious as to the reasonable rationale behind those who think differently (which is most people, I know!), and I'd also like to know the actual reason for the law being like this.
    While I don't share your views on the legal status of child pornography, I think public debate on social issues should always be encouraged so there goes my 4-point argument against making child pornography legal.


    1. Actors will perform sexual activities

    2. Following from point 1. In child pornography, the actors, in our case children, would (as "child pornography" suggests) engage in sexual activities with and/or under the supervision of adults.

    3. Following from point 2. How many children would by their own wish to participate in pornography? I would say zero. Due to their ignorance and immaturity about sexual matters. A counter-argument to this might be that there might be that some children mature faster than others. My counter-argument to that counter-argument would be that even if they are mature they are most likely not mature enough and if in the unlikely case they are mature waiting to reach their adulthood before being allowed to step in a very risky world won't harm anyone.

    4. Following from point 2. Child pornography, as I said, does by its own definition, involve children engaging in sexual activities with or under the supervision of adults. Regarding "children engaging in sexual activities" see point 3. Regarding "with or under the supervision of adults" read on. What reason (apart from the known ones) could an adult supervising AND video-recording children engaging in sexual activities with other children/adult possibly have?

    Knowing all these four points as intrinsic to all of child pornography, and therefore, realising that child pornography by its own definition implies sexual exploitation of children, then why would anyone (apart from paedophiles) want to watch child pornography?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marco1)
    Yes it would seem it is legal to watch sites like Bestgore with atrocities etc on them and I have no doubt how popular they are. Human thirst for the macabre has been around probably for as long as our existence. But saying that, I don't know anything about how the internet is regulated and how easy or difficult it is to police. I imagine it could be very difficult to trace some the people responsible for certain websites. A lot of sick stuff online does appear to be legal though.
    Seems to be very much the case. Short searches on Google can yield anything you want to look for, really. I remember stumbling upon a video out of Serbia several years ago which showed three men killing a man and Bestgore has stuff like that on regularly, not to mention the myriad of other clips they have.

    I completely agree, though, it must be almost impossible to regulate. Anything that gets taken off would surely just bounce to a different site. They tried to take down sites like Megaupload etc; people just went to different sites like Putlocker and suddenly you've still got all these films, TV shows and music clips to watch.
    I imagine its very much the same thing with clips like the aforementioned; they can try removing this stuff but it will still be there for the searching.

    If I'm being completely honest, that whole macabre-search is something I've done before. :dontknow: I stumbled upon Bestgore, but it certainly took more then a few videos for me to hit the exit button. Maybe that's why such videos are so common; like you say, a lot of people find it somewhat, on some level, fascinating. I double checked the figures on Bestgore as an example, I was well out on my guess but its still 6 million people per month; that's a lot of people having a guilty look at that sort of stuff.

    But, you're right; things that'd make people with strong constitutions flinch are readily available with a bit of searching on Google. Its either not hard to find such things, or its very, very difficult to keep it under the rug. One of the two.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    While I don't share your views on the legal status of child pornography, I think public debate on social issues should always be encouraged so there goes my 4-point argument against making child pornography legal.


    1. Actors will perform sexual activities

    2. Following from point 1. In child pornography, the actors, in our case children, would (as "child pornography" suggests) engage in sexual activities with and/or under the supervision of adults.

    3. Following from point 2. How many children would by their own wish to participate in pornography? I would say zero. Due to their ignorance and immaturity about sexual matters. A counter-argument to this might be that there might be that some children mature faster than others. My counter-argument to that counter-argument would be that even if they are mature they are most likely not mature enough and if in the unlikely case they are mature waiting to reach their adulthood before being allowed to step in a very risky world won't harm anyone.

    4. Following from point 2. Child pornography, as I said, does by its own definition, involve children engaging in sexual activities with or under the supervision of adults. Regarding "children engaging in sexual activities" see point 3. Regarding "with or under the supervision of adults" read on. What reason (apart from the known ones) could an adult supervising AND video-recording children engaging in sexual activities with other children/adult possibly have?

    Knowing all these four points as intrinsic to all of child pornography, and therefore, realising that child pornography by its own definition implies sexual exploitation of children, then why would anyone (apart from paedophiles) want to watch child pornography?
    You clearly missed the whole point of this thread.

    Obviously I am against child pornography in the sense that I am against child abuse. But watching it is a different matter.
    Also, most child pornography is not "under the supervision of adults", it's teenagers photographing themselves.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k_bourne)
    You clearly missed the whole point of this thread.

    Obviously I am against child pornography in the sense that I am against child abuse. But watching it is a different matter.
    Also, most child pornography is not "under the supervision of adults", it's teenagers photographing themselves.
    Are you trying to say that most child pornography is done by the children themselves? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's illegal.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DH-Biker)
    Seems to be very much the case. Short searches on Google can yield anything you want to look for, really. I remember stumbling upon a video out of Serbia several years ago which showed three men killing a man and Bestgore has stuff like that on regularly, not to mention the myriad of other clips they have.

    I completely agree, though, it must be almost impossible to regulate. Anything that gets taken off would surely just bounce to a different site. They tried to take down sites like Megaupload etc; people just went to different sites like Putlocker and suddenly you've still got all these films, TV shows and music clips to watch.
    I imagine its very much the same thing with clips like the aforementioned; they can try removing this stuff but it will still be there for the searching.

    If I'm being completely honest, that whole macabre-search is something I've done before. :dontknow: I stumbled upon Bestgore, but it certainly took more then a few videos for me to hit the exit button. Maybe that's why such videos are so common; like you say, a lot of people find it somewhat, on some level, fascinating. I double checked the figures on Bestgore as an example, I was well out on my guess but its still 6 million people per month; that's a lot of people having a guilty look at that sort of stuff.

    But, you're right; things that'd make people with strong constitutions flinch are readily available with a bit of searching on Google. Its either not hard to find such things, or its very, very difficult to keep it under the rug. One of the two.
    I have seen some grizzly stuff on there, sure, its there for the taking if you are curious. But I don't think its healthy stuff to view. Getting back to childporn, because of its vile, coercive, manipulative and hurtful nature, it should be shunned outright. Watching it is condoning it, if one is honest I think. There are no loopholes in law and logic that will ever make it okay.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is not short either.
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    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.
    True enough, though the society is not responsible for how comfortable people feel. The point I was originally making, was that consent is not the difference between pedophilia and sadomasochism.Social perception is the difference. Without consent, any paraphilia can become an illegal act, this is not exclusive to pedophilia, therefore pedophilia and other sexual paraphilia are not fundamentally different, that’s the point I was making.

    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.
    But your original statement was “morally objectionable fantasy will never be accepted”, I’m simply giving you an example proving otherwise, you are straying away from your original statement. The urge of pedophilia is limited to the mind just like the urge to kill is limited to video games, If a violent video gamer offends/if a pedophile offends, then fantasy is no longer a fantasy, tell me what’s the difference? In both cases, this applies. And how can a person with violent real life killing tendency be synonymous with pedophilia, last time I checked, pedophilia is not defined as the noncontrollable urge to rape children in real life. How can two completely unrelated terms be synonymous?

