NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Your imagination.

Laws are still objective. 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.

You just argued both ends of the same point, for all I can tell.

I guess I'm no longer needed...

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.

So lets just have laws that would protect you from harm to your person and your property but beyond that keep things legal. Would that be acceptable?

Umm...her personality?

Maybe she was a better painter?

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

Explain the harm in sexual interactions with a willing child.

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.

You shooting me is wrong to you, but how do you know that it is completely, objectively wrong? You don't, becuase you don't know what being objectively wrong is. That's because it's impossible to be objectively wrong, or objectively right. There are no objective morals.
You said yourself that morals are "learned." Therefore, our own personal morals are based on how we grow up, not by some set-in-stone dogma. Clearly, we do not all have some irrefutable biological sense of what is right or wrong, since we all have a different sense of what is right or wrong. Some people think that it's wrong to expose skin, while others feel they have a right to be nude. If there is an objective law, why do people feel so differently from eachother? Why have morals evolved over human history? Why do different societies have different standards? From a viewpoint of objective morality, that makes no sense.

Maybe she was a better painter?
Yep, that must be it. Let's see what brilliant theory Dark Shadowy Nexus will advance as a retort.

I can not believe you have just repeated the exact same paragraph again. I believe this is spamming, is it not?

Not if it consistanty addresses the post it was used to respond to.

Explain the harm in sexual interactions with a willing child.

There is no such thing as a 'willing child'. Children lack the mental 'hardware' to give reasoned consent... thus, ANY sexual encounter with a child is nonconsensual.

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?

I don't believe in an eye for an eye on any level. An eye for an eye, and the world is blind.

There is a difference between right and wrong. So humping a cow is a form of natural sexuality? Good luck with that.

Pedophilia is wrong and immoral. As humans, we should not degrade our own values. We must protect the youth! I doubt these pedophiles would want substitutes of children. I think they would wnat to the real children to have fun with.

Your imagination.

It is just like a criminal to try and justify their actions. Pedophiles can argue all they want the the child knew what was going on but that will never be accepted.

I don't believe in an eye for an eye on any level. An eye for an eye, and the world is blind.
Yet removing a legal system would have that as a consequence. It's either through an expert system or on an individual level; somehow, however, justice will be delivered.

Explain the harm in sexual interactions with a willing child.

1.Physical.
2.Mental.

Children are not mature enough to be agreeing to such actions. Some may agree at the point but without fully understanding everything involved and unprepared for the emotional consequences afterwards. They are just not mature. Hence the term "children"

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.

In what way am I arguing for the status quo? In multiple posts, I have expressed my distaste for the current justice system. I did not present my entire view of an ideal justice system, as I believed it to be unnessacary. Just because there are some parallels between my beliefs and reality, it does not mean that I want to stick to the status quo.

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

Not what I said. Ideally, Criminal X should keep all of his rights as a human. However, that is not quite possible. Therefore, Criminal X should keep as many rights as possible. That means an incarceration that allows for maximum rights. Right to a job, language rights, freedom of religion, etc. Obvioisly, mobility rights would be limited, but it's the best compromise that I've seen.

I don't believe in an eye for an eye on any level. An eye for an eye, and the world is blind.

I'm sure Gandhi would have no problem punishing criminals, especially pedophiles. Enforcing the law isn't vengeance, it keeps society from disorder.

Not what I said. Ideally, Criminal X should keep all of his rights as a human. However, that is not quite possible. Therefore, Criminal X should keep as many rights as possible. That means an incarceration that allows for maximum rights. Right to a job, language rights, freedom of religion, etc. Obvioisly, mobility rights would be limited, but it's the best compromise that I've seen.
Within a prison environment? Or within society? If it's the latter, it's no longer incarceration...it's just monitoring.

I'm sure Gandhi would have no problem punishing criminals, especially pedophiles. Enforcing the law isn't vengeance, it keeps society from disorder.

Or mother theresa or Hitler

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.)

It doesn't. But falling rocks and tigers are accidents. Rocks can't make concious desicions that they're going to rob a person of their rights. Judges, however, can.
Yes, people have been taking away eachother's rights since the beginning of time. But does that make it the right thing to do? Should justice be based on precedents? If it was, we might still have slavery, women wouldn't have rights, and poor people couldn't vote. Is that what you want?

