NationStates Jolt Archive

This is an often overlooked fact when it comes to paedophiles and paedophilism. Many paedophiles will make the case that sexual attraction to children is like any other sexuality, and I agree...to a point. Obviously, we have scientific knowledge that specifically states that children cannot truly concieve of what giving consent means. Their brains have not fully developed to the point to where they can understand that at all.

But, on that same token, we can't just write off paedophiles completely. As stated in the title, they are people as well. So, rather than blindingly crucifying and castrating them all, as some people might suggest, we need to develop some form of solution, to allow paedophiles to operate in society without putting our children in harm AND without removing rights from the paedophiles.

Right away, I see a few possible solutions. One is to provide them with some form of pornography to masturbate to, in order to lessen the sexual drive that removes reason from their minds and makes them rape children. The only form of pornography I can think of that does not involve actual, live children would be lolicon: drawn, Japanese-anime style art that involves children, but is not modeled on actual occurances, but purely from the artist's imagination. Quite frankly, this art disgusts me, but it's the only kind I can think of that wouldn't hurt children and yet provide something to the paedophile.

Another possibility would be some form of virtual reality technology that the paedophile could delve into, to indulge themselves in sexual acts with virtual children rather than real children. Again, this would lessen the sexual drive, though it would depend on how far virtual reality technology has evolved thus far, and how expensive it would be.

If eventually possible, we could alter whatever it is in their brains that makes them attracted to children in the first place. Of course, this opens up a huge range of possible misuse, from ridding society of homosexuality, to preventing people from being attracted to someone of another ethnicity, so I would stay away from this suggestion.

That is all I have at the moment. What do others suggest?

EDITSU:

I want to make something clear to those who are reading this thread for the first time. A paedophile is not automatically a child molester. Furthermore, I do not and will not EVER support child molesters. I only support the vast majority of paedophiles that recognize their attraction is wrong and want help.

I suggest we lock them up and throw away the key.

But we'll do it nicely if you insist.


We'll give them a window.

It's pretty sick, but i heard about these drawings that are on the internet that apparently stop pedophiles from looking at child porn. It's called lolly or something.

The legalisation of anything classified as "child pornography" that involves no actual children - so, as you suggest, drawn or CG images - might help.

That said, treating paedophiles as people is distinct from catering to their desires. Murderers are people too: doesn't mean we should find ways for them to murder "harmlessly".

It's pretty sick, but i heard about these drawings that are on the internet that apparently stop pedophiles from looking at child porn. It's called lolly or something.

You sir are referring to lolicon, the internet's greatest pleasure.

All manner of criminals are genetically human. And apparantly incurable. I dont much care for murderers or thieves either.

This is an often overlooked fact when it comes to paedophiles and paedophilism. Many paedophiles will make the case that sexual attraction to children is like any other sexuality, and I agree...to a point. Obviously, we have scientific knowledge that specifically states that children cannot truly concieve of what giving consent means. Their brains have not fully developed to the point to where they can understand that at all.

But, on that same token, we can't just write off paedophiles completely. As stated in the title, they are people as well. So, rather than blindingly crucifying and castrating them all, as some people might suggest, we need to develop some form of solution, to allow paedophiles to operate in society without putting our children in harm AND without removing rights from the paedophiles.

Right away, I see a few possible solutions. One is to provide them with some form of pornography to masturbate to, in order to lessen the sexual drive that removes reason from their minds and makes them rape children. The only form of pornography I can think of that does not involve actual, live children would be lolicon: drawn, Japanese-anime style art that involves children, but is not modeled on actual occurances, but purely from the artist's imagination. Quite frankly, this art disgusts me, but it's the only kind I can think of that wouldn't hurt children and yet provide something to the paedophile.

Another possibility would be some form of virtual reality technology that the paedophile could delve into, to indulge themselves in sexual acts with virtual children rather than real children. Again, this would lessen the sexual drive, though it would depend on how far virtual reality technology has evolved thus far, and how expensive it would be.

If eventually possible, we could alter whatever it is in their brains that makes them attracted to children in the first place. Of course, this opens up a huge range of possible misuse, from ridding society of homosexuality, to preventing people from being attracted to someone of another ethnicity, so I would stay away from this suggestion.

That is all I have at the moment. What do others suggest?

The best solution is to humanely execute convicted paedophiles.

It's pretty sick, but i heard about these drawings that are on the internet that apparently stop pedophiles from looking at child porn. It's called lolly or something.
Actually, that and/or fiction writing on the subject.

While it might seem distasteful, it certainly beats watching children get abused. And it give somewhat of an outlet to paedophile's sexuality that does *not* imply exploitation of children, unlike child pornography.

It's win-win, really.

The legalisation of anything classified as "child pornography" that involves no actual children - so, as you suggest, drawn or CG images - might help.

That said, treating paedophiles as people is distinct from catering to their desires. Murderers are people too: doesn't mean we should find ways for them to murder "harmlessly".
I'm not saying they're not. What I'm saying is that those who don't commit crimes against children should not be treated as criminals automatically due to something they cannot control: their sexual attraction.

I think you're incorrectly assuming that all pedophiles are a threat to children.

But beyond that, I don't see why those "works of imagination" are illegal. Their creation didn't hurt anyone. There shouldn't have to be any special legislation to allow those, because there's no reason for their prohibition in the first place.

As for treating them, what you're suggesting is treating people for having opinions different from the norm. That's not a precedent I'm willing to set.

That said, treating paedophiles as people is distinct from catering to their desires. Murderers are people too: doesn't mean we should find ways for them to murder "harmlessly".
But if we did and that stopped actual, real-life murders happening, wouldn't that be the best thing since sliced bread?

The best solution is to humanely execute convicted paedophiles.

Keeping them in prison to be raped by their fellow inmates is a punishment more fitting the crime.

What I'm saying is that those who don't commit crimes against children should not be treated as criminals automatically due to something they cannot control: their sexual attraction.
Well, no shit. We shouldn't punish people for crimes they don't commit.

You're expecting people to disagree with that?

I suggest we lock them up and throw away the key.

But we'll do it nicely if you insist.


We'll give them a window.

Yep.

Convicted pehophiles should be castrated.

Keeping them in prison to be raped by their fellow inmates is a punishment more fitting the crime.

But inhumane. We are not brutes, my friend.

Give them the long sleep. It stops the inncent getting harmed, and it stops us lowering ourselves to their level.

Keeping them in prison to be raped by their fellow inmates is a punishment more fitting the crime.
Yes. And that's certainly *not* crossing the line between justice and revenge, now, is it?

[/sarcasm]

Well, no shit. We shouldn't punish people for crimes they don't commit.

You're expecting people to disagree with that?

There exists a significant minority of folks here who do disagree with that. They've made that quite clear on previous threads discussing pedophilia.

But inhumane. We are not brutes, my friend.

Give them the long sleep. It stops the inncent getting harmed, and it stops us lowering ourselves to their level.

True. Restraining what we WANT to do makes us civilized after all.

There exists a significant minority of folks here who do disagree with that. They've made that quite clear on previous threads discussing pedophilia.
I'm not a regular Generalite, so I didn't know that.

Well, in that case, Kyronea, I agree: we shouldn't punish people for things they don't do.

Well, no shit. We shouldn't punish people for crimes they don't commit.

You're expecting people to disagree with that?
Oh, if only people were so logical. And yet, people act exactly that way when it comes to paedophiles. I'm trying to find a logical solution that prevents paedophiles from commiting said crimes in the first place, as well as allowing them to function in society. But first, we as a society need to stop crucifying them so readily. Few--if any--paedophiles would even consider speaking to a psychiatrist about their attraction to children right now due to the stigma. If, as I have suggested, we find ways of catering to their sexual desires without harming children, we would probably be able to allow most of them to function in society. I don't doubt that we'll still have crimes commited against children. There's no way we could prevent all of it. But don't you think it would be fairer to them, to do this for them, rather than just writing off the whole lot of them for, again, what they cannot control?

Once homosexuality was viewed as plain out wrong, perhaps this may evolve in the same way... but the difference being that homosexuality hurts nobody (not really) but paedophilia is a form of violation and children realy don't understand what it means to give consent, they simply don't understand the meaning of it.

In the end you can't help what you're attracted to. The only sin is acting upon those urges.

I don't agree with paedophilia (In fact I think it is sick and wrong), but at the same time, I'm not sure if paedophiles can help it. You shouldn't hate someone for something they can't change.

The problems usually lie in a loss of childhood themselves, and that loss attracts them to young people. So these people have probably suffered already.

Computer generated graphics is almost good enough to render something that is close to complete realism, and I'd suggest this is the way forwards. the problem being that people who work on these animated films may be scarred by having to do so. Then again, some people don't care and only worry about lucrative profits.

But if someone was willing to do it... I'd say that it's better than having real children abused.

The legalisation of anything classified as "child pornography" that involves no actual children - so, as you suggest, drawn or CG images - might help.

That said, treating paedophiles as people is distinct from catering to their desires. Murderers are people too: doesn't mean we should find ways for them to murder "harmlessly".

We already have. Ever play the game "Hitman"?

And...? Is this some kind of pathetic emotional appeal? They should be incarcerated, and they should be thankful for it.

Few--if any--paedophiles would even consider speaking to a psychiatrist about their attraction to children right now due to the stigma.
I'm not a shrink, but I've done volunteer stuff manning phones, and had several paedophiles ring up, usually distraught with themselves for thoughts, not actions. I think people are more prepared to seek counsel than you concede.

But don't you think it would be fairer to them, to do this for them, rather than just writing off the whole lot of them for, again, what they cannot control?
Yes, which is what I'm advocating. I think our wires got crossed: I agree with you about not punishing actions that do not harm children.

A permanent, but humane, prison cell would be the only trully secure option. Pornography may help some, but it's not a garunteed thing. Instead, the pedophiles could be isolated from society, but still given as many rights as possible. For those willing to complain about the cost, any problems could be alleviated by allowing the offenders to do some kind of work from in prison, therefore paying for their own incarceration and treatment.

First of all, we need to draw a distinction where right now there is not one.

Legally, a 16 year old (above the age of consent) can be tried and convicted on pedophile charges, if caught having sex with a 15-1/2 year old. That conviction lumps him/her in with adults preying upon 10 year olds. There needs to be a distinction that absolves teenager on teenager "offenders", while justly punishing adults who prey upon tots.

I have grown tired of seeing young men convicted on sex charges for banging his girlfriend in the back of his dad's car....

A permanent, but humane, prison cell would be the only trully secure option.

Death Penalty?

More permanent. MUCH more secure.

.....well yes... they are flesh and bone.. that makes them people

that's about as much tollerance as i have

Death Penalty?

More permanent. MUCH more secure.
And much less civilised. :)

Death Penalty?

More permanent. MUCH more secure.
Were I not so ardently libertarian, I'd support it. A problem though: should it be based on false data, it is irreversible.

But don't you think it would be fairer to them, to do this for them, rather than just writing off the whole lot of them for, again, what they cannot control?

Let's be fair to the bastards, eh? They can have a fair trial before going to prison. I find the entire idea that you can give them other ways to alleviate their desires stupid. They WANT to rape children. Giving them access to means to be thinking about it continuously is a horrible idea. You are also very right, I am going to write off any pedophile just as I will write off every murderer. They commit these atrocities they go to prison.