    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).
    The attraction is real, the “long term desire to satiate” part is your insertion. Your attempt to separate pedophiles and people obsessed with violent games is a little amusing. It’s incredibly vague and inapplicable in real life, as there’s no measurement that states how obsessed is too obsessed. By a lot of definitions, you’d have to prepare to monitor tens of millions of worlds’ population for overwhelming obsession with video game violence.

    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.
    Oh there’s still moral objection associated with homosexuality, hence the comparison. The attraction itself is not inherently different from homosexuality, age of consent is a recent man made term, highly divisive as well. “The public's’ interest” is a very blanket term used to makes things seem more justifiable,it’s kind of like “for greater good”. Did you actually consult the public on their consensus? You’re terribly confident to assume that the public would be for monitoring people with different sexual paraphilia urges, the blacks/aboriginals/the poor who fit certain socioeconomic and sociocultural profile, might I add people who are mentally disordered and lack certain controls. I wonder where did you get such a consensus, “for the public's’ interest.” --- a rather empty grand sounding justification.



    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.
    Already gave example urge of murder is far less stigmatized if even slightly stigmatized.

    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.
    Absolute normality does not exist, there’s not really a reference point for absolute normal. Everyone is “suspicious” in some way. A system that eliminates pedophiles, sadomasochists, necrophiliacs, people who are attracted to animals, aboriginals/blacks/poor who are more subjected to violence statistically and fit certain sociocultural/economic profile, mentally disordered people who lack certain self control, etc etc. Such a system that alienates this much is a system that saves no one.

    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).
    I simply cannot believe this, you, someone who’s promoting a police state, and constant social segregation/monitor everyone who may or may not be more likely to perform illegal activity--- from the blacks/aboriginals/poor who fit some man made arbitrary socioeconomic/cultural profiling to people who have sexual paraphilias. You, out of all people, is informing me about “separate but equal”, not once, but twice. This is almost like if Iran laugh and criticize Finland for its lack of human right progress for not replacing civil union with full blown same sex marriage. ^_^
    First: pedophiles are not forced to attend treatment because I’d rather have a society that is not constantly alarmed and suspicious of people who did absolutely nothing. However, as with any societies, people who feel like they can’t get rid of an addiction (be it drug, porn, sex, movies, video gaming, child porn) can seek attention. My ideal society just makes it easier for non offending pedophiles to do so, by removing the stigma from the urge itself. If they don’t feel like their desire is uncontrollable (like I don’t feel my desire to kill is noncontrollable), they are not being nagged to be treated! Where did I suggest they need to fixed? Where exactly is “separate but equal” again?
    Second: even if I’m promoting “separate but equal”, which I’m not, it’d still be a very advanced approach compared to your “separate and also unequal”.
    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.
    Confidential or not, pedophiles who have done nothing are scums of the earth and deserves to be tortured to death is more or less a social attitude. I am advocating for a social attitude change, unless that happens, a lot of pedophiles would rather kill themselves than seek treatment for an uncontrollable addiction (if it is uncontrollable, that is). I assume you know a lot more about human psychology than I do, you should realize that this reality is not changed by “confidentiality”, they can’t think straight in a society that seems to openly want them all dead, when they’d done nothing wrong. This also goes back to the original topic, what if the pedophile had once watched some child porn and confessed to the psychologist, confidentiality means nothing when this happens, what then? They’re be imprisoned and branded for life when they could potentially be treated had they been given the chance to.
    Oh, I’m suggesting that having the urge is not to be stigmatized, the action however, will always be stigmatized, you really need to understand what people mean and not putting words in their mouth.

    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.
    Well , be it straw man, strawberry man, or snow man for that matter, it’s picking semantics, your communication skill in English is no doubt far superior to mine, picking out my sentence problems is an easy task. but the point I was making has very little to do with jury/judge, but how writing story down on a piece of paper, and actually buying bombs, or even depositing bombs are very very different things. What a person deposited bombs might do, the level of “suspicion” is vastly different from what a person who’re obsessed with violent video games all day might do, and is very different from the level of “Suspicion” on those who fit certain socioeconomic profiling.

    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.
    There is indeed a chance, after all, most fantasy are just fantasy. However you are talking about convicted offenders, while I’m speaking for the huge proportion of people you've managed to alienate thus far, you’re one of the biggest advocate for social segregation I've ever seen.



    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.
    Unless you have socially conditioned prejudice against pedophiles. Surely you recognized that for any moral socially responsible pedophile, or the ones who don’t want to destroy their lives. Fantasize and masturbation, self made drawings and writings are all outlets, pedophiles can never satiate their desires, true, but nor could most people who are obsessed with violent killing video games. What percentage eventually murder? 1/10000?

    If somebody's desire for necrophilia is strong then they are synonymous with paedophiles in my argument.
    An amusing detail I want to point to you, I've established that pedophilia is not that different from any other sexual paraphilia. They all have a choice to act on their urges or not, just like I have a choice whether to act on an urge to kill. So Why would you say that if the necrophilia desire is strong , that’s when it’s comparable to pedophilia. So you’re suggesting that necrophilia desire is sometimes not strong, however, pedophiles have a desire so strong that every one of them should be monitored. That’s the tone you’re echoing. Where did this come from? An innate prejudice? I think you’re rather suspicious...

    That's what escort agencies are for. Paedophiles can never satiate their desires with an actual child.
    Psychology, I specifically said socially anxious repressed 40 years old virgin, I know this would come up from you.

    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).
    There’s no guarantee anyone will uphold their social contract, I still need that proof from you that pedophiles are somehow more “inherently criminal” than anyone else I've suggested in my analogies, oh, wait, you suggested monitoring everyone I've suggest, never mind.... the highlighted part I will use later.