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse

wikipedia,,,, I love wikipedia

"One famous false case of SRA involved a large number of children at McMartin preschool in Manhattan Beach, California in 1983. Under interrogation techniques such as the Reid technique, which was originally designed to trick adults into confessing, small children told police they had been sexually abused, forced to murder infants, and drink blood (see blood libel). They also recalled being flushed down the toilet and abused in sewers, taken into an underground cavern beneath the school, flying through the air, and seeing giraffes and lions. The original accuser appears to have been an alcoholic schizophrenic whose claims derived from her mental illness. Eventually the case collapsed under its own weight, but several completely innocent people were ruined financially and socially by association with the case."

You just argued both ends of the same point, for all I can tell.

I guess I'm no longer needed...

You've never made a stupid little spelling error before? I fixed my mistake; your argument is no longer satisfactory.

Not what I said. Ideally, Criminal X should keep all of his rights as a human. However, that is not quite possible. Therefore, Criminal X should keep as many rights as possible. That means an incarceration that allows for maximum rights. Right to a job, language rights, freedom of religion, etc. Obvioisly, mobility rights would be limited, but it's the best compromise that I've seen.

And if Criminal X is a murderer? Or mass-murderer?

Can a peson who has repeated removed ALL those 'rights' you espouse, from others, still claim all those rights?

What is all this about 'language rights' and 'rights to jobs'? Where is this situation supposed to be set, Narnia?

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.

I never intended to help your case, Actually it is far better dealing with "kill all people who look at my kid funny" than "Let's be resonable about this"

So lets just have laws that would protect you from harm to your person and your property but beyond that keep things legal. Would that be acceptable?

Probably. You might need to go into a bit more detail for me to actually understand enough to assent.

1.Physical.
2.Mental.

Children are not mature enough to be agreeing to such actions. Some may agree at the point but without fully understanding everything involved and unprepared for the emotional consequences afterwards. They are just not mature. Hence the term "children"

But, aren't you presupposing emotional consequences? Many pedophiles have argued that the psychological harm done to children in these cases is caused by society insisting that what they've done was abhorrent, and though it wasn't their fault it was still a terrible terrible thing to have happen to them.

After all, it's not involuntary so much as non-voluntary. Like infantile circumcision. If you asked someone and he said no, but you circumcised him anyway (that's involuntary), he'd have reason to be really pissed at you. But no one asks the infants (that's non-voluntary), and they're not typically upset that they've been mutilated, even after they grow up.

So lets just have laws that would protect you from harm to your person and your property but beyond that keep things legal. Would that be acceptable?
Essentially the libertarian-style "An it harm none, do what ye will" (yeah, very Wicca) alongside "All exchanges must be voluntarily agreed between consenting adults", if I am correctly interpreting you.

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

Permit my to extrapulate for you. The same type wild imaginations that existed in the public mind back than was recently demonstrated to exist in you based on the post you made that I responded to you with that case of witch hunt history.

Yet removing a legal system would have that as a consequence. It's either through an expert system or on an individual level; somehow, however, justice will be delivered.

I'm not advocating anarchy. I'm giving reasons why punishment is dangerous and impractical. Laws can exist without significant levels of punishment.

Yes, people have been taking away eachother's rights since the beginning of time. But does that make it the right thing to do? Should justice be based on precedents? If it was, we might still have slavery, women wouldn't have rights, and poor people couldn't vote. Is that what you want?

Criminals are not comparable to slaves, women, or the poor. There is no moral equivalence between taking away the rights of a criminal and taking away the rights of an innocent person, and it is wrong to compare women, slaves, and the poor to murderers, thieves, child abusers, and other criminals.

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

Perhaps you would care to explain why you feel my argument and or question is retarded?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse

wikipedia,,,, I love wikipedia

"One famous false case of SRA involved a large number of children at McMartin preschool in Manhattan Beach, California in 1983. Under interrogation techniques such as the Reid technique, which was originally designed to trick adults into confessing, small children told police they had been sexually abused, forced to murder infants, and drink blood (see blood libel). They also recalled being flushed down the toilet and abused in sewers, taken into an underground cavern beneath the school, flying through the air, and seeing giraffes and lions. The original accuser appears to have been an alcoholic schizophrenic whose claims derived from her mental illness. Eventually the case collapsed under its own weight, but several completely innocent people were ruined financially and socially by association with the case."

I notice you ignored my first point. Does this case now excuse pedophiles from any punishment because of one supposed bad case from 20 years ago?