And much less civilised. :)
Machiavelli would laugh.

lolicon. . Wow

And...? Is this some kind of pathetic emotional appeal? They should be incarcerated, and they should be thankful for it.
Oh, come off it. You're a gay man. You should be able to see the point I'm trying to make. You're a person regardless of your sexuality, and so are they. Why should we write them off for it? Quite frankly, that is unnecessarily cruel.

And much less civilised. :)

I couldn't disagree more.

Allowing predators to remain a threat is not 'civilisation', it is stupidity.

Allowing predators to remain on a leash, is not civilisation, it is pride.

I'm not willing to gamble innocents for either stupidity OR pride.

Obviously, we have scientific knowledge that specifically states that children cannot truly concieve of what giving consent means. Their brains have not fully developed to the point to where they can understand that at all.

Did you travel back in time? I had no idea such a thing was ever given over to scientific scrutiny.

Let me ask you do you know what consent is? If so would you be willing to discribe what giving consent means. What does giving consent mean. what are the potential rewards and pitfalls of "sex". What is sex. What do you comsider sex. Do you consider sex harmful to minors. What types of sexual activities do you consider harmful to minors.

Machiavelli would laugh.
He can laugh all he likes. I'm still not going to endorse murder.

Oh, come off it. You're a gay man. You should be able to see the point I'm trying to make. You're a person regardless of your sexuality, and so are they. Why should we write them off for it? Quite frankly, that is unnecessarily cruel.
I'm not approaching a non-consenting non-adult. I am not damaging this person's psychological make up in a way that would impair their future success in the free market economy. A paedophile very often is. For this, they at least deserve some form of containment or mandatory therapy, or both.

Yep.

Convicted pehophiles should be castrated.

You can rape people with other thing than your penis, you know.

I couldn't disagree more.

Allowing predators to remain a threat is not 'civilisation', it is stupidity.

Allowing predators to remain on a leash, is not civilisation, it is pride.

I'm not willing to gamble innocents for either stupidity OR pride.
I'm not willing to gamble innocents for either stupidity OR pride.
I'm not willing to gamble innocents for either stupidity OR pride.
When we're talking about the death penalty and a 'final solution', I think that statement deserves repeating, over and over.

Did you travel back in time? I had no idea such a thing was ever given over to scientific scrutiny.

Let me ask you do you know what consent is? If so would you be willing to discribe what giving consent means. What does giving consent mean. what are the potential rewards and pitfalls of "sex". What is sex. What do you comsider sex. Do you consider sex harmful to minors. What types of sexual activities do you consider harmful to minors.

Are you an idiot? Let me give you a lesson taught to people from a very young age, see theres this thing called hormones. These are things that make adults want to have sex with people, children do not have hormones. Therefor it is impossible for a child to want to have sex.

Were I not so ardently libertarian, I'd support it. A problem though: should it be based on false data, it is irreversible.

Then our legal system should be up to the rigours of actually proving the criminal guilty ONLY when he/she is guilty.

If it ISN'T up to that task - we are already punishing the innocent, no?

As for 'libertarianism'... how about the freedom NOT to have our children the victims of child-oriented sexual violence?

When we're talking about the death penalty and a 'final solution', I think that statement deserves repeating, over and over.
Good point.

Then our legal system should be up to the rigours of actually proving the criminal guilty ONLY when he/she is guilty.

If it ISN'T up to that task - we are already punishing the innocent, no?
Heh, the problem is, as with all human institutions, those related with justice are not infallible and prone to human bias. Hence, should the mistake be made it cannot be reversed.

As for 'libertarianism'... how about the freedom NOT to have our children the victims of child-oriented sexual violence?
You'll see that I agree with you.

Did you travel back in time? I had no idea such a thing was ever given over to scientific scrutiny.

Let me ask you do you know what consent is? If so would you be willing to discribe what giving consent means. What does giving consent mean. what are the potential rewards and pitfalls of "sex". What is sex. What do you comsider sex. Do you consider sex harmful to minors. What types of sexual activities do you consider harmful to minors.

And so you are questioning whether a six year old could read this paragraph here you just wrote, comprehend it and use the knowledge gained to make choices?

Did you travel back in time? I had no idea such a thing was ever given over to scientific scrutiny.

Let me ask you do you know what consent is? If so would you be willing to discribe what giving consent means. What does giving consent mean. what are the potential rewards and pitfalls of "sex". What is sex. What do you comsider sex. Do you consider sex harmful to minors. What types of sexual activities do you consider harmful to minors.
You, from what I gather, need to be quiet. Scientific analysis of how the brain develops proves that a child cannot truly understand what consent for something of this nature means. Look it up. Read scientific articles on it. Please.

Europa Maxima: For those that actually act upon their sexual desires, I would agree. It is those who do not act upon their desires that I am attempting to salvage. It is for those who might eventually act upon their desires if alternatives such as my suggestions are not provided that I am attempting to salvage. In other words, those that do not actually commit the crimes. Do you see what I mean now? My apologies if my point was not as clear as I thought it was.

When we're talking about the death penalty and a 'final solution', I think that statement deserves repeating, over and over.

I'm glad you think so.

The only truly civilised action, is to eradicate the threat. No matter the cost to our delicate digestion.

I suggest we lock them up and throw away the key.

But we'll do it nicely if you insist.


We'll give them a window.

In the 1980s many people went to prison based on some very absurd testimony given by children in satanic ritual sexual abuse trials such as an R2D2 like robot partcipating in the molestation of children. Jurys, judges, shrinks, police, reporters, and the general public believed all manner of absurdities. This mob never vanashed. It still exists today just as it did in the 1980s.

Death Penalty?

More permanent. MUCH more secure.

But it violates the rights of the pedophiles in a much more severe way.

Europa Maxima: For those that actually act upon their sexual desires, I would agree. It is those who do not act upon their desires that I am attempting to salvage. It is for those who might eventually act upon their desires if alternatives such as my suggestions are not provided that I am attempting to salvage. In other words, those that do not actually commit the crimes. Do you see what I mean now? My apologies if my point was not as clear as I thought it was.
Yeah, I have no problem with those who do not act on them and seek to quash them somehow. My problem rests with those who actually do act upon them. Unlike a lot of gay people, I do not let my sexuality influence my political and economic positions significantly.

Are you an idiot? Let me give you a lesson taught to people from a very young age, see theres this thing called hormones. These are things that make adults want to have sex with people, children do not have hormones. Therefor it is impossible for a child to want to have sex.

Not to mention that pedophiles entire strategy is to tell their victims not to tell anyone about them, that it is a secret. It is pure exploitation.

It's pretty sick, but i heard about these drawings that are on the internet that apparently stop pedophiles from looking at child porn. It's called lolly or something.


In the 1980s many people went to prison based on some very absurd testimony given by children in satanic ritual sexual abuse trials such as an R2D2 like robot partcipating in the molestation of children. Jurys, judges, shrinks, police, reporters, and the general public believed all manner of absurdities. This mob never vanashed. It still exists today just as it did in the 1980s.

I'm glad you think so.

The only truly civilised action, is to eradicate the threat. No matter the cost to our delicate digestion.
You missed his point entirely, Grave'n idle. He meant that he was not willing to sacrifice innocents convicted unfairly to death for neither stupidity nor pride of those who would put them to death.

He showed your statement could very well be used *against* the treatment you advocated. It's called a contradiction.

I'm glad you think so.

The only truly civilised action, is to eradicate the threat. No matter the cost to our delicate digestion.
There's nothing civilised about condoning murder; about showing our children that severe retribution is an acceptable response; about the probable (almost certain) execution of innocents.

It has nothing to do with my 'stomach'. If you think the death penalty is an 'easy solution', you are deluding yourself.

Heh, the problem is, as with all human institutions, those related with justice are not infallible and prone to human bias. Hence, should the mistake be made it cannot be reversed.

You'll see that I agree with you.

Yes... the system is flawed... but I'm assuming we are talking about cases where we have a degree of certainty.

Also - purely as pragmatism... if we accidentally execute an innocent, but we ALSO execute a mass-offender, so he/she never gets to reoffend, I think we win back more than we lose.

The legalisation of anything classified as "child pornography" that involves no actual children - so, as you suggest, drawn or CG images - might help.

That said, treating paedophiles as people is distinct from catering to their desires. Murderers are people too: doesn't mean we should find ways for them to murder "harmlessly".

Are you suggesting looking at drawen pictures does some manner of harm?

But it violates the rights of the pedophiles in a much more severe way.
Have they not violated someone else's rights? In a society where the basis of the legal system is something like "An it harm none, do what ye will" (all exchanges are thus voluntary and between consenting individuals), with the rider added " and should you so do, you forfeit your own freedom" for some crimes, it would be justifiable. Rights are pretty abstract to begin with. You undertook an action you knew would rob you of your freedom. You are thus to blame.

I suggest we lock them up and throw away the key.

But we'll do it nicely if you insist.


We'll give them a window.



AGREED! This is NOT another sexual choice, it is a sick and disgusting crime! The people who are ok with it make me sick. I am also sick of gays being lumped in with the people!

But it violates the rights of the pedophiles in a much more severe way.

Paedophiles opted-out of civilisation when they decided to rape children.

They have no rights.

Execution is a mercy, and the only sure way to protect our children.

But it violates the rights of the pedophiles in a much more severe way.



What rights? the right to abuse and harm a child? Death sounds fair to me.

Yes... the system is flawed... but I'm assuming we are talking about cases where we have a degree of certainty.
I am not so sure I'd condone the death penalty for paedophilia to begin with. However, if legal institutions can provide justice with certainty, then perhaps the death penalty isn't much of a problem.

Also - purely as pragmatism... if we accidentally execute an innocent, but we ALSO execute a mass-offender, so he/she never gets to reoffend, I think we win back more than we lose.
That is thus contingent on whether or not the judicial system is efficient. All rests upon this.

Yeah, I have no problem with those who do not act on them and seek to quash them somehow. My problem rests with those who actually do act upon them. Unlike a lot of gay people, I do not let my sexuality influence my political and economic positions significantly.
Indeed. The whole point is to prevent them from commiting crimes by providing ways of fulfilling their sexual desires through means that do not harm children at all, thus allowing them to function in society like everyone else. A difficult balance to achieve, certainly, but one I think is necessary, lest we allow their rights to be unfairly trampled upon. With the way it is now, we as a society condemn them and almost force them to commit the crimes, because we as a society won't even consider ways of allowing them to let loose that tension.

Paedophiles opted-out of civilisation when they decided to rape children.

They have no rights.

Execution is a mercy, and the only sure way to protect our children.


Thank you. There is hope!

All manner of criminals are genetically human. And apparantly incurable. I dont much care for murderers or thieves either.

Nah,,, You my dislike murderers and thieves but you perceive the theft of innosence to be the greatest crime and anyone has has sexual interactions with children to be the worst of all the scum.

Yes... the system is flawed... but I'm assuming we are talking about cases where we have a degree of certainty.

Also - purely as pragmatism... if we accidentally execute an innocent, but we ALSO execute a mass-offender, so he/she never gets to reoffend, I think we win back more than we lose.
No, we don't. We killed an innocent. No matter how you might delude yourself that it was "for the greater good", we can never accept sacrificing innocents on this altar.

I really can't have much respect for someone who would wrongly kill another human being just out of fear or revenge. Which is what this is about, after all.

Have they not violated someone else's rights? In a society where the basis of the legal system is something like "An it harm none, do what ye will" (all exchanges are thus voluntary and between consenting individuals), with the rider added " and should you so do, you forfeit your own freedom" for some crimes, it would be justifiable. Rights are pretty abstract to begin with. You undertook an action you knew would rob you of your freedom. You are thus to blame.