    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.
    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.
    Refer them for psychiatric assistance if they've experienced a psychological/emotional change that is a cause for concern.
    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.
    See, I agreed with you the suspicion of someone who bought and deposit a bomb is too big to ignore, plus buying a bomb and depositing a bomb are prosecutable actions anyway.
    But comparing that to the “suspicion” non offending pedophiles is really more comparable to my other analogies, if I were to give you a list of all possible “suspects” who should be “monitored” using similar analogies, we’d still be here until next Wednesday. I don’t know if you’re living in a nation with inexhaustible resources, or are you mentally fantasizing about some totalitarian Society here (in which case rather suspicious). But understand what you suggest is not appliable.
    I feel that you’re kind of falling into a self induced trap here. I pumped you a list of weird analogies each with subjects being “suspicious”, and because you refuse to admit you were making a very extreme comparison. And you largely ignored the existence escalating level of “suspicion”. You insist that people who are born attracted to children, and people who deposited bombs are comparable. Then you can’t help but try to justify monitoring the subjects of every single analogy I threw at you.
    You might not be tracking, I've kept a tally here, so far you've managed to alienate:
    * pedophiles who are born with uncontrollable attraction
    * Necrophiliacs, sadists, who are born with uncontrollable attraction
    * Blacks, aboriginals who don’t fit socioeconomic profiling
    * The poor who may not fit socioeconomic profiling
    * the obsessive video gamer who are obsessed with killing
    * the mentally ill(From Schiz to Antisocial PD to OCD) who may not be able to fully control themselves
    * The murderers’s family
    * the odd women who may argue loudly on bus (you said police intervention yourself)
    Oh my non existing god...
    Are we talking about 50% of world’s population here? or are you making a horrible joke which I took seriously? Do you actually feel (and you know this list is not even close to being complete) that a society you advocated for is workable?
    I remember mentioning to you somewhere that there’s a balance to all extremes. If the goal is to monitor all who are “suspicious”, then you've have to monitor a vast proportion of all human beings, creating a state where everyone is constantly alerted. if the goal is to reduce crime at all cost, the best way is to execute everyone starting from the vehicle speeders, that’ll teach them....
    But there comes to a point, where you have to find a balance, monitoring non offending pedophiles for thought crime opens the door to monitoring so many other possible targets, not only that. But such segregation forces those who want to seek improvement to their addiction (if they feel they have one, that is) right back into the closet, becoming possible ticking bombs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    In fact, here's evidence to suggest etc etc etc
    I didn’t take you as the type of person who cares much about “research input”, but if you want to talk about it, I do have something to say as well.
    If I respected their views, I would have respected the default current position, if that is the case, would I bother making an argument that seems morally “corrupt” and challenges the establishment? Anyone who takes current situation for granted, often ignores that our society has been constantly evolving for thousands of years, there is always room for better approach regarding just about every issue.
    What I want to say though, is that while it’s not helpful to simply dismiss researches. You have to realize some basic rules. Scientific research are conducted in hope often to find linkage, relation, and correlations, not in hope to find non-correlation. There’s an incentive, an agenda if you will, to find some linkage between pedophiles and something (be it re-offending, be it try to lure kids), because they always try to look for patterns, they tend to always find a pattern. If you are going to be suspicious, then anything look suspicious. Keep in mind with you combine scientific research with clinical psychology, this becomes worse, in fact, clinical psychology trains to look for abnormity not normality, it looks for disease, not health. This is very relevant because after all, pedophilia is a labeled “mental disorder”. When you double that up, you've got researchers who are suspicious/eager to hunt on “monsters”, and you've got the incentive to look for abnormality and disease, then you've got the desire to establish relation, because after all, you want it published, you’re going to say something the public will approve--- do you think a research that shows no strong relation (hypothetically) between pedophiles and child rape can possibly as easily get published? Think about it! Attitude sometimes dictates research topics and results. then, there’s funding and research topic choice relations, which I don’t need to elaborate on.
    Even more importantly, is sampling bias. Pedophiles is an invisible group, how are you going to do research on the group that’s invisible? You’d be researching on child molesters, sex offenders, but you’d not be researching on pedophiles. Not all child molesters are pedophiles, some of them are in it for the power to dominate, and children are just easy targets, and certainly not all pedophiles are child molesters, in fact, logic tells us it’s likely majority of them never offend. If the research is done on child molester, they can’t represent non offending pedophiles, it’s one of the worst case of sampling bias. If the research is done on out of closet pedophiles, then this very vocal and “out there” group certainly do not represent the psychology of the majority of pedophiles, it’s just another case of sampling bias.
    Before reading into any researches, what I’ve stated are important to realize, but once I realized them, researches on this particular topic become rather pointless. I generally know what they’re going to sound like. In short, in this social atmosphere, pedophiles aren’t going to get anything in their favor even when it comes to research, they’re always the monster, obviously.
    I’m not going to bother much with your quoted research, just a simple glance is enough, because I’m not exactly planning to clean up vomit today.
    The Hall et al “thing”, I will point to you the problems I found
    and I quote this amusing statement
    “most do not find their sexual fantasies distressing or ego-dystonic enough to voluntarily seek treatment”

    1. They don’t need to voluntarily seek treatment unless they offend, you hilariously informed my personally about separate of equal, and I intend to treat them indifferently and equal. They only need to seek treatment if they feel like they need to get rid of an addiction. Not for condition which is not physical and not harming themselves.
    2 Pedophiles are an invisible group, how did the researcher get into their minds to examine whether they are distressed by their sexual fantasies? Most are depressed likely, as the society want them all dead.
    3. Why would they advocate for self hatred, I don’t want them distressed over their fantasy at all, I want them to understand the action if acted out ,can he hurtful. Internalized paedophobia is no healthier then internalized homophobia, I want it de-stigmatized, I don’t want self repression, that lead to crime.
    4. The research talks about “pedophiles often do not use force.....pedo often try to place themselves.....” So he’s talking about child molesters, not pedophiles, pedophiles is largely an invisible group. Not only is he confusing the term child molester/pedophile, there’s also sample bias issue, and certainly not every child molester is really attracted to children, but attracted to power over victims. I've already talked about this. Why are you citing me a research done on child molesters?
    5. As i said, if you’re going to find a pattern, a correlation, a problem, then any friendly gesture is going to be suspicious, you’re determined to go monster hunting, you’re going to see a monster.
    6. The researcher talks about pedophiles like a unifying group of clones without accounting for individuality and diversity. Like I said, the researcher never intended to look at them as humans. Humans are diverse, and respond to things very differently, the only common characters pedophiles share, is that they’re attracted to children, how the respond to the attraction, how they control it, what outlet do they use, are entirely different. Of course the researcher would not know. He is talking out of imagination about an invisible group anyway, how can he possibly know about the reality?
    Hence this hilarious statement about child molesters by the way, not pedophiles
    “Pedophiles usually obtain access to children through means of persuasion, friendship, and behavior designed to gain the trust of the child and parent"

    You think if the stigma with having the urge is removed, most of them would refuse to seek treatment. You think if having the urge is legitimized, so will the act.
    I argue otherwise, having an urge to kill is more or less legitimized, but not the act itself. I see pedophiles as normal everyday people with a sexual paraphilia, and they act very differently from each other as they’re not clones. I see them having the same social responsibilities like most people, they mostly have the capacity to control their urges and to not commit crimes. But in certain cases, some of them may need to seek help if they feel like there’s an urge they can’t control, the social stigma prevent them from seeking help. If the stigma is removed, there will be an incentive to seek help, because (and this might truly surprise you), most people actually want to live a normal life with families, friends, jobs, interests... They have a lot of lose if they commit an offense!
    Only by seeing them as monsters would you be able to suggest that they won’t seek help had the stigma been removed, because that would require significant lack of social responsibility compared to normal human beings. But wait! didn't you tell me yourself that you did not claim they’re more morally corrupt ? Why this suggestion then? Can you try to at least be a little bit more consistent next time?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not finished yet, part 3
    There is a fundamental ideology disagreement between us, we are like polar opposites on a political spectrum, the type who would fight verbally over a dining table.
    To me, a universal value that upholds personal freedom and protect freedom of thinking is far more important than a prohibitive segregation policy, which may not being any benefit to begin with.
    In fact, I quite accurately summarized our differences, when I first jumped into this discussion by saying your ideology is actually a little bit comparable to the : rather kill 1000 innocent than let 1 guilty go type of thinking, while my thinking is that flipped over. If the discussion stopped right at that point, it would save us both lots of time, as there’s no bridge that can connect such a wide gap of ideology differences. You are not going to convince me anything, you don’t even sound convincing, and it’s unlikely I’ll ever say anything that will make you rethink your position..