I'm not advocating anarchy. I'm giving reasons why punishment is dangerous and impractical. Laws can exist without significant levels of punishment.

Without punishment, why should people follow the law?

I'm sure Gandhi would have no problem punishing criminals, especially pedophiles. Enforcing the law isn't vengeance, it keeps society from disorder.

But punishment is the same as an eye for an eye, but on a grander level. It's saying, "You killed someone, so I can kill you." How hypocritcal is that?

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.

Since laws only 'apply' to people... and then, only within societies, the 'subjective' texts of codified laws, are, to all intents and purposes, objective.

As to HOW these ideas come to be more 'correct'... that isn't always the case... but laws - no matter how they START - eventually evolve into pragmatic mechanisms.... the greatest good, for the greatest number... kind of thing.

(Except where vested interests prevent that natural evolution, of course... you'll note that most regimes have played fast and los with the 'right' to taxation).

So - murder... pragmatically, not good. No one wants to BE murdered... so, to create an environment where it is not likely to happen, we put that on the 'no no' side of the legal aisle.

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.

Still imaginary.

I'm not advocating anarchy. I'm giving reasons why punishment is dangerous and impractical. Laws can exist without significant levels of punishment.
I'd need proof that punishment is actually less effective than rehabilitation to accept that statement. Punishment in the form of life-long containment would be suitable for most severe crimes.

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.)

You know, I was in Colorado once and along the highway in the mountains there were all these signs, "DANGER FALLING ROCKS". I can't believe there are so many falling rocks in the wild left, what after the great cement making period of the 20th century...

Within a prison environment? Or within society? If it's the latter, it's no longer incarceration...it's just monitoring.

Then call it monitoring. Many people have suggested that my concept of permanently detaining dangerous criminals is too expensive. I suggested that criminals be given a job to help pay for the expense. If that changes the nature of prison, then it changes the nature of prison. That's not really significant.

Essentially the libertarian-style "An it harm none, do what ye will" (yeah, very Wicca) alongside "All exchanges must be voluntarily agreed between consenting adults", if I am correctly interpreting you.

Just wondering if what Terrorist Cakes wants is to punish only those who harm you either physically or harm your property. Of course that leaves the question on HOW they will be punished of course...

...

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.

Angry are we? Show me said scientific reearch. Why does sexual interaction require a different kind of consent than a choice in flavors of ice cream?

Please do tell.

You know, I was in Colorado once and along the highway in the mountains there were all these signs, "DANGER FALLING ROCKS". I can't believe there are so many falling rocks in the wild left, what after the great cement making period of the 20th century...


Have you taken into account the "gravity" of the falling rock menace?:rolleyes:

Many psychologists would beg to differ.

I disrespect the profession.

Then call it monitoring. Many people have suggested that my concept of permanently detaining dangerous criminals is too expensive. I suggested that criminals be given a job to help pay for the expense. If that changes the nature of prison, then it changes the nature of prison. That's not really significant.
That could be perfectly fine for less dangerous criminals; for ones such as serial killers, I'd object to it flat out. Such people cannot be let loose into society, monitored or not. They must be contained, even if doing so is somewhat more costly in the long-run. And I'm sure nowadays prisoners can do work from within a prison anyway, and thus pay for their upkeep, as they should.

It doesn't. But falling rocks and tigers are accidents. Rocks can't make concious desicions that they're going to rob a person of their rights. Judges, however, can.
Yes, people have been taking away eachother's rights since the beginning of time. But does that make it the right thing to do? Should justice be based on precedents? If it was, we might still have slavery, women wouldn't have rights, and poor people couldn't vote. Is that what you want?

I wasn't arguing FOR precedence. I was just saying that this blissful view where dictators 'can't' take away rights, has never existed.

The point with the tigers and the falling rocks is: 'rights' are a lever of singular function. I can claim a 'right to life'... but it is ONLY any use, if it can be bargained or enforced.

Either - by strength of actions, or by negotiation... rights depend upon the force of the word or the force of the sword.

So - the REAL difference between tigers and the culture in which I live, is that my culture has a set of rules to protect me, and for me to protect them. We call these conveniences 'rights'... but they are as ephemeral as our contact with our culture. My 'right to life' MIGHT save me from a streetgang in Harlem, but it won't save me from not-being-able-to-breathe-in-a-vacuum on the Moon.

I disrespect the profession.
Utterly irrelevant what your personal feelings are. The fact is, they can help provide information on the effects of certain actions on one's personality. Therefore they are useful.