So, two wrongs make a right now? If a person steals your satelite signal, it's okay to key their car? Honestly, the most civilised thing to do is rise above what the criminal has done. If we violate people's rights just because they violated the rights of others, doesn't that make us just as bad as the criminal? Aren't we commiting the most grand form of hypocrasy ever invented?

You missed his point entirely, Grave'n idle. He meant that he was not willing to sacrifice innocents convicted unfairly to death for neither stupidity nor pride of those who would put them to death.

He showed your statement could very well be used *against* the treatment you advocated. It's called a contradiction.

I didn't misunderstand. I chose to accept his(?) point and re-iterate my own, with the benefit of the emphasis.

Why would we be executing 'innocents'? If the system works at all, we should be relatively sure that ONLY the guilty are arriving at our termination centres.

Do you want to pay for all that? If so i suggest you write to the government and consign yourself to poverty in order to fund the perversions of the minority in society... Alternatively, realise how disgusting and immoral paedophilia is...

So, two wrongs make a right now? If a person steals your satelite signal, it's okay to key their car? Honestly, the most civilised thing to do is rise above what the criminal has done. If we violate people's rights just because they violated the rights of others, doesn't that make us just as bad as the criminal? Aren't we commiting the most grand form of hypocrasy ever invented?
In this case though they voluntarily forfeit their own freedom. Their actions led to the consequences. They could've retained their rights. They lost them.

What rights? the right to abuse and harm a child? Death sounds fair to me.

The right to live. The right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishments. Keeping a person in a prison cell does not support their 'right' to rape children. They won't be getting a daily dose of playtime with kindergarteners.

There's nothing civilised about condoning murder; about showing our children that severe retribution is an acceptable response; about the probable (almost certain) execution of innocents.

It has nothing to do with my 'stomach'. If you think the death penalty is an 'easy solution', you are deluding yourself.

You might want you look up the word 'murder', before you misuse it further.

I said nothing about retribution... this is not vengeance. It is entirely rational. It is defense.

And again - if the legal system is THAT flawed, then we should be fixing it, not bitching about how inappropriate the punishments will be if an innocent gets 'caught'.

In this case though they voluntarily forfeit their own freedom. Their actions led to the consequences. They could've retained their rights. They lost them.

But if they don't have the right to take away anyone's rights, then we don't either. Humans are equal. Nobody, no one in the world, has the supreme right to judge who is worthy enough to live. It's the very idea of one person having the right to make such monumental judgements that is the pinnacle of dictatorship.

I didn't misunderstand. I chose to accept his(?) point and re-iterate my own, with the benefit of the emphasis.

Why would we be executing 'innocents'? If the system works at all, we should be relatively sure that ONLY the guilty are arriving at our termination centres.
You know full well it's impossible for justice to ever attain such a degree of certainty. Innocent men have been condemned to death before: people accused of being paedophiles could be condemned to death unfairly, too.

This is why I ultimately *never* support the death sentence: if you imprison them for life, well, you can at least let them out if they can prove they were convicted unfairly. Death penalty allows no turning back.

There is also a lot of hypocrisy in having state-sponsored execution, all the while saying murder is evil and one of the worst possible crimes.

The right to live. The right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishments. Keeping a person in a prison cell does not support their 'right' to rape children. They won't be getting a daily dose of playtime with kindergarteners.



They gave up that right as soon as they raped a child. That child will never get over that, the child would harmed forever. They should get cruel and unusual punishment because what they did to that child was cruel and unusual punishment for being a child. What about the childs rights? Death is a fair punishment.

But don't you think it would be fairer to them, to do this for them, rather than just writing off the whole lot of them for, again, what they cannot control?

Wait a minute here...

I am a hetero female of the non-pedophilic persuasion. My hormones dictate that I should be attracted to and desire to have sex with any attractive male I can lay my hands on, and yet I don't. Why? Because I make choices and exert CONTROL over my sexual impulses. Do I dream about men? yes. Do I fantasize about men? yes. Do I try to fuck everyone I see? no.

Pedophiles who act on their sexual impulses need to be punished, locked-up, put through therapy, and made to understand that our society will not allow them to act on these impulses. I do not believe that castration (removal of the testicles, not the penis to whoever that nitwit was that thought that was what it entailed) is NOT an unreasonable solution because it removes the hormone responcible for the sex drive. Equally, for female repeat offenders, the ovaries and uterus gotta go. It also ensures that they won't reproduce and subject their own children to their abuse.

The problem, Empress_Suiko and Grave_and_idle, is that you are assuming that they are criminals automatically just because they are attracted to children. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT DEFENDING THE ONES WHO ACTUALLY ABUSE CHILDREN! I am speaking about those who are attracted to children but have not or will not act upon those desires because they know it is the wrong thing to do. I am talking about allowing THOSE people a way to function in society. Do you see what I mean now? Or do you truly think that being attracted to children--something that is purely impossible for someone to control--automatically makes them criminals no matter what?

They gave up that right as soon as they raped a child. That child will never get over that, the child would harmed forever. They should get cruel and unusual punishment because what they did to that child was cruel and unusual punishment for being a child. What about the childs rights? Death is a fair punishment.

Killing the pedophile will not bring back the rights of the child, and will not make things any better. It's vindictive, and it's presumptious. How on earth can you justify making the desicion as to who may live and who may not? Do you really think you're that much of a better person?

You might want you look up the word 'murder', before you misuse it further.

I said nothing about retribution... this is not vengeance. It is entirely rational. It is defense.

And again - if the legal system is THAT flawed, then we should be fixing it, not bitching about how inappropriate the punishments will be if an innocent gets 'caught'.
Defence? What dictionary are you using that defines 'defence' as killing unarmed people in your custody?

It is murder; the killing of another. There is no misuse of the word, and no escape from the fact that we are all partners in the crime if we allow the State to execute.

And as for 'fixing the legal system' - it will never be 100% accurate. You can talk about new technology all you like, but most convictions are always going to come down to people's words, and the decision of a very human judge and jury.

But if they don't have the right to take away anyone's rights, then we don't either. Humans are equal. Nobody, no one in the world, has the supreme right to judge who is worthy enough to live. It's the very idea of one person having the right to make such monumental judgements that is the pinnacle of dictatorship.
Then it may be argued that others do not have the right to restrict their freedom in any way, not even to punish them, because incarceration, for instance, is a limit on their free movement. Absolute tripe. In a society based on consentual, contractual law, if you assent to having your freedoms curbed should you curb those of others in offence, it is well possible.

Not to mention that pedophiles entire strategy is to tell their victims not to tell anyone about them, that it is a secret. It is pure exploitation.

You would know this how? As for keeping secrets sexual acts with children carries grave danger for the adult. The adult need not tell the child to keep the sinfull act of sexual play a secret becuase said act is dirty shameful etc. but rather kept a secret in order to avoid the problems brought about after the discovery of the act. What you are doing creating a boogyman in your mind. Shall we suggest all shrinks make up conditions in need of treatment in order to gain patience and profit or that all polititions are on the take and have no matters of public interest at heart?

Again, poeple, I feel most of you are simply posting out of gut reaction and missing the OP's point entirely.

A person attracted to children doesn't necessarily act on those attractions.

A pedophile =/= a child molester.

A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't a square. Remember your geometry.

What the OP suggests is to find a means to prevent people in the first category from crossing the line into the second.


EDIT: Nobody here suggested decriminalizing the actual acts, or not convicting those who do touch children.

My veiws on peedofiles are as follows.

Any peedofile found guilty or comitting a sexual act to a child under the age of 14 and/or found in posession of child pornography should be sentanced to death automaticaly.
These people cannot help their sexual attraction and serve no purpose to socity, thus always being a constant threat to the welfare of a child.
Also their organs could be used for transplants.
Extreme behavior can onlt be tackled by extreme actions.

I am not so sure I'd condone the death penalty for paedophilia to begin with. However, if legal institutions can provide justice with certainty, then perhaps the death penalty isn't much of a problem.


Paedophilia is rape. It is an aggressive, 'sex' crime. To me - victim child or adult - the punishment should be death.

And - when the victims are children, you lose some of the alleged 'grey areas'... because 'he/she consented' is no longer a possible defense.


That is thus contingent on whether or not the judicial system is efficient. All rests upon this.

Not really. Apply the punishment, then make SURE the system meets IT'S requirement.

In time of war, one doesnt stand looking at the enemy artillery, and say 'maybe they weren't aiming at us? maybe it was a ranging shot? maybe...'

One deals with the problem. One stands for something, or one falls for anything.

The best solution is to humanely execute convicted paedophiles.


In the 1980s many people went to prison based on some very absurd testimony given by children in satanic ritual sexual abuse trials such as an R2D2 like robot partcipating in the molestation of children. Jurys, judges, shrinks, police, reporters, and the general public believed all manner of absurdities. This mob never vanashed. It still exists today just as it did in the 1980s.

Then it may be argued that others do not have the right to restrict their freedom in any way, not even to punish them, because incarceration, for instance, is a limit on their free movement. Absolute tripe. In a society based on consentual, contractual law, if you assent to having your freedoms curbed should you curb those of others in offence, it is well possible.

It is true that prison violates the rights of prisoners. I understand and regret that. But a humane prison is the best compromise, as it allows for the least judgement and the least restriction of rights. It holds the least permanence.

No, we don't. We killed an innocent. No matter how you might delude yourself that it was "for the greater good", we can never accept sacrificing innocents on this altar.

I really can't have much respect for someone who would wrongly kill another human being just out of fear or revenge. Which is what this is about, after all.

No - it is neither fear or revenge. As I've already said. It is defense.

If someone has been PROVED to be a violent predator on children, revenge and fear are irrelevent. LOGIC says you remove the predator in the surest manner.

It is true that prison violates the rights of prisoners. I understand and regret that. But a humane prison is the best compromise, as it allows for the least judgement and the least restriction of rights. It holds the least permanence.
I find it funny that you regret this, but nevertheless those are your personal sentiments. My point is that if a society so chooses, and its individual members assent to what it legislates (based on the principles I set out), then it can even go as far as enacting the death penalty without serious objections, other than the fact that its judicial system may be deficient.

In the 1980s many people went to prison based on some very absurd testimony given by children in satanic ritual sexual abuse trials such as an R2D2 like robot partcipating in the molestation of children. Jurys, judges, shrinks, police, reporters, and the general public believed all manner of absurdities. This mob never vanashed. It still exists today just as it did in the 1980s.
Okay, you mentioned this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11294048&postcount=58) in another thread...are you talking about Satanic Ritual Abuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse) or what the heck?

But if they don't have the right to take away anyone's rights, then we don't either. Humans are equal. Nobody, no one in the world, has the supreme right to judge who is worthy enough to live. It's the very idea of one person having the right to make such monumental judgements that is the pinnacle of dictatorship.

But, the child-rapist chooses to take away the rights to personal sovereignty of a child.

And - in doing so - steps outside of civilisation.

Thus - they absolve themselves from their rights.

Again, poeple, I feel most of you are simply posting out of gut reaction and missing the OP's point entirely.

A person attracted to children doesn't necessarily act on those attractions.

A pedophile =/= a child molester.

A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't a square. Remember your geometry.

What the OP suggests is to find a means to prevent people in the first category from crossing the line into the second.


EDIT: Nobody here suggested decriminalizing the actual acts, or not convicting those who do touch children.
Thank you. I'm glad at least one person understood fully what I was getting at.