    I’ll just summarize my ideal society and how I perceived yours and be done with it. (of course, you’re not going to like the phrasing, and it’ll lean toward my side. But that’s my perceptions from you input, and I feel like doing it)

    Me: I promote social inclusiveness, I don't believe that a divided Society where people are constantly getting suspicious and alarmed will do any good. I don’t want to see people being put into boxes labeled with good and evil, while others arm themselves with a us vs them mentality constantly suspecting on others: be it the blacks or aboriginals who don’t fit certain socioeconomic profiles, or the ones with inborn attractions they didn’t choose, or the ones who are mentally ill. A society where everyone feels isolated and segregated is a disordered society.
    Now, narrowing down to the topic at hand, a society that constantly reinforce the idea that the people with inborn attraction to children are evil will surely trigger internalized hatred. And there is no point in forcing them hating on themselves on something they didn't choose, there are many negative consequences. This internalized self hatred can only hurt them, isolate them, force them to suicide. There is no point in letting pedophiles constantly blame themselves like convicted criminals for society’s often mislead views on them, they did not choose that attraction, yet they’re already paying for it. In today’s real society, if they choose seek counseling, any leak of information will turn all of their family and friends away, any future they might have becomes an unreachable dream, they’d speak to therapists in a way as if they’re evil diseased men who can’t expect mutual respect, and in need of shock therapy. Mine ideal society cannot accept individuals of our own species being treated this way. More importantly, prohibition, pure repression, stigmatization, and demonization in cases like this rarely helps, to mentally abuse pedophiles more simply won’t reduce crime. I think the stigma on having the urge should be removed, and anyone who feel like they cannot control their urge (as an addiction) are encouraged to seek treatment and counseling without any stigma attached, friends and family should always be friends and family no matter what. There might not be a stigma attached to having an uncontrollable urge, the action (offense) is still stigmatized, and I will be betting on the fact that most pedophiles are human beings who are socially responsible, who cares for their family, friend, hobbies, social duty, and a future for themselves, much more so than forcing their desires on innocent children. People who have too much to lose by committing a crime tend not to commit crimes, that’ s the golden rule, we should not force people to the point where they have got nothing else to lose. I want a double win for both children and pedophiles, I want as many people being a part of the productive society as it is possible.

    You: Trying to put it mildly. you are envisioning a very controlled society. Your envisioned society assumes there is more or less a public consensus on government controlling and monitoring all of those who are considered by the elites to be “suspicious” or “highly dangerous” , and that even thoughts can be prosecutable for these individuals.
    Your envisioned society thinks that it’s “in the public interests” to control and monitor all of those “suspicious” and that crimes prevention should be achieved at all cost. Even if it means a very steep cost; even if it means isolating groups that are already isolated; even if it means making an already tense situation more tense; even it it means it will make monsters and demons out of certain societal groups when in fact, they never choose their predisposed conditions.
    In order to try to justify the prosecution and the monitoring of a minority “suspicious” group, the society (for the purpose of consistency) would have to monitor and control greater and greater proportion of population that are perceived to be deviant in one way or another. Eventually, this target may even compose of the majority of the population. It might mean that the blacks, aboriginals, and the poor who fits certain socioeconomic and sociocultural profile should be monitored and controlled, it might mean certain individuals with mental disorder who fits certain descriptions would be controlled, it might mean that people with inborn sexual paraphilia would be monitored and controlled, it might mean that the woman argues verbally on bus, the son of that murder, the lifelong friend of that rapist, that person who constantly vent violently on Facebook, that guy who’s obsessed with violent video games 24/7, it might mean a lot of things. One thing is for sure, at some point, it could all become a lost cause, when everyone is “suspected” and no one is protected. Though it’s worth mentioning that this society can only gain control of those who are “out there”, it’s difficult to really control and monitor those who are really invisible ie. pedophiles. But the stigma/threat of arrest and monitoring forces them deep into the closet, non offending pedophiles may become ticking bombs.
    This society mostly (if not totally) ignores that there’s an escalating scale of “Suspicion” and insist that arresting a pedophile who’s done absolutely nothing is pretty much analogous to arresting someone who bought and deposited a bomb at a mall. This society also lack adequate social safety net, good health care and well funded public education system. Obviously, monitoring and possible imprisoning such high proportion of the population requires lots of funding.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ncsoftlover)
    True enough, though the society is not responsible for how comfortable people feel. The point I was originally making, was that consent is not the difference between pedophilia and sadomasochism.Social perception is the difference. Without consent, any paraphilia can become an illegal act, this is not exclusive to pedophilia, therefore pedophilia and other sexual paraphilia are not fundamentally different, that’s the point I was making.
    Unless there is a viable and logically coherent (secular society is governed by logically coherent systems) moral argument that demonstrates consent is irrelevant, they will always be fundamentally different. Sadomasochism can be performed on a consenting party, but paedophilia never can.

    But your original statement was “morally objectionable fantasy will never be accepted”, I’m simply giving you an example proving otherwise, you are straying away from your original statement. The urge of pedophilia is limited to the mind just like the urge to kill is limited to video games, If a violent video gamer offends/if a pedophile offends, then fantasy is no longer a fantasy, tell me what’s the difference? In both cases, this applies.
    That is because you have forced me to explicate what I thought was implicit. Obviously, a passing thought is not equivalent to a sustained sexual/emotional urge—I didn't feel it was necessary to mention this in my original statement.

    And how can a person with violent real life killing tendency be synonymous with pedophilia,
    I meant equivalent in suspicion. Somebody with a predisposition to violence and somebody with a predisposition to finding children sexually appealing should be be treated with an elevated level of suspicion in certain scenarios.

    last time I checked, pedophilia is not defined as the noncontrollable urge to rape children in real life. How can two completely unrelated terms be synonymous?
    It is the sexual preference towards children; they have an inherent predisposition to commit a crime because they have a biological/emotional impetus to do so. The same applies to people who have an emotional disposition to violence.

    The attraction is real, the “long term desire to satiate” part is your insertion.
    Are they different to other people sexually? Everyone wants to satiate their biological urges. It is the role of the courts and psychologists to determine whether or not paedophiles can be trusted to do so in the absence of real children.

    Your attempt to separate pedophiles and people obsessed with violent games is a little amusing. It’s incredibly vague and inapplicable in real life, as there’s no measurement that states how obsessed is too obsessed. By a lot of definitions, you’d have to prepare to monitor tens of millions of worlds’ population for overwhelming obsession with video game violence.
    It's determined by psychologists and other related disciplines.

    Oh there’s still moral objection associated with homosexuality, hence the comparison. The attraction itself is not inherently different from homosexuality, age of consent is a recent man made term, highly divisive as well.
    The strength of the moral argument against homosexuality and the strength of the moral argument for the age of consent are incomparable. Indeed—the attraction is not inherently different, but the ability to express the attraction in a morally amiable manner is inherently different.