You've never made a stupid little spelling error before? I fixed my mistake; your argument is no longer satisfactory.

Onc you alerted me to the fact that your argument was faulty, I went back and addressed it.

Until that point, I can only go on what you type.

And if Criminal X is a murderer? Or mass-murderer?

Can a peson who has repeated removed ALL those 'rights' you espouse, from others, still claim all those rights?

What is all this about 'language rights' and 'rights to jobs'? Where is this situation supposed to be set, Narnia?

A person's actions do not change their rights. Everyone has a claim to rights.
It may not seem fair to you, but if you ever made some drastic mistake, or had some personality disorder, you might feel differently.
And this is meant to happen in Canada. I don't know if you noticed or not, but Narnia is not a real place. And even if it were, I wouldn't be able to have any influence over it's laws.

I'm not advocating anarchy. I'm giving reasons why punishment is dangerous and impractical. Laws can exist without significant levels of punishment.

That's an interesting idea.

Why would someone who really WANTED something that the 'laws' forbid... not just take it, without punishment?

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

Nice articles, Where is the scientific knowledge that sex requires special consent?

Have you taken into account the "gravity" of the falling rock menace?:rolleyes:

LOL Its the huge pink boulder in the room that nobody wants to talk about...lol

Criminals are not comparable to slaves, women, or the poor. There is no moral equivalence between taking away the rights of a criminal and taking away the rights of an innocent person, and it is wrong to compare women, slaves, and the poor to murderers, thieves, child abusers, and other criminals.

Oh, so criminals aren't people? A long time ago, white men thought they were the only one's with worth. Isn't that how you feel right now, as a non-criminal? Aren't you making a judgement about people who commit crimes?

You know, I was in Colorado once and along the highway in the mountains there were all these signs, "DANGER FALLING ROCKS". I can't believe there are so many falling rocks in the wild left, what after the great cement making period of the 20th century...

I was in Colorado just a couple of years ago... there are indeed the signs, AND the rocks. There was one ON the road. (I guess that's more of a 'fallen' rock...)

Maybe they've been breeding them in captivity, and then releasing them into the wild?

Without punishment, why should people follow the law?

So the only reason why you don't kill other people is because prison doesn't seem like a nice place?

Then call it monitoring. Many people have suggested that my concept of permanently detaining dangerous criminals is too expensive. I suggested that criminals be given a job to help pay for the expense. If that changes the nature of prison, then it changes the nature of prison. That's not really significant.

We don't have 100% employment. Where are these jobs coming from?

And - why is it better to give a prisoner a job (they already HAVE housing and food), than to feed and house a law-abiding citizen?

Oh, so criminals aren't people? A long time ago, white men thought they were the only one's with worth. Isn't that how you feel right now, as a non-criminal? Aren't you making a judgement about people who commit crimes?
One little difference there...the people whose freedoms were being removed had done no one any harm. Criminals actually do people harm. Go figure. :rolleyes:

Have you taken into account the "gravity" of the falling rock menace?:rolleyes:

Ouch :eek:

Since laws only 'apply' to people... and then, only within societies, the 'subjective' texts of codified laws, are, to all intents and purposes, objective.

As to HOW these ideas come to be more 'correct'... that isn't always the case... but laws - no matter how they START - eventually evolve into pragmatic mechanisms.... the greatest good, for the greatest number... kind of thing.

(Except where vested interests prevent that natural evolution, of course... you'll note that most regimes have played fast and los with the 'right' to taxation).

So - murder... pragmatically, not good. No one wants to BE murdered... so, to create an environment where it is not likely to happen, we put that on the 'no no' side of the legal aisle.

Yes, the death penalty is clearly making a society where murder is improbable. That's why Texas and California have such low crime rates.

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

Perhaps the you can explain to me why the case involving the description of a R2D2 like robot particapating in molestation of children does not represent the mind set of the people back than and why it should not be considered representitive of the mind set people have now?

A person's actions do not change their rights. Everyone has a claim to rights.
It may not seem fair to you, but if you ever made some drastic mistake, or had some personality disorder, you might feel differently.
And this is meant to happen in Canada. I don't know if you noticed or not, but Narnia is not a real place. And even if it were, I wouldn't be able to have any influence over it's laws.

And - does Canada HAVE a 'right to a job'? (Plus.. although my wife HAS been to Canada, I have not... it might be no more real than Narnia...)