Killing the pedophile will not bring back the rights of the child, and will not make things any better. It's vindictive, and it's presumptious. How on earth can you justify making the desicion as to who may live and who may not? Do you really think you're that much of a better person?


It's called just punishment. That child may want to die for most of its life. I am a better person because I would NEVER harm a child!

You would know this how? As for keeping secrets sexual acts with children carries grave danger for the adult. The adult need not tell the child to keep the sinfull act of sexual play a secret becuase said act is dirty shameful etc. but rather kept a secret in order to avoid the problems brought about after the discovery of the act. What you are doing creating a boogyman in your mind. Shall we suggest all shrinks make up conditions in need of treatment in order to gain patience and profit or that all polititions are on the take and have no matters of public interest at heart?

No matter how hard you try you cannot justify the exploitation of children. How do you think a pedophile operates? Demanding secrecy and making the child feel as if it is somehow THEIR fault is what they do. While I have luckily never been abused myself I do know people who have been. They sure as hell didn't choose to be assualted. It is in the public interest that these pieces of shit are locked away where they cannot abuse any child again.

No - it is neither fear or revenge. As I've already said. It is defense.

Murder is not defence. Period. You're not talking about accidentally killing someone in self defence to prevent him from an immediate act of harm: you,re talking about killing, in cold blood, a man who has already been arrested and lies in custody. That is not justice, that is revenge.


If someone has been PROVED to be a violent predator on children, revenge and fear are irrelevent. LOGIC says you remove the predator in the surest manner.
With that, I agree. However, the surest manner, in this case, is imprisonment, because if we should ever find out a mistake was made and that the "violent predator" is in fact innocent, we can release him.

And offer him our excuses.

Paedophilia is rape. It is an aggressive, 'sex' crime. To me - victim child or adult - the punishment should be death.

And - when the victims are children, you lose some of the alleged 'grey areas'... because 'he/she consented' is no longer a possible defense.
My sentiments are mixed on the matter. I would like to see such individuals die, yet if containment would do the job as well (and cheaper), it may be the way to go. That said, I do not object to the death penalty in the legal system I set out.


Not really. Apply the punishment, then make SURE the system meets IT'S requirement.

In time of war, one doesnt stand looking at the enemy artillery, and say 'maybe they weren't aiming at us? maybe it was a ranging shot? maybe...'

One deals with the problem. One stands for something, or one falls for anything.
So essentially the legal system would evolve into greater efficiency. You have a point, although such an approach suffers from uncertainty until the legal system reaches its ideal point.

Actually, that and/or fiction writing on the subject.

While it might seem distasteful, it certainly beats watching children get abused. And it give somewhat of an outlet to paedophile's sexuality that does *not* imply exploitation of children, unlike child pornography.

It's win-win, really.
Until Congressman get a hold of it when they get a internet in their mailbox over the tubes and ban it because its kind of like child pornography, but with ink, and fictitious characters.

You know full well it's impossible for justice to ever attain such a degree of certainty. Innocent men have been condemned to death before: people accused of being paedophiles could be condemned to death unfairly, too.

This is why I ultimately *never* support the death sentence: if you imprison them for life, well, you can at least let them out if they can prove they were convicted unfairly. Death penalty allows no turning back.

There is also a lot of hypocrisy in having state-sponsored execution, all the while saying murder is evil and one of the worst possible crimes.

No hypocrisy. Murder is illegal killing. State-regulated execution is LEGAL killing.

There is no more hypocrisy there, than there is in saying "I don't agree with murder, but I eat meat".

And again - we can NOT keep making our punishments more and more lenient just on the offchance that an innocent gets through the system.

A crime that deserves death, deserves death. If the system isn't uo to the task, fix the system.

Are you an idiot? Let me give you a lesson taught to people from a very young age, see theres this thing called hormones. These are things that make adults want to have sex with people, children do not have hormones. Therefor it is impossible for a child to want to have sex.

Every one has hormones. The kind that give sexual drive are not produced until puberty and at puberty that sexual drive can be very strong. Perhaps legeslation that accepts those with strong sex drives can give consent would be more to your likeing.

Sex,,, sexual drive or not feels good. Young girls are commonly given over to masturbation long before they reach puburty. You girls and boys can often be seen playing with themselves. Sex needs no sex drive in order to be engaged in. There are many other reasons to engage in sexual play other than sex drive. There is of course curisoty, physical pleasure, need to kill time etc. to name a few.

I find it funny that you regret this, but nevertheless those are your personal sentiments. My point is that if a society so chooses, and its individual members assent to what it legislates (based on the principles I set out), then it can even go as far as enacting the death penalty without serious objections, other than the fact that its judicial system may be deficient.

So what? I don't agree with the judicial system; I think I've made that clear over all my time on this site. Just because the rules say that X is what happens, X isn't nessacarily a good thing. Try stepping outside of your law-shaped box and taking a good look at all the laws, either currently existent or not, that aren't right.

The problem, Empress_Suiko and Grave_and_idle, is that you are assuming that they are criminals automatically just because they are attracted to children. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT DEFENDING THE ONES WHO ACTUALLY ABUSE CHILDREN! I am speaking about those who are attracted to children but have not or will not act upon those desires because they know it is the wrong thing to do. I am talking about allowing THOSE people a way to function in society. Do you see what I mean now? Or do you truly think that being attracted to children--something that is purely impossible for someone to control--automatically makes them criminals no matter what?

Read my posts, my friend. I have consistently talked about those who are convicted of a crime.

But, the child-rapist chooses to take away the rights to personal sovereignty of a child.

And - in doing so - steps outside of civilisation.

Thus - they absolve themselves from their rights.



I like you. You seem to understand the issue at hand here. Bravo!

But, the child-rapist chooses to take away the rights to personal sovereignty of a child.

And - in doing so - steps outside of civilisation.

Thus - they absolve themselves from their rights.

Just because the rapist did something that's not right, we should be allowed to do something that's not right? That's hypocrasy, plain and simple.

So what? I don't agree with the judicial system; I think I've made that clear over all my time on this site. Just because the rules say that X is what happens, X isn't nessacarily a good thing. Try stepping outside of your law-shaped box and taking a good look at all the laws, either currently existent or not, that aren't right.
I'll put it this way: assume rehabilitation is not efficient, either in economic or teleological terms. Assume that the society refuses to punish certain crimes. Then what?

In my "law-shaped box" the only crimes punished are those which hamper individual freedom. The idea is for everyone to enjoy their freedom, so long as they don't damage that of others willingly. It's not much to ask, at all.

Keeping them in prison to be raped by their fellow inmates is a punishment more fitting the crime.


In the 1980s many people went to prison based on some very absurd testimony given by children in satanic ritual sexual abuse trials such as an R2D2 like robot partcipating in the molestation of children. Jurys, judges, shrinks, police, reporters, and the general public believed all manner of absurdities. This mob never vanashed. It still exists today just as it did in the 1980s.

It's called just punishment. That child may want to die for most of its life. I am a better person because I would NEVER harm a child!

Then you're f.ing arrongant. "Better" is a subjective term. No one is any "better" objectively than anyone else. That's why permanent judgements are dangerous.

Killing the pedophile will not bring back the rights of the child, and will not make things any better. It's vindictive, and it's presumptious. How on earth can you justify making the desicion as to who may live and who may not? Do you really think you're that much of a better person?

No. It is NOT vindictive.

It is pragmatic.

You do not try to reason with a lion when it tries to eat your family. You do not excuse it's behaviour because of it's lion nature.

You do not argue that our understanding of lions is flawed... that MAYBE this ONE lion just wanted to lick your family.

You remove the threat. It is pure defense.

Sex,,, sexual drive or not feels good. Young girls are commonly given over to masturbation long before they reach puburty. You girls and boys can often be seen playing with themselves. Sex needs no sex drive in order to be engaged in. There are many other reasons to engage in sexual play other than sex drive. There is of course curisoty, physical pleasure, need to kill time etc. to name a few.

You really do believe there is nothing wrong with raping children don't you?

Just because the rapist did something that's not right, we should be allowed to do something that's not right? That's hypocrasy, plain and simple.



We as a society have the RIGHT to hold people accountable for their actions. They did the crime and now they have to do the time.

Read my posts, my friend. I have consistently talked about those who are convicted of a crime.
Right then. In that case, carry on.

Then you're f.ing arrongant. "Better" is a subjective term. No one is any "better" objectively than anyone else. That's why permanent judgements are dangerous.
So a hammer isn't a better tool than a screw driver than for hammering in a nail? Since nothing can be better in any sense of the word.

I'll put it this way: assume rehabilitation is not efficient, either in economic or teleological terms. Assume that the society refuses to punish certain crimes. Then what?

In my "law-shaped box" the only crimes punished are those which hamper individual freedom. The idea is for everyone to enjoy their freedom, so long as they don't damage that of others willingly. It's not much to ask, at all.

It's a double-standard. That is all there is to it.

Don't turn this thread into weather the death penalty is good or bad, it's totally of topic.

You really do believe there is nothing wrong with raping children don't you?
He probably does not. He's the kind of paedophile I do not want to protect: the kind that lets their sex drive rules their actions, their mind, and the way they live. It's the kind that recognizes their sexual attraction is wrong that I want to protect, not him.

Well, no shit. We shouldn't punish people for crimes they don't commit.

You're expecting people to disagree with that?

Well yes Kyronea was as Kyronea has seen such a suggestion before. Said suggestion is already repressented in this string. There are some people who believe and have stated that we should punish people for crimes we think they are likely to commit do to their interests.

It's a double-standard. That is all there is to it.
It's a necessary condition for the majority of non-criminal citizens to enjoy their freedoms unhindered. No one needs to live in perpetual fear of those few deviants who would ruin them.

So a hammer isn't a better tool than a screw driver than for hammering in a nail? Since nothing can be better in any sense of the word.

It's a better tool for you, since you like it more. But, hypothetically, Billy might think that the screw driver is a better tool, since it comes in prettier colours. And Joanne might like the sound of the screwdriver when it hits the nail. We all have different standards of why something is "better," especially in a sense of human morality and the right to live.

Defence? What dictionary are you using that defines 'defence' as killing unarmed people in your custody?


I don't see the quibble. If they would repeat offend, it is defense to stop them doing so.

Not a difficult concept.


It is murder; the killing of another. There is no misuse of the word, and no escape from the fact that we are all partners in the crime if we allow the State to execute.


No - murder is the ILLEGAL killing of a human being.

State-regulated executions are 'legal.

Also - one might question whether or not the convicted child-rapist qualifies as a 'human being'.

But inhumane. We are not brutes, my friend.

Give them the long sleep. It stops the inncent getting harmed, and it stops us lowering ourselves to their level.

Wow some level of sympathy. I'm amazed.

Then you're f.ing arrongant. "Better" is a subjective term. No one is any "better" objectively than anyone else. That's why permanent judgements are dangerous.



So Mother Teresa is not better than Hitler? I refuse to believe that the worlds best person is not better than the worlds worst person. Also flames are uncalled for here.

It's a necessary condition for the majority of non-criminal citizens to enjoy their freedoms unhindered. No one needs to live in perpetual fear of those few deviants who would ruin them.

If the deviants are locked up, why would the non-criminal citizens fear them?

Yes. And that's certainly *not* crossing the line between justice and revenge, now, is it?

[/sarcasm]

Who cares about justice these are pedophiles?

No - murder is the ILLEGAL killing of a human being.

State-regulated executions are 'legal.

Also - one might question whether or not the convicted child-rapist qualifies as a 'human being'.
Semantics. I dismiss that definition.