    “The public's’ interest” is a very blanket term used to makes things seem more justifiable,it’s kind of like “for greater good”. Did you actually consult the public on their consensus? You’re terribly confident to assume that the public would be for monitoring people with different sexual paraphilia urges, the blacks/aboriginals/the poor who fit certain socioeconomic and sociocultural profile, might I add people who are mentally disordered and lack certain controls. I wonder where did you get such a consensus, “for the public's’ interest.” --- a rather empty grand sounding justification.
    It is in the public's interest to obviate crimes; this is achieved by monitoring those who have a disposition towards crime.

    Already gave example urge of murder is far less stigmatized if even slightly stigmatized.
    You gave an example of an ephemeral urge and tried to compare it to a sustained sexual preference—they are not comparable. Those who obsess over murder and killings are also seen as suspicious entities.

    Absolute normality does not exist, there’s not really a reference point for absolute normal. Everyone is “suspicious” in some way. A system that eliminates pedophiles, sadomasochists, necrophiliacs, people who are attracted to animals, aboriginals/blacks/poor who are more subjected to violence statistically and fit certain sociocultural/economic profile, mentally disordered people who lack certain self control, etc etc. Such a system that alienates this much is a system that saves no one.
    Where there is good reason to believe somebody has an emotional and/or biological disposition to commit a crime (i.e., they are more likely to do so), it is reasonable to treat them with a greater amount of suspicion than somebody who does not have such a disposition.

    I simply cannot believe this, you, someone who’s promoting a police state, and constant social segregation/monitor everyone who may or may not be more likely to perform illegal activity--- from the blacks/aboriginals/poor who fit some man made arbitrary socioeconomic/cultural profiling to people who have sexual paraphilias.
    I don't know why you keep on saying this. I said people who fit a particular socioeconomic and sociocultural profile places somebody in a position where they have a social and cultural disposition to commit a crime—being 'black' or native Australian has nothing to do with it.

    It doesn't need to be constant monitoring, but there needs to be enough to ensure the person is not a risk to the public. Equally, there is a greater police presence around deprived council estates because the people there are in socioeconomic and sociocultural circumstances that create a disposition towards crime.

    You, out of all people, is informing me about “separate but equal”, not once, but twice. This is almost like if Iran laugh and criticize Finland for its lack of human right progress for not replacing civil union with full blown same sex marriage. ^_^
    First: pedophiles are not forced to attend treatment because I’d rather have a society that is not constantly alarmed and suspicious of people who did absolutely nothing. However, as with any societies, people who feel like they can’t get rid of an addiction (be it drug, porn, sex, movies, video gaming, child porn) can seek attention.
    If they don't attend treatment, do you believe they should be given access to children like everyone else? There is perfectly good reason to have an elevated level of suspicion around those who have a biological and/or emotional disposition to commit a crime. I/the police would not trust an Al-Qaeda sympathiser around particular targets, despite the fact that this person has "[done] absolutely nothing". Just like a paedophile, 'it isn't their fault they have this disposition' (they have been indoctrinated from birth), but it doesn't change the fact that they do have the disposition—we must focus on what is, and not pretend it doesn't exist because the person didn't choose to have it.

    My ideal society just makes it easier for non offending pedophiles to do so, by removing the stigma from the urge itself. If they don’t feel like their desire is uncontrollable (like I don’t feel my desire to kill is noncontrollable), they are not being nagged to be treated!
    There will always be a stigma as long as the act is illegal. It's simple self-preservation. I'm not going to have no emotional response to someone who tells me they keep on having fantasies about murdering someone, just like I'm not going to have no emotional response to someone who tells me they want to have sex with children. I will react accordingly to ensure the protection of me and the people I care about.

    Where did I suggest they need to fixed? Where exactly is “separate but equal” again?
    Second: even if I’m promoting “separate but equal”, which I’m not, it’d still be a very advanced approach compared to your “separate and also unequal”.
    The separate but equal point derives from your assertion that they should be treated equally in terms of their sexual preferences/urges, but not granted the same liberties to exercise those preferences/urges. I do not feel this is productive or workable.

    Confidential or not, pedophiles who have done nothing are scums of the earth and deserves to be tortured to death is more or less a social attitude. I am advocating for a social attitude change, unless that happens, a lot of pedophiles would rather kill themselves than seek treatment for an uncontrollable addiction (if it is uncontrollable, that is). I assume you know a lot more about human psychology than I do, you should realize that this reality is not changed by “confidentiality”, they can’t think straight in a society that seems to openly want them all dead, when they’d done nothing wrong. This also goes back to the original topic, what if the pedophile had once watched some child porn and confessed to the psychologist, confidentiality means nothing when this happens, what then? They’re be imprisoned and branded for life when they could potentially be treated had they been given the chance to.
    Is there nowhere a paedophile can go to seek treatment in confidentiality? If this is the case, and the medical practitioner does not feel the person will present a threat if not referred to the police, I agree that confidentiality policy need to be tightened. It's worth noting that the ability to 'cure' paedophilia is still in its incipient stages, so perhaps the practitioner cannot be sure about their propensity to commit crime.

    Oh, I’m suggesting that having the urge is not to be stigmatized, the action however, will always be stigmatized, you really need to understand what people mean and not putting words in their mouth.
    It will be stigmatised as long as the act is legally and morally objectionable. Whether or not the person chooses to possess the trait is inconsequential; we do not develop equally and, unfortunately, some people develop into socially undesirable characters as a product of a mental illness or poor upbringing.


    Well , be it straw man, strawberry man, or snow man for that matter, it’s picking semantics, your communication skill in English is no doubt far superior to mine, picking out my sentence problems is an easy task.
    I'm not doing this. A straw man is when you attack a point I didn't make.

    but the point I was making has very little to do with jury/judge, but how writing story down on a piece of paper, and actually buying bombs, or even depositing bombs are very very different things. What a person deposited bombs might do, the level of “suspicion” is vastly different from what a person who’re obsessed with violent video games all day might do, and is very different from the level of “Suspicion” on those who fit certain socioeconomic profiling.
    Indeed. My analogy was not to say that they are equally likely to commit a real-life crime, but that they were equally elevated in their levels of suspicion relative to the base population. For example, someone who seriously fantasises about blowing up 10 Downing Street should be treated with a greater degree of suspicion around materials/locations (bombs, chemicals, important buildings, etc.) that would allow them to enact their fantasies than somebody who doesn't fantasise about it. Somebody who is seriously obsessed with violent video games should be treated with a greater degree of suspicion around materials (guns and other weapons) that would allow them to translate their obsessions into reality than somebody who doesn't have that obsession. Someone who seriously fantasises about sexual things with children should be treated with a greater degree of suspicion around children than somebody who doesn't fantasise about such things. This is basic crime prevention and common sense.