It isn't a matter of 'fair'... it is a matter of why?

WHY does EVERYONE have a 'claim to rights'?

I've already clearly shown that 'rights' are an aspect of a society... granted BY that society. Which means... that society can choose NOT to grant those rights, also.

I'd need proof that punishment is actually less effective than rehabilitation to accept that statement. Punishment in the form of life-long containment would be suitable for most severe crimes.

So current crime rates are not enough to convince you that punishment is not effective? What if I told you that Quebec, the province with the lowest youth re-offence rate is also the only province that rehabiliates young offenders?

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

You would know the experience. Maybe others would find that worrysome.

Oh, so criminals aren't people? A long time ago, white men thought they were the only one's with worth. Isn't that how you feel right now, as a non-criminal? Aren't you making a judgement about people who commit crimes?

The judgement we're making about people who commit crimes is that they've chosen to commit those crimes. They knew what the punishments were, and they committed the crimes anyway. That's voluntary acceptance of consequences.

Oh, so criminals aren't people? A long time ago, white men thought they were the only one's with worth. Isn't that how you feel right now, as a non-criminal? Aren't you making a judgement about people who commit crimes?

You're not serious?

Using this 'logic'... equating 'criminals' with 'a people'... means that jailing criminals is a form of 'ethnic cleansing'...

Perhaps the you can explain to me why the case involving the description of a R2D2 like robot particapating in molestation of children does not represent the mind set of the people back than and why it should not be considered representitive of the mind set people have now?

Perhaps you can explain what psychological misconduct has to do with the morality of child molestation? After all no one on here is saying anything about what shrinks think of the subject. The act itself is reprehensible and just because some disreputable people get people to make stuff up doesn't change that for those it occurs to it is a very tramatic event. It really is too bad that pedophiles don't stay in jail instead of getting out and reoffending again.

That could be perfectly fine for less dangerous criminals; for ones such as serial killers, I'd object to it flat out. Such people cannot be let loose into society, monitored or not. They must be contained, even if doing so is somewhat more costly in the long-run. And I'm sure nowadays prisoners can do work from within a prison anyway, and thus pay for their upkeep, as they should.

When did I ever say that prisoners should be released into society? I meant a job worked from within the prison, which you have acknowledged to be possible.

So current crime rates are not enough to convince you that punishment is not effective? What if I told you that Quebec, the province with the lowest youth re-offence rate is also the only province that rehabiliates young offenders?
I'd then ask for comprehensive evidence to back up your claim, that goes into the causes behind Quebec's lower crime rates, and also undertakes it to study other nations in a comparative fashion. Then, and only then, if I were convinced rehabilitation were indeed more effective in its telos than other methods, I would endorse it.

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

Looks like a show and dance to me.

What's this legally thing. Shouldn't the big bold capatilised words read "children can not consent" not "CHILDREN CANNOT LEGALLY CONSENT"

Again care to explain why consent to sexual interaction isn't like consent to popcorn and a movie.

So the only reason why you don't kill other people is because prison doesn't seem like a nice place?

See - here's the thing.

The people who DO obey the laws, aren't really the target OF the laws.

Laws don't usually tell us how to act, they provide the lines beyond which transgressions are defined.

When did I ever say that prisoners should be released into society? I meant a job worked from within the prison, which you have acknowledged to be possible.
Which is why I asked for clarification. Were they to remain within a prison qua contained environment, I'd have no problem them working for their upkeep- in fact, I'd endorse it.

Looks like a show and dance to me.

What's this legally thing. Shouldn't the big bold capatilised words read "children can not consent" not "CHILDREN CANNOT LEGALLY CONSENT"

Again care to explain why consent to sexual interaction isn't like consent to popcorn and a movie.
Perhaps you could explain to us what child is even interested in consenting without the adults prior suggestion?

Seriously, you come up with a six year old who bullied a fully grown man into sex and then I might start listening to you.

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.


The gods Seus and Hara went through a nasty divorse.

Your source on this strong drive is?

I wasn't arguing FOR precedence. I was just saying that this blissful view where dictators 'can't' take away rights, has never existed.

The point with the tigers and the falling rocks is: 'rights' are a lever of singular function. I can claim a 'right to life'... but it is ONLY any use, if it can be bargained or enforced.

Either - by strength of actions, or by negotiation... rights depend upon the force of the word or the force of the sword.