Murder is killing, pure and simple.

It's a better tool for you, since you like it more. But, hypothetically, Billy might think that the screw driver is a better tool, since it comes in prettier colours. And Joanne might like the sound of the screwdriver when it hits the nail. We all have different standards of why something is "better," especially in a sense of human morality and the right to live.
The problem with this is though that we co-exist in societies. In some regards a human can be better than another on objective standards (for instance, making good use of their intellect). Or, not raping children as opposed to those who do out of a sence of respect to their self-determination. Things like that.

So Mother Teresa is not better than Hitler? I refuse to believe that the worlds best person is not better than the worlds worst person. Also flames are uncalled for here.

That's your opinion. For some reason, you like Mother Teresa more than you like Hitler, and I honestly don't blame you. But some people out there like Hitler more, for many different reasons. Who is right? We have no way of knowing objectively.

Okay, you mentioned this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11294048&postcount=58) in another thread...are you talking about Satanic Ritual Abuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse) or what the heck?

And now you've brought this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11294359&postcount=84) up again (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11294436&postcount=103)? What are you on about? And why are you repeating yourself?

If the deviants are locked up, why would the non-criminal citizens fear them?
You see, you didn't address the argument I beset you with; I was assuming no punishment whatsoever would be levied upon the perpetrators.

Once homosexuality was viewed as plain out wrong, perhaps this may evolve in the same way... but the difference being that homosexuality hurts nobody (not really) but paedophilia is a form of violation and children realy don't understand what it means to give consent, they simply don't understand the meaning of it.

In the end you can't help what you're attracted to. The only sin is acting upon those urges.

I don't agree with paedophilia (In fact I think it is sick and wrong), but at the same time, I'm not sure if paedophiles can help it. You shouldn't hate someone for something they can't change.

The problems usually lie in a loss of childhood themselves, and that loss attracts them to young people. So these people have probably suffered already.

Computer generated graphics is almost good enough to render something that is close to complete realism, and I'd suggest this is the way forwards. the problem being that people who work on these animated films may be scarred by having to do so. Then again, some people don't care and only worry about lucrative profits.

But if someone was willing to do it... I'd say that it's better than having real children abused.


Bad science.

Would you care to explain what giving consent really means?

The problem with this is though that we co-exist in societies. In some regards a human can be better than another on objective standards (for instance, making good use of their intellect). Or, not raping children as opposed to those who do out of a sence of respect to their self-determination. Things like that.

Those are all still subjective standards.

He probably does not. He's the kind of paedophile I do not want to protect: the kind that lets their sex drive rules their actions, their mind, and the way they live. It's the kind that recognizes their sexual attraction is wrong that I want to protect, not him.

Then medication is the only way to treat those who truly feel that way (assuming any really do). Offering any kind of visual stimulation just gets them fantasising and that is not a good thing.

If the deviants are locked up, why would the non-criminal citizens fear them?


Parole.

Semantics. I dismiss that definition.

Murder is killing, pure and simple.

Actually, murder means unlawful killing. Thats the actual definition.

So Mother Teresa is not better than Hitler? I refuse to believe that the worlds best person is not better than the worlds worst person. Also flames are uncalled for here.
You'll have to forgive me for this off-topic point, but please do some research on Mother Teresa. She was not the saint that people make her out to be by any means.

Parole.

Parole isn't part of my judicial plan for child molesters. Nice of you to assume it is.

Those are all still subjective standards.
Essentially. However, in a cooperative society some standards have to have the guise of being objective, or else cooperation is near-impossible. My proviso, that one do as they will so long as they do not harm others and that all undertakings be between consenting adults, is the least restrictive of all.

A permanent, but humane, prison cell would be the only trully secure option. Pornography may help some, but it's not a garunteed thing. Instead, the pedophiles could be isolated from society, but still given as many rights as possible. For those willing to complain about the cost, any problems could be alleviated by allowing the offenders to do some kind of work from in prison, therefore paying for their own incarceration and treatment.


In the 1980s many people went to prison based on some very absurd testimony given by children in satanic ritual sexual abuse trials such as an R2D2 like robot partcipating in the molestation of children. Jurys, judges, shrinks, police, reporters, and the general public believed all manner of absurdities. This mob never vanashed. It still exists today just as it did in the 1980s.

You see, you didn't address the argument I beset you with; I was assuming no punishment whatsoever would be levied upon the perpetrators.

How is that at all relevant to the discussion? I'm supporting incarceration, not doing absolutely nothing. If you find someone who thinks pedophiles should live completely unhindered lives, that's a good argument for them. However, it doesn't pertain to what I'm saying.

That's your opinion. For some reason, you like Mother Teresa more than you like Hitler, and I honestly don't blame you. But some people out there like Hitler more, for many different reasons. Who is right? We have no way of knowing objectively.


Hitler started a war that killed 40 million people and he killed what 7 million jews just because they were jewish, Mother teresa didn't kill anybody and only helped people.

The people who like mother teresa better are right and the people who like hitler at all need help and fast.

You'll have to forgive me for this off-topic point, but please do some research on Mother Teresa. She was not the saint that people make her out to be by any means.
Still...when being compared to Hitler, she does seem rather saint-like, no?

Who cares about justice these are pedophiles?

Exactly - take actions like raping a child and you deserve the consequences. You deserve to die for the harm you've caused.

Murder is not defence. Period. You're not talking about accidentally killing someone in self defence to prevent him from an immediate act of harm: you,re talking about killing, in cold blood, a man who has already been arrested and lies in custody. That is not justice, that is revenge.


No. Simply no.

How is arrested 'special'? Why this sanctity on 'custody'?

If the person has already harmed, we are not talking speculation. We are talking about removing an ESTABLISHED threat.


With that, I agree. However, the surest manner, in this case, is imprisonment, because if we should ever find out a mistake was made and that the "violent predator" is in fact innocent, we can release him.

And offer him our excuses.

No - the 'surest' manner is the one that is 'sure'.

Within the last twelve months, a murderer talked his way out of a Texas (I think) jail, and was at liberty for several days.

Imprisonment is optimism. It is a leash we HOPE does not get slipped.

Death is 'sure'.

Yes... the system is flawed... but I'm assuming we are talking about cases where we have a degree of certainty.

Also - purely as pragmatism... if we accidentally execute an innocent, but we ALSO execute a mass-offender, so he/she never gets to reoffend, I think we win back more than we lose.

Glad you think so. You volunteering? :)

Parole isn't part of my judicial plan for child molesters. Nice of you to assume it is.


You don't set the judicial laws. Child rapists can get parole and have, only to offend again.

How is that at all relevant to the discussion? I'm supporting incarceration, not doing absolutely nothing. If you find someone who thinks pedophiles should live completely unhindered lives, that's a good argument for them. However, it doesn't pertain to what I'm saying.
It's relevant because you said you regret punishing these people at all. I regret that they would wish to undertake such actions. That they are punished for them, then, is not part of that regret. In any case, you've given the answer of which I was curious.

Then medication is the only way to treat those who truly feel that way (assuming any really do). Offering any kind of visual stimulation just gets them fantasising and that is not a good thing.
Medication isn't going to get us anywhere right now, due to the current state of medical knowledge on this matter. For the record, there are a vast number that do feel their attraction is wrong. I know several personally. It's this exact kind of societal view upon the matter that causes them to not seek out treatment of any sort, and thus pressures eventually breaks them and they commit crimes against children. The best suggestion I had, I think, was the virtual reality bit, though that's probably too expensive at the moment. Still, we can't just crucify them for something they cannot control.

I'm not approaching a non-consenting non-adult. I am not damaging this person's psychological make up in a way that would impair their future success in the free market economy. A paedophile very often is. For this, they at least deserve some form of containment or mandatory therapy, or both.

Imaginary

In the 1980s many people went to prison based on some very absurd testimony given by children in satanic ritual sexual abuse trials such as an R2D2 like robot partcipating in the molestation of children. Jurys, judges, shrinks, police, reporters, and the general public believed all manner of absurdities. This mob never vanashed. It still exists today just as it did in the 1980s.
I can not believe you have just repeated the exact same paragraph again. I believe this is spamming, is it not?

Hitler started a war that killed 40 million people and he killed what 7 million jews just because they were jewish, Mother teresa didn't kill anybody and only helped people.

The people who like mother teresa better are right and the people who like hitler at all need help and fast.

I think this "evil is a subjective term mmaaaan, no body is worse then anyone else" is becoming a dangerous idea.

Hitler started a war that killed 40 million people and he killed what 7 million jews just because they were jewish, Mother teresa didn't kill anybody and only helped people.

The people who like mother teresa better are right and the people who like hitler at all need help and fast.

Yes I agree, but Hitler was better at public speaking and generally motivating people. OK so his motivational skills consisted of "do it or die", but hey whatever works.

(not pro-Hitler).

In the 1980s many people went to prison based on some very absurd testimony given by children in satanic ritual sexual abuse trials such as an R2D2 like robot partcipating in the molestation of children. Jurys, judges, shrinks, police, reporters, and the general public believed all manner of absurdities. This mob never vanashed. It still exists today just as it did in the 1980s.

You know you keep throwing this out but even if this is remotely true it doesn't mean that you now excuse all molesters from here on out because of some possible questionable testimony 20 years ago

Since you love this so much, perhaps you could also provide some kind of sourse for this?

Actually, murder means unlawful killing. Thats the actual definition.
Well done.

Now look up 'semantics'. :rolleyes:

Essentially. However, in a cooperative society some standards have to have the guise of being objective, or else cooperation is near-impossible. My proviso, that one do as they will so long as they do not harm others and that all undertakings be between consenting adults, is the least restrictive of all.

That's a decent law. In fact, I feel that people should function is society without hurting other people. Hurting others is a damaging, and sometimes sociopathic, behavior. However, that still does not give the judicial system the right to choose who is worthy of life. It actually does not give the judicial system any rights at all. But if the permanent incarceration of people who peridocially and incurably hurt others can prevent the harm of more people, and cause very little harm in itself, it is the most reasonable option.

My sentiments are mixed on the matter. I would like to see such individuals die, yet if containment would do the job as well (and cheaper), it may be the way to go. That said, I do not object to the death penalty in the legal system I set out.


While they are alive, there will ALWAYS be a risk of escape.

Plus - the 'cost' of the death penalty is in the waiting and the appeals... not the sentence.


So essentially the legal system would evolve into greater efficiency. You have a point, although such an approach suffers from uncertainty until the legal system reaches its ideal point.

I grant this is true. But - surely it would be in the INTERESTS of those arguing about the 'risk to innocents'.. to spend their energies SAVING the innocent, rather than appeasing the guilty?

I think this "evil is a subjective term mmaaaan, no body is worse then anyone else" is becoming a dangerous idea.


Yes it is, it allows some people to get away with sick crimes.

Well done.

Now look up 'semantics'. :rolleyes:

Wether it's semantics or not, it discredits your argument about it being "murder".

I like you. You seem to understand the issue at hand here. Bravo!

I appreciate your honesty and resilience, on an issue that seems to be an 'unpopular' platform.

And so you are questioning whether a six year old could read this paragraph here you just wrote, comprehend it and use the knowledge gained to make choices?

I never suggested such a thing. There are plenty of choices we already give six year olds. What makes the choice of participating in sexual interactions diferent than the choice between chocolate and Vanilla ice cream?

Still...when being compared to Hitler, she does seem rather saint-like, no?
Well, that's true, but then, just about anyone would be. That's not the point.

Dark, please, shut up. You're not exactly helping my case here.