    Equally, I would treat a gang of hooded teenagers on a council estate with a greater degree of suspicion than I would a group of suited businessmen in Central London if I consider my assets to be important. This isn't to say such suspicion should be universal, but that it is completely reasonable to be weary around potential problems in certain relevant scenarios (e.g., whether or not someone is a paedophile is irrelevant if they're hired to wash dishes in a restaurant, but it is certainly relevant if they are hired for a babysitting job. Why you disagree with this is beyond me, but I'm sure everyone else is of this opinion).

    There is indeed a chance, after all, most fantasy are just fantasy. However you are talking about convicted offenders, while I’m speaking for the huge proportion of people you've managed to alienate thus far, you’re one of the biggest advocate for social segregation I've ever seen.
    Yes, they are convicted on the basis of a suspicion that is derived from their fantasies, writings, drawings, etc.; i.e., prior to any harm or damage being caused. These fantasies, writings, drawings, etc. have led the jury to conclude that the person would be a threat to the public if allowed to roam free or otherwise given certain liberties (e.g., somebody who fantasises about groping children should not be left alone with a child).

    Unless you have socially conditioned prejudice against pedophiles. Surely you recognized that for any moral socially responsible pedophile, or the ones who don’t want to destroy their lives. Fantasize and masturbation, self made drawings and writings are all outlets, pedophiles can never satiate their desires, true, but nor could most people who are obsessed with violent killing video games. What percentage eventually murder? 1/10000?
    The overwhelming majority of people who play video games do not have an emotional urge to kill people in real life; paedophiles have an emotional attraction to children in real life, by definition. Thus, it is important to determine whether or not that individual is capable of containing that emotional attraction. I would apply the same concept to people who did have an emotional urge to kill in real life.

    An amusing detail I want to point to you, I've established that pedophilia is not that different from any other sexual paraphilia. They all have a choice to act on their urges or not, just like I have a choice whether to act on an urge to kill. So Why would you say that if the necrophilia desire is strong , that’s when it’s comparable to pedophilia. So you’re suggesting that necrophilia desire is sometimes not strong, however, pedophiles have a desire so strong that every one of them should be monitored. That’s the tone you’re echoing. Where did this come from? An innate prejudice? I think you’re rather suspicious...
    Not really. Unlike other pariphilias, paedophilia is phenomenologically equivalent to homosexuality and heterosexuality (see Seto, 2012).

    The desire being strong applies across the board; somebody isn't even clinically diagnosed as a paedophile unless there is a strong desire: it needs to be a sustained emotional/biological urge. Similarly, I wouldn't expect you to be monitored for making a passing comment about killing someone, but I would expect you to be monitored for making repeated and serious comments about killing someone.

    Psychology, I specifically said socially anxious repressed 40 years old virgin, I know this would come up from you.
    They can find release in an escort agency.

    There’s no guarantee anyone will uphold their social contract, I still need that proof from you that pedophiles are somehow more “inherently criminal” than anyone else I've suggested in my analogies, oh, wait, you suggested monitoring everyone I've suggest, never mind.... the highlighted part I will use later.
    Indeed, which is why the police dedicate a greater amount of resources to monitoring the most likely parties to breach their social contract. Somebody with an emotional/biological disposition to commit a crime falls under this umbrella.

    See, I agreed with you the suspicion of someone who bought and deposit a bomb is too big to ignore, plus buying a bomb and depositing a bomb are prosecutable actions anyway.
    But comparing that to the “suspicion” non offending pedophiles is really more comparable to my other analogies, if I were to give you a list of all possible “suspects” who should be “monitored” using similar analogies, we’d still be here until next Wednesday. I don’t know if you’re living in a nation with inexhaustible resources, or are you mentally fantasizing about some totalitarian Society here (in which case rather suspicious). But understand what you suggest is not appliable.
    The same applies to the various members of society who the police/courts believe would present a threat to society if left to their own devices.

    I feel that you’re kind of falling into a self induced trap here. I pumped you a list of weird analogies each with subjects being “suspicious”, and because you refuse to admit you were making a very extreme comparison. And you largely ignored the existence escalating level of “suspicion”. You insist that people who are born attracted to children, and people who deposited bombs are comparable. Then you can’t help but try to justify monitoring the subjects of every single analogy I threw at you.
    You might not be tracking, I've kept a tally here, so far you've managed to alienate:
    * pedophiles who are born with uncontrollable attraction
    * Necrophiliacs, sadists, who are born with uncontrollable attraction
    * Blacks, aboriginals who don’t fit socioeconomic profiling
    * The poor who may not fit socioeconomic profiling
    * the obsessive video gamer who are obsessed with killing
    * the mentally ill(From Schiz to Antisocial PD to OCD) who may not be able to fully control themselves
    * The murderers’s family
    * the odd women who may argue loudly on bus (you said police intervention yourself)
    Oh my non existing god...
    Are we talking about 50% of world’s population here? or are you making a horrible joke which I took seriously? Do you actually feel (and you know this list is not even close to being complete) that a society you advocated for is workable?
    I remember mentioning to you somewhere that there’s a balance to all extremes. If the goal is to monitor all who are “suspicious”, then you've have to monitor a vast proportion of all human beings, creating a state where everyone is constantly alerted. if the goal is to reduce crime at all cost, the best way is to execute everyone starting from the vehicle speeders, that’ll teach them....
    I never said the emboldened. Where there is good reason to believe someone will present a threat to public health and safety if left to their own devices, it is reasonable to treat them with an elevated level of suspicion and monitoring if necessary. This already happens—potentially threatening characters are monitored if they fall under the radar of the police.

    But there comes to a point, where you have to find a balance, monitoring non offending pedophiles for thought crime opens the door to monitoring so many other possible targets, not only that. But such segregation forces those who want to seek improvement to their addiction (if they feel they have one, that is) right back into the closet, becoming possible ticking bombs.
    People are already monitored for their plans, writings, thoughts, etc.—what do you think intelligence agencies do? Where there is good reason to believe their plans, writings, thoughts, etc. will manifest as a criminal act, they are monitored/prosecuted accordingly.

    (Original post by ncsoftlover)
    I didn’t take you as the type of person who cares much about “research input”, but if you want to talk about it, I do have something to say as well.
    If I respected their views, I would have respected the default current position, if that is the case, would I bother making an argument that seems morally “corrupt” and challenges the establishment? Anyone who takes current situation for granted, often ignores that our society has been constantly evolving for thousands of years, there is always room for better approach regarding just about every issue.
    What I want to say though, is that while it’s not helpful to simply dismiss researches. You have to realize some basic rules. Scientific research are conducted in hope often to find linkage, relation, and correlations, not in hope to find non-correlation. There’s an incentive, an agenda if you will, to find some linkage between pedophiles and something (be it re-offending, be it try to lure kids), because they always try to look for patterns, they tend to always find a pattern. If you are going to be suspicious, then anything look suspicious. Keep in mind with you combine scientific research with clinical psychology, this becomes worse, in fact, clinical psychology trains to look for abnormity not normality, it looks for disease, not health. This is very relevant because after all, pedophilia is a labeled “mental disorder”. When you double that up, you've got researchers who are suspicious/eager to hunt on “monsters”, and you've got the incentive to look for abnormality and disease, then you've got the desire to establish relation, because after all, you want it published, you’re going to say something the public will approve--- do you think a research that shows no strong relation (hypothetically) between pedophiles and child rape can possibly as easily get published? Think about it! Attitude sometimes dictates research topics and results. then, there’s funding and research topic choice relations, which I don’t need to elaborate on.
    Avoidable biasses would have been removed in the peer-review process.

