Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tkfmbp)
    Abuse is abuse. Get them help. Get them punished. Do something. just don't let them near my kidss.
    Nobody is proposing they be let near kids or treated any more leniently than they are.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tkfmbp)
    My point is, i don't give a flying F**K about the reasons, however deep engrained in the past of the abuser, that they and others use to justify their sick acts. People who truely believe that paedophillies can have mental problems, and as such have an excuse, are being duped. Its no excuse. Abuse is abuse. Get them help. Get them punished. Do something. just don't let them near my kidss.
    We are not saying they should be allowed near children, nor have unrestricted access to the internet.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Not really. A mental ilness has a very precise definition. (see the thread about homosexuality). Merely because they are not considered mad it does not mean they controll their sexuality. So in one way you could say that they can themselves chose not to abuse a child. On the other hand it requires much more self controll than it does for most people.
    OK. They cannot control the way they feel about children. Do you think those feelings treatable?

    Does it require much more self control than surpressing any other urge? I wonder how many homosexuals worldwide never engage in a single homosexual activity at all and instead settle down and have 2.4 children instead. If these people (and I dare say there are millions of them worldwide) can surpress their urges (and I'm not saying they should) then why is it any more difficult for a pedophile to do likewise?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Quite. I'm sure there are many many many more fantasists out there than there are those that actually act on their fantasies. Are the fantasists guilty of "thought crime"?
    Ah, but I'm sure a lot of "closet-paedophiles", unwilling to act out any of their fantasies, turn to the internet. That does, however, enter the world of law breaking and associate to abuse (as in providing a market for it).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    So you have read that book? I think the UN convention on human rights is pretty conclusive on that matter. You are allowed to think whatever you want, but you are not allowed to say or act in a manner that violates the rights of other people.
    No, I havn't read it. It's common sense.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Nobody is proposing they be let near kids or treated any more leniently than they are.
    I was thinking about the possibility have creating controlled 'villages' for paedophiles, where they could live away from children. Of course, there would be restrictions on things like the internet and any kind of outing from the village.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    I think hes misunderstood what were trying to say. Were not condoning the actions of offenders, or saying they should be treated more leniently, we are merely saying that they should be treated with greater understanding and empathy.
    If empathy is your 'buzzword' then should a murderer be treated with greater empathy than a paedophile ? If you are bringing human feelings into the debate, and i stress human feelings are important in other areas, but not here, then you are moving away from the cold hard light of day. If someone abused my kids, I might kill them. Would you treat me with the same empathy and understanding you afford paedophiles ? Thought not.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    So you do agree that it could be justififed to sentence them to compulsory treatment rather than prision?
    You've yet to source a treatment which has shown to be effective.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    Ah, but I'm sure a lot of "closet-paedophiles", unwilling to act out any of their fantasies, turn to the internet. That does, however, enter the world of law breaking and associate to abuse (as in providing a market for it).
    There is a victimless alternative which, although still taboo, can be a substitute for any real material, lolicon hentai.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    lolicon hentai.
    ?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tkfmbp)
    If empathy is your 'buzzword' then should a murderer be treated with greater empathy than a paedophile ? If you are bringing human feelings into the debate, and i stress human feelings are important in other areas, but not here, then you are moving away from the cold hard light of day. If someone abused my kids, I might kill them. Would you treat me with the same empathy and understanding you afford paedophiles ? Thought not.
    Its enough you spout nonsense for yourself, id thank you to refrain from spouting nonsense for me.
    If youd read my previous posts ive clearly stated that they should not be treated anymore leniently than they currently are, but there should be a greater attempt at understanding/couseling so as to 'cure' them if possible(whether this be by changing their sexual inclination - should this be possible- or by castrating them) What would you rather? Keep a paedophile a paedophile cos 'hey, il be ****ed if we try to understand these sick *******s' or try to actually rid a paedophile from society by the aforementioned means.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    ?
    Animated content that shows underage girls in varying degrees of sexual situations.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    Ah, but I'm sure a lot of "closet-paedophiles", unwilling to act out any of their fantasies, turn to the internet. That does, however, enter the world of law breaking and associate to abuse (as in providing a market for it).
    That's right. To what extent should the internet be policed to prevent pedophiles gainig access to child pornography?

    More's to the point, if by some wonder it was possible to completely abolish child pornography on the net might this not have an adverse effect? Would not more pedophiles who latterly were content to net surf now have to explore alternative avenues. Would a ban turn the fantasists into predatory sex offenders?

    However vile I personally find it (very) I do wonder if child pornography might be a better of two evils insofar as it may prevent more active pedophiles hitting the street.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    to actually rid a paedophile from society by the aforementioned means.
    A prospect not yet deemed possible.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    I was thinking about the possibility have creating controlled 'villages' for paedophiles, where they could live away from children. Of course, there would be restrictions on things like the internet and any kind of outing from the village.
    That's ludicrous. I respect your right to have an opinion, but that suggestion is ludicrous.

    Problem One: Where would you place this village ? I wouldn't want it near me for a start.
    Problem Two: Who would staff it ? I for one wouldn't like the idea that vigillante groups could come over the hill at any given time and kick my head in because i was "helping the sickos"
    Problem Three: If you put lots of paedophiles together there is the inevitable problem that they will discuss their actions and think of new ways to abuse. Just as prison can be a "criminal university", such a village could become an abuse university.
    Problem Four: If you are going to allow, liberally, for rehabilitation, then on release the 'inmates will be so resentful of society will act on the issues discussed in problem three.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    A prospect not yet deemed possible.
    I know. I am ,of course, hypothesizing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tkfmbp)
    That's ludicrous. I respect your right to have an opinion, but that suggestion is ludicrous.

    Problem One: Where would you place this village ? I wouldn't want it near me for a start.
    Problem Two: Who would staff it ? I for one wouldn't like the idea that vigillante groups could come over the hill at any given time and kick my head in because i was "helping the sickos"
    Problem Three: If you put lots of paedophiles together there is the inevitable problem that they will discuss their actions and think of new ways to abuse. Just as prison can be a "criminal university", such a village could become an abuse university.
    Problem Four: If you are going to allow, liberally, for rehabilitation, then on release the 'inmates will be so resentful of society will act on the issues discussed in problem three.
    Good points, that is why I was only thinking it rather than advocating it fully.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    I was thinking about the possibility have creating controlled 'villages' for paedophiles, where they could live away from children. Of course, there would be restrictions on things like the internet and any kind of outing from the village.
    possibly an oxygen restriction as well..?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Its enough you spout nonsense for yourself, id thank you to refrain from spouting nonsense for me.
    If youd read my previous posts ive clearly stated that they should not be treated anymore leniently than they currently are, but there should be a greater attempt at understanding/couseling so as to 'cure' them if possible(whether this be by changing their sexual inclination - should this be possible- or by castrating them) What would you rather? Keep a paedophile a paedophile cos 'hey, il be ****ed if we try to understand these sick *******s' or try to actually rid a paedophile from society by the aforementioned means.
    I'd rather cure them. Do you extend this offer of greater understanding to all criminals ? Or am i being a tad too realistic ?

    Oh yeah, and show me a method whereby you can cure them, without building: a) resentment towards society b) a method whereby they are not cured, merely placated with the lolicon hentai method.

    This method is badly wrong and it is merely a substitution for real feelings.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    However vile I personally find it (very) I do wonder if child pornography might be a better of two evils insofar as it may prevent more active pedophiles hitting the street.
    Very good point, can't say I'd given that any thought before. Other 'outlets' don't bare thinking about.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 9, 2004
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

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