Though what he talks about is true to some extent. My own father, when he was married to his previous wife, was accused of and almost convicted of sexually abusing his daughter--my older half sister--Kristen. Thing is, nothing ever truly happened. Kristen was hypnotized by a hypnotist to help her "remember" his actions, so of course what this really did was implant false memories, since she was too young at the time and easily influanced in that matter. I know for a fact that my father would never do such a thing to anyone. I've lived with him my whole life. He's had two daughters with my mother--my two younger sisters. If they had ever been abused(and they were by my older half brother Brian, my mom's son from her own previous marriage, but that's beside the point) by my dad, I'd know. I'm quite close to them, you see.

It's relevant because you said you regret punishing these people at all. I regret that they would wish to undertake such actions. That they are punished for them, then, is not part of that regret. In any case, you've given the answer of which I was curious.

I regret punishing these people in the same way that I regret not recieving the lead in my school's fall musical. It's inevitable that, in society, people will always get hurt, but it's not as though we should be proud of that.

That's a decent law. In fact, I feel that people should function is society without hurting other people. Hurting others is a damaging, and sometimes sociopathic, behavior. However, that still does not give the judicial system the right to choose who is worthy of life. It actually does not give the judicial system any rights at all. But if the permanent incarceration of people who peridocially and incurably hurt others can prevent the harm of more people, and cause very little harm in itself, it is the most reasonable option.
The system has no right to choose this, indeed, unless, those living within a society assent to it so doing. In the end, it is a matter of how much power the judicial system is voluntarily given. That sets it with its limits.

In the 1980s many people went to prison based on some very absurd testimony given by children in satanic ritual sexual abuse trials such as an R2D2 like robot partcipating in the molestation of children. Jurys, judges, shrinks, police, reporters, and the general public believed all manner of absurdities. This mob never vanashed. It still exists today just as it did in the 1980s.

I have no idea what that has to do with my statement.

I never suggested such a thing. There are plenty of choices we already give six year olds. What makes the choice of participating in sexual interactions diferent than the choice between chocolate and Vanilla ice cream?

I've never seen arguments as insanely retarded as yours.

Just because the rapist did something that's not right, we should be allowed to do something that's not right? That's hypocrasy, plain and simple.

Strawman. I did not say what you say I said.

Our 'rights' are artifacts of our civilisation.

Try explaining to 25,000 feet of water that it has no 'right' to drown you, becausde you have the 'right' to live.

If the rapist opts out of our civilisation, they choose to opt out of the 'rights' that civilisation has made available to them.

We could throw them to tigers, if you prefer. I was thinking 'humane'.

Medication isn't going to get us anywhere right now, due to the current state of medical knowledge on this matter. For the record, there are a vast number that do feel their attraction is wrong. I know several personally. It's this exact kind of societal view upon the matter that causes them to not seek out treatment of any sort, and thus pressures eventually breaks them and they commit crimes against children. The best suggestion I had, I think, was the virtual reality bit, though that's probably too expensive at the moment. Still, we can't just crucify them for something they cannot control.

Ok, but I really do believe that those who view child porn will only keep their desires in the front of their brain and increase the chance of their actually offending. Besides it is a contradiction to give them fake children to fantasise about saying hey you can't control it when approaching a real child is WRONG. Encouraging them does not gain us anything.

Wether it's semantics or not, it discredits your argument about it being "murder".
:rolleyes:

What I said was that to say that 'murder is unlawful killing, state murder is lawful, therefore execution is not murder' is an argument based on a dictionary definition. I choose to define the word differently.

Would you like it spelt out a little more clearly?

I never suggested such a thing. There are plenty of choices we already give six year olds. What makes the choice of participating in sexual interactions diferent than the choice between chocolate and Vanilla ice cream?
...

Dude. Shut up and do some research on the matter. It is a scientific FACT that something like sex cannot be truly understood by children. Period. Their BRAINS HAVE NOT DEVELOPED TO THE POINT TO WHERE THEY CAN UNDERSTAND IT! This has been proven time and again.

I grant this is true. But - surely it would be in the INTERESTS of those arguing about the 'risk to innocents'.. to spend their energies SAVING the innocent, rather than appeasing the guilty?
I agree to this. If the members of a society assent to the punishment the system will mete out, then it is perfectly fine.

Hitler started a war that killed 40 million people and he killed what 7 million jews just because they were jewish, Mother teresa didn't kill anybody and only helped people.

The people who like mother teresa better are right and the people who like hitler at all need help and fast.

That is your opinion. What did you base it on? What you feel, of course. Unless you actually have the elusive objective rule book with you right now, you're not actually contradicting my statement.

I appreciate your honesty and resilience, on an issue that seems to be an 'unpopular' platform.



Thanks. I got your back on this.

Then you're f.ing arrongant. "Better" is a subjective term. No one is any "better" objectively than anyone else. That's why permanent judgements are dangerous.

Rubbish.

Anyone who does NOT rape children is a 'better' human being than anyone that DOES.

Simple as.

Imaginary
Many psychologists would beg to differ.

You don't set the judicial laws. Child rapists can get parole and have, only to offend again.

Is that my concept of what is right? No. We're talking about ideals right now, not the current system.

Ok, but I really do believe that those who view child porn will only keep their desires in the front of their brain and increase the chance of their actually offending. Besides it is a contradiction to give them fake children to fantasise about saying hey you can't control it when approaching a real child is WRONG. Encouraging them does not gain us anything.
It is a fine line, isn't it? How do we fully determine what to do about it? We need to do more research on it, I think. My suggestions are not perfect, but they could serve for the time being while we work on a better, more permenant solution. Do you have any better ideas, though? I'd love to hear them.

That is your opinion. What did you base it on? What you feel, of course. Unless you actually have the elusive objective rule book with you right now, you're not actually contradicting my statement.


Ugh. Nevermind.


How can you or anybody think Mother Teresa isn't better than Hitler. That just confuses me.

You, from what I gather, need to be quiet. Scientific analysis of how the brain develops proves that a child cannot truly understand what consent for something of this nature means. Look it up. Read scientific articles on it. Please.


Perhaps you can suggest some trully scientific articles. I've never seen any.

"You need to be quite" Hmm rather revieling statement you just made there. Pehaps you should take better care next before you let the cat out of the bag just like Ann Coulter did when she suggested 500 canisters of worthless sludge amounted to weapons of mass destruction.

Wow some level of sympathy. I'm amazed.

I am not without sympathy, just because I endorse a death penalty.

The system has no right to choose this, indeed, unless, those living within a society assent to it so doing. In the end, it is a matter of how much power the judicial system is voluntarily given. That sets it with its limits.

The members of the judicial system should not be given different rights than all other people. Period.

Ugh. Nevermind.


How can you or anybody think Mother Teresa isn't better than Hitler. That just confuses me.

It's being manipulative, you base everything on technicalities and basicly remove yourself from reality.

The members of the judicial system should not be given different rights than all other people. Period.
They already are. Their power to punish.

Semantics. I dismiss that definition.

Murder is killing, pure and simple.

You dismiss a 'definition' because it is 'semantic'?

I'm not sure whether I should laugh...

Killing is killing. Murder is illegal killing of a human being.

That is why we have two words.

Thank you. There is hope!

There was hope. You killed it.

Parole isn't part of my judicial plan for child molesters. Nice of you to assume it is.

'Your' plan is irrelevent, though. Convicted criminals DO get paroled. And some escape.

Perhaps you can suggest some trully scientific articles. I've never seen any.

"You need to be quite" Hmm rather revieling statement you just made there. Pehaps you should take better care next before you let the cat out of the bag just like Ann Coulter did when she suggested 500 canisters of worthless sludge amounted to weapons of mass destruction.
Bweeheehee. I find the idea of being compared to Ann Coulter most amusing.

Kay, I'll go snatch some articles for you.

http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/fcs/smp9/brain.htm

http://www.michigan.gov/greatstart/0,1607,7-197-27385-82537--,00.html

http://www.classbrain.com/artread/publish/article_30.shtml

There was hope. You killed it.
Much like you butcher logic, I assume.

Strawman. I did not say what you say I said.

Our 'rights' are artifacts of our civilisation.

Try explaining to 25,000 feet of water that it has no 'right' to drown you, becausde you have the 'right' to live.

If the rapist opts out of our civilisation, they choose to opt out of the 'rights' that civilisation has made available to them.

We could throw them to tigers, if you prefer. I was thinking 'humane'.

Okay, according to current judicial standards, what you're saying is right. But what I'm saying is that I don't agree with current standards. Rights aren't temporary things that can be revoked. Those are what we call priviledges. Rights are permanent and irreversable. They shouldn't be taken away, especially by the judicial system, which, seeing as it's members are all educated for years, should really know better.

It's being manipulative, you base everything on technicalities and basicly remove yourself from reality.
What sperates Mother Teresa from Hitler is that MT strived to help those who were in need no matter what race. She chose to give up her life for that cause. Hitler chose to do the opposite. That is what sperates Mother Teresa from Hitler. It's not subjective, it is fact.

Do you want to pay for all that? If so i suggest you write to the government and consign yourself to poverty in order to fund the perversions of the minority in society... Alternatively, realise how disgusting and immoral paedophilia is...

Christianity is pretty repulsive and immoral but I live with it.

Glad you think so. You volunteering? :)

In similar threads before, I have stated that I accept the risk.

I'm not going to 'volunteer' to die... I have done nothing... but I am willing to be placed at this 'greater risk', to ensure that the truly evil are punished with some degree of authority.

What sperates Mother Teresa from Hitler is that MT strived to help those who were in need no matter what race. She chose to give up her life for that cause. Hitler chose to do the opposite. That is what sperates Mother Teresa from Hitler. It's not subjective, it is fact.

Exactly.

'Your' plan is irrelevent, though. Convicted criminals DO get paroled. And some escape.

And in UK most get automatic parole half-way through their sentence, paedophiles included.

It's being manipulative, you base everything on technicalities and basicly remove yourself from reality.


There actions are what I base it on. I have my feet on the ground.

It is a fine line, isn't it? How do we fully determine what to do about it? We need to do more research on it, I think. My suggestions are not perfect, but they could serve for the time being while we work on a better, more permenant solution. Do you have any better ideas, though? I'd love to hear them.

If they know what they desire is wrong then they won't go through with those desires. Viewing child porn and especially doing anything with a child will send them to prison for a long time. I am really not one to have any sympathy for those who use the "I can't help it" defense. Until real effective medications come out to supress their desires what more is there then to say "don't do it?"

Rubbish.

Anyone who does NOT rape children is a 'better' human being than anyone that DOES.

Simple as.

So you've got the objective rule book, then? I'd sure like to see it, as I'm currently unsure of whether my attire is fitting the objective dress code, or whether my writing is fitting the objective standards of eloquence.

They gave up that right as soon as they raped a child. That child will never get over that, the child would harmed forever. They should get cruel and unusual punishment because what they did to that child was cruel and unusual punishment for being a child. What about the childs rights? Death is a fair punishment.


In the 1980s many people went to prison based on some very absurd testimony given by children in satanic ritual sexual abuse trials such as an R2D2 like robot partcipating in the molestation of children. Jurys, judges, shrinks, police, reporters, and the general public believed all manner of absurdities. This mob never vanashed. It still exists today just as it did in the 1980s.

You dismiss a 'definition' because it is 'semantic'?

I'm not sure whether I should laugh...

Killing is killing. Murder is illegal killing of a human being.

That is why we have two words.
The argument that "it's alright, it's not murder because murder is illegal and we've just made this legal" is absurd.