    Even more importantly, is sampling bias. Pedophiles is an invisible group, how are you going to do research on the group that’s invisible? You’d be researching on child molesters, sex offenders, but you’d not be researching on pedophiles. Not all child molesters are pedophiles, some of them are in it for the power to dominate, and children are just easy targets, and certainly not all pedophiles are child molesters, in fact, logic tells us it’s likely majority of them never offend. If the research is done on child molester, they can’t represent non offending pedophiles, it’s one of the worst case of sampling bias. If the research is done on out of closet pedophiles, then this very vocal and “out there” group certainly do not represent the psychology of the majority of pedophiles, it’s just another case of sampling bias.
    The various studies they cited included a range of different respondents to minimise the effects of sampling bias.

    Before reading into any researches, what I’ve stated are important to realize, but once I realized them, researches on this particular topic become rather pointless. I generally know what they’re going to sound like. In short, in this social atmosphere, pedophiles aren’t going to get anything in their favor even when it comes to research, they’re always the monster, obviously.
    I’m not going to bother much with your quoted research, just a simple glance is enough, because I’m not exactly planning to clean up vomit today.
    I can't debate with you if you are going to outright reject evidence due to an unsubstantiated belief that it is automatically wrong. Peer-reviewed research is as neutral as it gets. On the contrary, there are many studies (e.g., the Lee et al. (2012) one) that pushes for legal reform on the treatment of paedophilia.

    The Hall et al “thing”, I will point to you the problems I found
    and I quote this amusing statement
    “most do not find their sexual fantasies distressing or ego-dystonic enough to voluntarily seek treatment”

    1. They don’t need to voluntarily seek treatment unless they offend, you hilariously informed my personally about separate of equal, and I intend to treat them indifferently and equal. They only need to seek treatment if they feel like they need to get rid of an addiction. Not for condition which is not physical and not harming themselves.
    Most of the time this is too late for the victim. Hall et al. (2007) explain how they rationalise their behaviours.

    2 Pedophiles are an invisible group, how did the researcher get into their minds to examine whether they are distressed by their sexual fantasies? Most are depressed likely, as the society want them all dead.
    By analysing convicted and self-identified paedophiles. Just because a group is stigmatised or illegal, it doesn't mean they are invisible.

    3. Why would they advocate for self hatred, I don’t want them distressed over their fantasy at all, I want them to understand the action if acted out ,can he hurtful. Internalized paedophobia is no healthier then internalized homophobia, I want it de-stigmatized, I don’t want self repression, that lead to crime.
    They are not advocating anything. Why would somebody want to have an urge that inclines them towards illegality? This is inherently distressing, but to various degrees.

    4. The research talks about “pedophiles often do not use force.....pedo often try to place themselves.....” So he’s talking about child molesters, not pedophiles, pedophiles is largely an invisible group. Not only is he confusing the term child molester/pedophile, there’s also sample bias issue, and certainly not every child molester is really attracted to children, but attracted to power over victims. I've already talked about this. Why are you citing me a research done on child molesters?
    That part concerns paedophiles who wish to perform their desires on real children.

    5. As i said, if you’re going to find a pattern, a correlation, a problem, then any friendly gesture is going to be suspicious, you’re determined to go monster hunting, you’re going to see a monster.
    The responses of the perpetrator and the victim both determine the likely intent.

    6. The researcher talks about pedophiles like a unifying group of clones without accounting for individuality and diversity. Like I said, the researcher never intended to look at them as humans. Humans are diverse, and respond to things very differently, the only common characters pedophiles share, is that they’re attracted to children, how the respond to the attraction, how they control it, what outlet do they use, are entirely different.
    Indeed. The Lee et al. (2012) did a more comprehensive analysis on the interaction between various traits. This study is a cumulative analysis.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Of course the researcher would not know. He is talking out of imagination about an invisible group anyway, how can he possibly know about the reality?
    Hence this hilarious statement about child molesters by the way, not pedophiles
    “Pedophiles usually obtain access to children through means of persuasion, friendship, and behavior designed to gain the trust of the child and parent"
    Erm, no. The study is based on real people.

    Where paedophiles attempt to access real children, that is the usual means of doing so.

    You think if the stigma with having the urge is removed, most of them would refuse to seek treatment. You think if having the urge is legitimized, so will the act.
    I argue otherwise, having an urge to kill is more or less legitimized, but not the act itself. I see pedophiles as normal everyday people with a sexual paraphilia, and they act very differently from each other as they’re not clones. I see them having the same social responsibilities like most people, they mostly have the capacity to control their urges and to not commit crimes.
    No it isn't. Nobody would feel safe around someone who had an emotional disposition to killing someone real.

    But in certain cases, some of them may need to seek help if they feel like there’s an urge they can’t control, the social stigma prevent them from seeking help. If the stigma is removed, there will be an incentive to seek help, because (and this might truly surprise you), most people actually want to live a normal life with families, friends, jobs, interests... They have a lot of lose if they commit an offense!
    They can already seek help. The evidence suggests they do not seek help because it isn't distressing enough and often commit the act of child molestation before getting caught. The quotes in that post also explain how the justify it to themselves: they consider it just as normal and acceptable as leading a "normal life".

    Only by seeing them as monsters would you be able to suggest that they won’t seek help had the stigma been removed, because that would require significant lack of social responsibility compared to normal human beings. But wait! didn't you tell me yourself that you did not claim they’re more morally corrupt ? Why this suggestion then? Can you try to at least be a little bit more consistent next time?
    The evidence suggests it is the distress that incentivises people to seek treatment; if people feel little to no cognitive dissonance with their biological/emotional dispositions and their social contract, why would they attempt to change themselves? Social pressure is one of the greatest mediators of individual values. I would apply the same argument to everything else.

    (Original post by ncsoftlover)
    I'm not finished yet, part 3
    There is a fundamental ideology disagreement between us, we are like polar opposites on a political spectrum, the type who would fight verbally over a dining table.
    To me, a universal value that upholds personal freedom and protect freedom of thinking is far more important than a prohibitive segregation policy, which may not being any benefit to begin with.
    In fact, I quite accurately summarized our differences, when I first jumped into this discussion by saying your ideology is actually a little bit comparable to the : rather kill 1000 innocent than let 1 guilty go type of thinking, while my thinking is that flipped over. If the discussion stopped right at that point, it would save us both lots of time, as there’s no bridge that can connect such a wide gap of ideology differences. You are not going to convince me anything, you don’t even sound convincing, and it’s unlikely I’ll ever say anything that will make you rethink your position..

    I’ll just summarize my ideal society and how I perceived yours and be done with it. (of course, you’re not going to like the phrasing, and it’ll lean toward my side. But that’s my perceptions from you input, and I feel like doing it)

    Me: I promote social inclusiveness, I don't believe that a divided Society where people are constantly getting suspicious and alarmed will do any good. I don’t want to see people being put into boxes labeled with good and evil, while others arm themselves with a us vs them mentality constantly suspecting on others: be it the blacks or aboriginals who don’t fit certain socioeconomic profiles, or the ones with inborn attractions they didn’t choose, or the ones who are mentally ill. A society where everyone feels isolated and segregated is a disordered society.
    Being overly trusting is very dangerous. I like to make use of common sense when determining who is most likely to present a threat to any given situation, then react accordingly. I'm not naive enough to believe everyone is good natured.

    Now, narrowing down to the topic at hand, a society that constantly reinforce the idea that the people with inborn attraction to children are evil will surely trigger internalized hatred. And there is no point in forcing them hating on themselves on something they didn't choose, there are many negative consequences. This internalized self hatred can only hurt them, isolate them, force them to suicide. There is no point in letting pedophiles constantly blame themselves like convicted criminals for society’s often mislead views on them, they did not choose that attraction, yet they’re already paying for it.
    We do not develop equally. If somebody has an innate or socialised disposition to do something unfavourable, then I see no reason to treat them as if they are like anyone else. Regardless of whether or not they can help it, the fact remains that they are inflicted with this potentially dangerous condition and I will treat them differently, accordingly. Equally, I would not hire a schizophrenic for a babysitting job because I know there are alternatives out there who I have no reason to believe present a potential threat to a child. Equally, ceteris paribus, I would rather hire someone who I know is not sexually attracted to children for a babysitting job than I would someone who is sexually attracted to them.

    In today’s real society, if they choose seek counseling, any leak of information will turn all of their family and friends away, any future they might have becomes an unreachable dream, they’d speak to therapists in a way as if they’re evil diseased men who can’t expect mutual respect, and in need of shock therapy. Mine ideal society cannot accept individuals of our own species being treated this way. More importantly, prohibition, pure repression, stigmatization, and demonization in cases like this rarely helps, to mentally abuse pedophiles more simply won’t reduce crime. I think the stigma on having the urge should be removed, and anyone who feel like they cannot control their urge (as an addiction) are encouraged to seek treatment and counseling without any stigma attached, friends and family should always be friends and family no matter what. There might not be a stigma attached to having an uncontrollable urge, the action (offense) is still stigmatized, and I will be betting on the fact that most pedophiles are human beings who are socially responsible, who cares for their family, friend, hobbies, social duty, and a future for themselves, much more so than forcing their desires on innocent children. People who have too much to lose by committing a crime tend not to commit crimes, that’ s the golden rule, we should not force people to the point where they have got nothing else to lose. I want a double win for both children and pedophiles, I want as many people being a part of the productive society as it is possible.
    The evidence shows that paedophiles who seek real children do not see it as forceful; they believe it is just as loving as any other relationship, that the child wants it, that it is 'educational', etc. The Hall et al. (2007) paper explains this. It's simple cognitive bias.

    You: Trying to put it mildly. you are envisioning a very controlled society. Your envisioned society assumes there is more or less a public consensus on government controlling and monitoring all of those who are considered by the elites to be “suspicious” or “highly dangerous” , and that even thoughts can be prosecutable for these individuals.
    Your envisioned society thinks that it’s “in the public interests” to control and monitor all of those “suspicious” and that crimes prevention should be achieved at all cost. Even if it means a very steep cost; even if it means isolating groups that are already isolated; even if it means making an already tense situation more tense; even it it means it will make monsters and demons out of certain societal groups when in fact, they never choose their predisposed conditions.
    Irrelevant. They still have the condition, and that is what is important.

    In order to try to justify the prosecution and the monitoring of a minority “suspicious” group, the society (for the purpose of consistency) would have to monitor and control greater and greater proportion of population that are perceived to be deviant in one way or another. Eventually, this target may even compose of the majority of the population. It might mean that the blacks, aboriginals, and the poor who fits certain socioeconomic and sociocultural profile should be monitored and controlled, it might mean certain individuals with mental disorder who fits certain descriptions would be controlled, it might mean that people with inborn sexual paraphilia would be monitored and controlled, it might mean that the woman argues verbally on bus, the son of that murder, the lifelong friend of that rapist, that person who constantly vent violently on Facebook, that guy who’s obsessed with violent video games 24/7, it might mean a lot of things. One thing is for sure, at some point, it could all become a lost cause, when everyone is “suspected” and no one is protected.
    Correct, and this is what already happens where there is reason to believe any given individual presents a threat in any given situation. The emboldened part makes no sense. Very few people present a universal threat: paedophiles would only be treated with a higher degree of suspicion when around children or using the Internet, people who seem obsessed with hacking will only be treated with suspicion when on the Internet, people who seem obsessed with guns and mass murders will only be treated with suspicion around firearms and other weaponry capable of mass murders, etc.

    Though it’s worth mentioning that this society can only gain control of those who are “out there”, it’s difficult to really control and monitor those who are really invisible ie. pedophiles.
    The police do what they can.

    But the stigma/threat of arrest and monitoring forces them deep into the closet, non offending pedophiles may become ticking bombs.
    Why? You said before that they should not be forced to visit therapists if they don't feel they need to, and now you seem to be suggesting the lack of therapy for non-offenders makes them ticking bombs.

    This society mostly (if not totally) ignores that there’s an escalating scale of “Suspicion” and insist that arresting a pedophile who’s done absolutely nothing is pretty much analogous to arresting someone who bought and deposited a bomb at a mall.
    Analogous in that both should be treated with more suspicion than the base population.

    This society also lack adequate social safety net, good health care and well funded public education system. Obviously, monitoring and possible imprisoning such high proportion of the population requires lots of funding.
    I agree that a variety of methods should be used where necessary; I don't agree that paedophiles present as much a threat to children as non-paedophiles do, ceteris paribus. They have a biological and emotional disposition to commit crimes on a minor, so this necessarily makes them more of a threat than a non-paedophile, ceteris paribus.

    I continue to believe your position is naive and dangerous, as it prioritises an unjustifiable egalitarian ideology over common sense, but I also agree the opposing argument (that all paedophiles need to be incarcerated as soon as possible) is also problematic. This post summarises my position.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Genocidal)
    Surely if a 30-year-old has sex with a 17-year-old that makes him a paedophile?
    No. Paedophilia is a sexual attraction toward pre-pubescent children. A 17 year old is in his/her late teenss and therefore not prepubescent.

    Why is this so difficult for people to understand? Paedophilia is not a sexual attraction to any people who are underage (not that 17 is below the age of consent).

    (Original post by yasminxx)
    Clearly the person that started this thread is a pedo.
    I am not the OP but if you must come to Debate and Current Affairs then make an attempt to debate and constructively discuss rather than going "urgh...the OP must be a paedophile".

    Oh, and remember the a in paedophile.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    Equally, I would not hire a schizophrenic for a babysitting job because I know there are alternatives out there who I have no reason to believe present a potential threat to a child.
    There is such a thing as the Disability Discrimination Act :p:

    But, seriously, that is a bit ignorant.
 
 
 
  • 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.