Perhaps when you're having one of your arguments in the Biblical thread you'll bring this new found belief in the infallibility of the written word to the discussion?

I'm all for civil rights, and you are correct, pedophiles are indeed people, but the fact is that their attractions is dissimilar to homosexuality or interracial attraction: this has the potential to seriously harm somebody (mentally and physically depending on the child and adult's respective "sizes").
That being said, I don't suppose that actually being attracted to children (I shudder every time I produce that phrase) should be considered a crime, but to perform an act on a child shoudl be. Freedom of conscience is essential to a society based on liberty. Another essential liberty is the right of the child to not be sexually assulted by a horny old man.
Perhaps the anime thing is a good idea in theory, but I recall being a virgin, and pornography made it no easier to control my sexual desires.
I also don't believe that sexuality has much to do with chemicals in the brain so much as a combination of nature and nurture. It's simply a personality trait of the individual in some cases, and a lot of cases of pedophilia show there is some psychological damage to the offender. Thus, I would imagine some form of rehabilitation not entirely aimed at de-pedophilizing the offender so much as giving them a clean bill of mental health is enough. From my perspective, child molestors do have a psychological defect and thus should be treated, but unless they offend, it should only be voluntary (as I said, freedom of conscience).
If the person doesn't want to like kiddie porn anymore, they can go to rehab. If they want to watch cartoons of Bart and Lisa Simpson gettin jiggy with it but don't go out to parks giving out candy on the condition that the child reaches into their pocket for it, then I think everything is pretty much okay - for the rest of us, at least. Should someone offend, depending on the degree of offense, rehabilitation and some jail time should be necessary. Of course, murder-rapes should be 25 to life - preferably life - in prision, no matter what age the victim. The kid would also likely need some serious therapy.

In the 1980s many people went to prison based on some very absurd testimony given by children in satanic ritual sexual abuse trials such as an R2D2 like robot partcipating in the molestation of children. Jurys, judges, shrinks, police, reporters, and the general public believed all manner of absurdities. This mob never vanashed. It still exists today just as it did in the 1980s.

Someone has explained to me that case, and it could not be more irrelivant to this discussion.

You would know this how? As for keeping secrets sexual acts with children carries grave danger for the adult. The adult need not tell the child to keep the sinfull act of sexual play a secret becuase said act is dirty shameful etc. but rather kept a secret in order to avoid the problems brought about after the discovery of the act. What you are doing creating a boogyman in your mind. Shall we suggest all shrinks make up conditions in need of treatment in order to gain patience and profit or that all polititions are on the take and have no matters of public interest at heart?

You really seem to be speaking from experience. I find that worrisome.

:rolleyes:

What I said was that to say that 'murder is unlawful killing, state murder is lawful, therefore execution is not murder' is an argument based on a dictionary definition. I choose to define the word differently.

Would you like it spelt out a little more clearly?

Unfortunately, that 'dictionary' thing gets to decide how words are defined. Not you.

And, certainly not purely for the 'appeal to emotion' that comes with the word 'murder'.

'Your' plan is irrelevent, though. Convicted criminals DO get paroled. And some escape.



true. You have to accept realilty before you can change it.

The argument that "it's alright, it's not murder because murder is illegal and we've just made this legal" is absurd.

So, should one kill someone in order to preserve themself in self-defence, they are essentially guilty of murder, even though they are protecting their own existence? Go nihilism!

Ugh. Nevermind.


How can you or anybody think Mother Teresa isn't better than Hitler. That just confuses me.

Of course it would confuse you. You're beliefs are that Mother Teresa was a great person, and Hitler wasn't. In fact, I have no idea why people like Hitler. All I know is that they do, as I've seen skinheads, and that there is no objective way to measure who is more correct. None at all.

The idea wether children can consent or not is irrelevant.....

CHILDREN CANNOT LEGALLY CONSENT

And for someone to try and justify a child's consent in such matters is disturbing

My veiws on peedofiles are as follows.

Any peedofile found guilty or comitting a sexual act to a child under the age of 14 and/or found in posession of child pornography should be sentanced to death automaticaly.
These people cannot help their sexual attraction and serve no purpose to socity, thus always being a constant threat to the welfare of a child.
Also their organs could be used for transplants.
Extreme behavior can onlt be tackled by extreme actions.


In the 1980s many people went to prison based on some very absurd testimony given by children in satanic ritual sexual abuse trials such as an R2D2 like robot partcipating in the molestation of children. Jurys, judges, shrinks, police, reporters, and the general public believed all manner of absurdities. This mob never vanashed. It still exists today just as it did in the 1980s.

They already are. Their power to punish.

Well, they shouldn't. It's certainly not fair.

Well, they shouldn't. It's certainly not fair.
And neither is it for a criminal to kill, yet they do so anyway. Go pragmatism.

So, should one kill someone in order to preserve themself in self-defence, they are essentially guilty of murder, even though they are protecting their own existence? Go nihilism!

Yes they should. If someone is trying to kill you I believe you have that right.

'Your' plan is irrelevent, though. Convicted criminals DO get paroled. And some escape.

So? I thought this was a thread about what people's beliefs were, not a clarification of what the current laws are. If my plan is irrelevant, then so are the plans of everyone, including those who want child molesters to be castrated or killed.

Okay, according to current judicial standards, what you're saying is right. But what I'm saying is that I don't agree with current standards. Rights aren't temporary things that can be revoked. Those are what we call priviledges. Rights are permanent and irreversable. They shouldn't be taken away, especially by the judicial system, which, seeing as it's members are all educated for years, should really know better.

Well, good luck with that. Seriously.

'Rights' are not 'permanent' or 'irreversible'... because 'rights' ARE priviliges. You only have the exact amount and scope of 'rights' that you are given by your society... in micro or macrocosm.

And - I'm not talking about 'revoking' rights. I am talking about the fact that the rapists cooses to excuse themselves from the civilisation that is the CREATOR of their rights, and thus - is no longer afforded them.

Not revoked. Voluntarily waived by the offendor.

If they know what they desire is wrong then they won't go through with those desires. Viewing child porn and especially doing anything with a child will send them to prison for a long time. I am really not one to have any sympathy for those who use the "I can't help it" defense. Until real effective medications come out to supress their desires what more is there then to say "don't do it?"
The sexual drive is incredibly strong, though. Humans, like all other species, evolved to do two things:

1. Survive
2. Procreate

The sex drive is thusly quite strong. It affects us in so many ways. The sheer tension a paedophile is under that they cannot release is so powerful that it often leads to them eventually commiting crimes they might not have done otherwise. The "I can't help it" defense is actually true to an extent. It's why I suggest the methods that I do, to allow them to let loose that tension in a way that does not harm children. The pornography, as I mentioned before, is drawn art not modeled on children, so it does not harm children. The virtual technology mentioned would allow them the full experience without ever touching a real child. It is a tension reliever, of tension that is that powerful. One often does not realize just how powerful that tension is.

In the 1980s many people went to prison based on some very absurd testimony given by children in satanic ritual sexual abuse trials such as an R2D2 like robot partcipating in the molestation of children. Jurys, judges, shrinks, police, reporters, and the general public believed all manner of absurdities. This mob never vanashed. It still exists today just as it did in the 1980s.

I repeat: why does something that happened 20 years ago give molesters today a free pass?

I repeat: I want a source on this since you like being so repetitive

Okay, you mentioned this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11294048&postcount=58) in another thread...are you talking about Satanic Ritual Abuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse) or what the heck?

I'm saying that the same stupid mob that exacted back and sent innosent people to prison based on ridicules testomonies of abuse still exists today. That same mob still has very much the same ignorance and superstition as it used toi.


That ignorant mob is comprised of most of the nation.

Not revoked. Voluntarily waived by the offendor.
Eloquently put. Essentially what I am arguing too.

Of course it would confuse you. You're beliefs are that Mother Teresa was a great person, and Hitler wasn't. In fact, I have no idea why people like Hitler. All I know is that they do, as I've seen skinheads, and that there is no objective way to measure who is more correct. None at all.


No way to measure it? Measure it by their actions. Skinheads are racists and Bhuddist monks are not, who is better? Kinda obvious.

But, the child-rapist chooses to take away the rights to personal sovereignty of a child.

And - in doing so - steps outside of civilisation.

Thus - they absolve themselves from their rights.

Personal sovereignty of the child? Perhaps you could explain this?

What sperates Mother Teresa from Hitler is that MT strived to help those who were in need no matter what race. She chose to give up her life for that cause. Hitler chose to do the opposite. That is what sperates Mother Teresa from Hitler. It's not subjective, it is fact.

Hitler obviously thought he was doing the right thing, with the same conviction that you feel about Mother Teresa doing the right thing. Christians have the same amount of conviction about the identity of God as Muslims. Dark Shadowy Nexus has the same amount of conviction about the treatment of pedophiles as those who say pedophiles should be tarred and feathered. How do we know who is right? We can't possibly. It's like asking people what their favourite painting is, and then fighting about who is right. The only thing out there that would prove the objectivity of morals is an objective rule book, which is an abstract and impossible concept.

So you've got the objective rule book, then? I'd sure like to see it, as I'm currently unsure of whether my attire is fitting the objective dress code, or whether my writing is fitting the objective standards of eloquence.

Being a 'human being' in society carries certain restrictions.

These are set out in our laws, if you really want an 'objective' text.

Personally - I think there are degrees of crime... stealing a loaf of bread is a crime of 'property'. Rape is more serious - it is a crime of person.

And, the most vile of those crimes against persons, should be defended against, by negating the potential to reoffend.

Such a person is clearly not being as good at the function of simply 'being a human being' within society.

The sexual drive is incredibly strong, though. Humans, like all other species, evolved to do two things:

1. Survive
2. Procreate

The sex drive is thusly quite strong. It affects us in so many ways. The sheer tension a paedophile is under that they cannot release is so powerful that it often leads to them eventually commiting crimes they might not have done otherwise. The "I can't help it" defense is actually true to an extent. It's why I suggest the methods that I do, to allow them to let loose that tension in a way that does not harm children. The pornography, as I mentioned before, is drawn art not modeled on children, so it does not harm children. The virtual technology mentioned would allow them the full experience without ever touching a real child. It is a tension reliever, of tension that is that powerful. One often does not realize just how powerful that tension is.

So you don't believe that those who pretend to have sex with children will eventually want to have the real thing? Besides, I can not see any virtual reality that will be realistic enough anytime soon to satisfy their desires.

The sexual drive is incredibly strong, though. Humans, like all other species, evolved to do two things:

1. Survive
2. Procreate

The sex drive is thusly quite strong. It affects us in so many ways. The sheer tension a paedophile is under that they cannot release is so powerful that it often leads to them eventually commiting crimes they might not have done otherwise. The "I can't help it" defense is actually true to an extent. It's why I suggest the methods that I do, to allow them to let loose that tension in a way that does not harm children. The pornography, as I mentioned before, is drawn art not modeled on children, so it does not harm children. The virtual technology mentioned would allow them the full experience without ever touching a real child. It is a tension reliever, of tension that is that powerful. One often does not realize just how powerful that tension is.

"I didn't mean to" or "I couldn't help it" is not a valid defence for these actions, everyone controls their own actions.

I never suggested such a thing. There are plenty of choices we already give six year olds. What makes the choice of participating in sexual interactions diferent than the choice between chocolate and Vanilla ice cream?

I don't think you are what you pretend to be. I think you are pretending to be a pedophile for the sake of heated discussion. You are a devil's advocate. Your responces are just too absurd to be anything other than parody.

Gotta admit, you had me goin...:rolleyes:

No matter how hard you try you cannot justify the exploitation of children. How do you think a pedophile operates? Demanding secrecy and making the child feel as if it is somehow THEIR fault is what they do. While I have luckily never been abused myself I do know people who have been. They sure as hell didn't choose to be assualted. It is in the public interest that these pieces of shit are locked away where they cannot abuse any child again.

No matter how hard you try you cannot justify the sexual exploitation of children either. You can not justly deny freedom of choice less you can justly defend the need to remove said choice.

He's consistant enough that most of us are pretty sure he's for real.

The argument that "it's alright, it's not murder because murder is illegal and we've just made this legal" is absurd.

Perhaps when you're having one of your arguments in the Biblical thread you'll bring this new found belief in the infallibility of the written word to the discussion?

I have used the same rigour in Biblical debate - particularly, with regard to the Ten Commandments.

It is not 'infallibility'... we are discussing what a word MEANS... and you think it should means something different to it's definition, because YOU prefer it that way...

Hitler obviously thought he was doing the right thing, with the same conviction that you feel about Mother Teresa doing the right thing. Christians have the same amount of conviction about the identity of God as Muslims. Dark Shadowy Nexus has the same amount of conviction about the treatment of pedophiles as those who say pedophiles should be tarred and feathered. How do we know who is right? We can't possibly. It's like asking people what their favourite painting is, and then fighting about who is right. The only thing out there that would prove the objectivity of morals is an objective rule book, which is an abstract and impossible concept.

So lets just fuck it, have no laws and let anyone do anything they want because we have no right to decide what is right and wrong?

I like you. You seem to understand the issue at hand here. Bravo!

Pehaps you would care to explain the situation here?

And neither is it for a criminal to kill, yet they do so anyway. Go pragmatism.

When I was young, I was taught a simple rule. It was "two wrongs don't make a right." It seems silly and pointless, but it's the most honest evaluation of humanity that I have ever found. If Suzie punches Billy, Billy doesn't have the right to punch Suzie back. The same concept translates on a much larger scale. If Criminal X violates Civilion Y's rights, law enforcement officer does not have the right to violate the rights of Criminal X.

No way to measure it? Measure it by their actions. Skinheads are racists and Bhuddist monks are not, who is better? Kinda obvious.

Bullshit. The original skinheads welcomed the Jamaican immigrants into the UK and protected them, embracing Reggae music.

SOME skinheads are racist.

A haircut does not make you a racist

Hitler obviously thought he was doing the right thing, with the same conviction that you feel about Mother Teresa doing the right thing. Christians have the same amount of conviction about the identity of God as Muslims. Dark Shadowy Nexus has the same amount of conviction about the treatment of pedophiles as those who say pedophiles should be tarred and feathered. How do we know who is right? We can't possibly. It's like asking people what their favourite painting is, and then fighting about who is right. The only thing out there that would prove the objectivity of morals is an objective rule book, which is an abstract and impossible concept.
Ok, if I were to shoot you right now, that would be wrong. I hve no reason too other than the fact that you may have pissed me off in some minute way like stealing my gum. No matter what anyone argues, taht is wrong. Right and wrong are two things taht are defined by instinct outside of learned fears. Racism come from a learned fear. Children are not born racist but instead are a blank slate that needs to learn. Children lear that causing pain to others is wrong, thus racism is wrong because it causes pain to others. That is why right and wrong are not subjective to some twisted human beings personal beliefs, but instead to what the body instinctivly protects. Harming a child is wrong in a larger degree because it causes a programming of the child to be more inclined to abuse a child as they grow older. now get it through your head. Right and wrong are as clear as black and white, dry earth and wet water, empty and full, gold and silver.

When I was young, I was taught a simple rule. It was "two wrongs don't make a right." It seems silly and pointless, but it's the most honest evaluation of humanity that I have ever found. If Suzie punches Billy, Billy doesn't have the right to punch Suzie back. The same concept translates on a much larger scale. If Criminal X violates Civilion Y's rights, law enforcement officer does not have the right to violate the rights of Criminal X.
Which is arguing for complete passivity and non-responsiveness to crime. An utter delusion for any organised society. If Civilian Y cannot protect themselves via a legal system, they will personally seek out justice. The point of having a justice provider is to do save them from this trouble and protect their right to freedom. Would you prefer an eye for an eye on an individual level?

You really do believe there is nothing wrong with raping children don't you?

Rape is different from participating in sexual interactions with those whose consent is dismissed.

Pehaps you would care to explain why you dismiss the consent of children?

Well, good luck with that. Seriously.

'Rights' are not 'permanent' or 'irreversible'... because 'rights' ARE priviliges. You only have the exact amount and scope of 'rights' that you are given by your society... in micro or macrocosm.

And - I'm not talking about 'revoking' rights. I am talking about the fact that the rapists cooses to excuse themselves from the civilisation that is the CREATOR of their rights, and thus - is no longer afforded them.

Not revoked. Voluntarily waived by the offendor.

Yes, rights are permanent. If they weren't, then dictators could change constitutions and take rights away. Rights cannot be changed. Even if a person kills multiple people, or rapes children, his status as a human doesn't change. Therefore, his human rights do not.

So you don't believe that those who pretend to have sex with children will eventually want to have the real thing? Besides, I can not see any virtual reality that will be realistic enough anytime soon to satisfy their desires.
Actually, no. I do believe that it will eventually cause them to want the real thing. My suggestions are a stop-gap measure while we strive to find a real solution, nothing more. But if we don't even TRY to find such a solution, then we are just writing them off. And I cannot accept that.

In the 1980s many people went to prison based on some very absurd testimony given by children in satanic ritual sexual abuse trials such as an R2D2 like robot partcipating in the molestation of children. Jurys, judges, shrinks, police, reporters, and the general public believed all manner of absurdities. This mob never vanashed. It still exists today just as it did in the 1980s.

So how many times have you spammed this paragraph now? 8? 10? I have found it repeatedly in at least two threads....

So? I thought this was a thread about what people's beliefs were, not a clarification of what the current laws are. If my plan is irrelevant, then so are the plans of everyone, including those who want child molesters to be castrated or killed.

If you are arguing AGAINST the current model, your point is valid...but you have SEEMED to be arguing status quo. And - in the status quo world, parole does happen. And escape.

He probably does not. He's the kind of paedophile I do not want to protect: the kind that lets their sex drive rules their actions, their mind, and the way they live. It's the kind that recognizes their sexual attraction is wrong that I want to protect, not him.

Well give me a reason to recognise my attraction as wrong.

No way to measure it? Measure it by their actions. Skinheads are racists and Bhuddist monks are not, who is better? Kinda obvious.

Obvious to you. But it's still immeasurable. There is no one in the world who has the supreme judgement to say "You are right, You are wrong, you're half right...etc." We're all equal in status, and therefore all our beliefs must be respected as equal.

So how many times have you spammed this paragraph now? 8? 10? I have found it repeatedly in at least two threads....
It's been reported.

It's a necessary condition for the majority of non-criminal citizens to enjoy their freedoms unhindered. No one needs to live in perpetual fear of those few deviants who would ruin them.

So by the same token maybe the grotestly deformed need to be locked away becuase they scare people?

No matter how hard you try you cannot justify the sexual exploitation of children either. You can not justly deny freedom of choice less you can justly defend the need to remove said choice.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm not justifying that I'm arguing against it. I'm sure you've been paying attention right? Anything that causes harm to another person and freedom of choice goes right out the window. Right now you are pissing me off but I don't have the right to find you and punch you in the face. That would be wrong just as abusing a child is WRONG.

I'm saying that the same stupid mob that exacted back and sent innosent people to prison based on ridicules testomonies of abuse still exists today. That same mob still has very much the same ignorance and superstition as it used toi.


That ignorant mob is comprised of most of the nation.

Obviously drunk out of his mind. The typos and spelling get worse...

Well give me a reason to recognise my attraction as wrong.
Many people would try to give you a moral reason. Since morals are subjective, I will give you a scientific one, one I have given you repeatedly. I even gave you articles on it, which you ignored. The brain does not fully evolve until approximately 17-20. The brain spends most of its time evolving during ones teenage years. Up until that point, they do not even understand what sex is truly, let alone be able to give consent. This is a scientifically proven FACT.

Being a 'human being' in society carries certain restrictions.

These are set out in our laws, if you really want an 'objective' text.

Personally - I think there are degrees of crime... stealing a loaf of bread is a crime of 'property'. Rape is more serious - it is a crime of person.

And, the most vile of those crimes against persons, should be defended against, by negating the potential to reoffend.

Such a person is clearly not being as good at the function of simply 'being a human being' within society.

Laws are still subjective. They were created by people, debated by people, passed by people. How does one person gain the ability to be considered more correct than another? How does one person come to be known as the person with the correct ideas? It's all subjective.

So by the same token maybe the grotestly deformed need to be locked away becuase they scare people?
There is a difference between causing serious psychological impediments on a person whose psyche is naturally fragile (ie a child) and just offending adults whose skins are not thick enough. The situation is not analogous. Therefore I dismiss it.

So Mother Teresa is not better than Hitler? I refuse to believe that the worlds best person is not better than the worlds worst person. Also flames are uncalled for here.

Mother Teresa is not better than Hitler. Who is to say that if Teresa had lived Hitler's life she wouldn't have made the same choices he did.

Personal sovereignty of the child? Perhaps you could explain this?

Self explanatory, I thought.

Every person is 'sovereign'... they rule themselves, in as much as they do not interfere with another. That is both an observation of truth... and a political platform.

A child has the control of himself/herself... and the 'right' not to be 'interfered' with.

When I was young, I was taught a simple rule. It was "two wrongs don't make a right." It seems silly and pointless, but it's the most honest evaluation of humanity that I have ever found. If Suzie punches Billy, Billy doesn't have the right to punch Suzie back. The same concept translates on a much larger scale. If Criminal X violates Civilion Y's rights, law enforcement officer does not have the right to violate the rights of Criminal X.

So - they are not allowed to arrest and incarcerate Criminal X?

Mother Teresa is not better than Hitler. Who is to say that if Teresa had lived Hitler's life she wouldn't have made the same choices he did.
Umm...her personality?

So lets just fuck it, have no laws and let anyone do anything they want because we have no right to decide what is right and wrong?

No. Like I said in a previous post, I understand that for society to function, we must, regretably, make some judgements and revoke the rights of some people. The best solution is to find the compromise that makes the least permanent judgements, and allows the maximum number of rights for all people.

Umm...her personality?
Now he's just being ridiculous.

Now he's just being ridiculous.
Definitely. I am considering whether or not he is even worth addressing.

And now you've brought this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11294359&postcount=84) up again (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11294436&postcount=103)? What are you on about? And why are you repeating yourself?

Maybe becuase some people don't get it. The greater public is stupid. It is retarded. It has demonstrated itself to be stupid, retarded and prone to witch hunts as recently as the 1980s. It's not even 30 years after should we expect a more inteligent society now?

Yes, rights are permanent. If they weren't, then dictators could change constitutions and take rights away. Rights cannot be changed. Even if a person kills multiple people, or rapes children, his status as a human doesn't change. Therefore, his human rights do not.

Explain to me how your 'right to live' protects you from tigers and falling rocks?

'Rights' are PURELY a convenience of society.

(And, I guess you don't watch the history channel...people have been taking away each other's 'rights' about as long as we've been living in groups.)