So - the REAL difference between tigers and the culture in which I live, is that my culture has a set of rules to protect me, and for me to protect them. We call these conveniences 'rights'... but they are as ephemeral as our contact with our culture. My 'right to life' MIGHT save me from a streetgang in Harlem, but it won't save me from not-being-able-to-breathe-in-a-vacuum on the Moon.

Just because something has not already happened, there is no way that it can happen? Call me an idealist, if you like. I don't care; I've been called worse. My beliefs may be crazy, but at least I have a will to try to change the world. I'm not going to give up just because of a few set-backs.
My point isn't that nature can't take away certain rights. It's that other people are not legally allowed to. That counts for criminals, but it also counts for the judicial system. Our rights are not determined by our behavior. They are granted to us by birth.

Oh, so criminals aren't people? A long time ago, white men thought they were the only one's with worth. Isn't that how you feel right now, as a non-criminal? Aren't you making a judgement about people who commit crimes?

Of course I'm making a judgement! There's nothing wrong with feeling that criminals are below me because they decided to commit a crime...I'm sorry if I feel rapists and murderers don't deserve the same respect as ordinary, law-abiding people but that's just the way I am and the rest of society is.

I don't think the stuggle of African Americans for equality and freedom is comparable to the treatment of murderers or rapists who brutalize and psychologically scar innocent women for their own satisfaction. I also don't feel Martin Luther King Jr. is comparable to John Wayne Gacy or any of the other poor, oppressed criminals.

They are granted to us by birth.
So what then is this objective source that grants them to us? What stops them from being a social convention necessary for societies to function, as Grave_n_Idle put it?

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?

Several problems with your argument.

Firstly, pornography doesn't help to lessen sexual drive. If anything it is more likely to make the "user" fantasise about the "real deal"...

Secondly, virtual reality isn't reality... As long as somebody thinks it's ok to abuse a virtual child, somebody will come up with the "bright" idea of committing such acts on a real child.

Thirdly, has society become so corrupted that the only way to remove perversion or a desire for crime etc. is to use mind control? I don't think so, but if it has then that is the problem that needs addressing, not whether it is right to use mind control.

Fourth, does the fact that the paedophile is human exempt them from the consequences of their actions? Are they more human than the children they prey upon? If they violate the rights of their victim then they should logically forfeit their own rights, they must live with the consequences of their actions forever.

Finally, who would pay for any of those schemes? Oh yeah, the taxpayer... I for one wouldn't want MY money being spent on a minority group of perverts just so that they could indulge their immoral practises legally... Similarly, I wouldn't want my taxes to be spent on indulging the public with sex toys, despite it "benefitting" the vast majority of the public... I pay taxes not only because i have to, but without them the government would be unable to run health schemes, housing estates or any other USEFUL agendas.

Paedophilia is wrong, if a paedophile cannot work that out for himself/herself then they must pay the consequences. Death is perhaps too extreme, since i don't believe that any human holds a position of perfect morality and therefore nobody has the right to judge another person's life. But if a paedophile is sent to prison then they deserve it, they know it's an illegal practise so they are fully aware of the consequences before they start, unlike any poor child they choose to prey upon...

That's an interesting idea.

Why would someone who really WANTED something that the 'laws' forbid... not just take it, without punishment?

Because people don't want that unless they're not quite right in the head. And if they're not quite right in the head, punishment isn't really a detterent. In fact, if punishment were a detterent, crime rates should theoretically be lower in places with high rates of punishment, like Texas. There are two ways to lower crime rates: live in a dictatorship that uses fear tactics to completely immobilise criminals, or eliminate the causes of crime through education and rehabilitation. Which would you prefer?

Of course I'm making a judgement! There's nothing wrong with feeling that criminals are below me because they decided to commit a crime...I'm sorry if I feel rapists and murderers don't deserve the same respect as ordinary, law-abiding people but that's just the way I am and the rest of society is.

I don't think the stuggle of African Americans for equality and freedom is comparable to the treatment of murderers or rapists who brutalize and psychologically scar innocent women for their own satisfaction. I also don't feel Martin Luther King Jr. is comparable to John Wayne Gacy or any of the other poor, oppressed criminals.

HAHA YES YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT

We don't have 100% employment. Where are these jobs coming from?

And - why is it better to give a prisoner a job (they already HAVE housing and food), than to feed and house a law-abiding citizen?

It isn't better to give a criminal a job then to feed and house a law-abiding citizen. The problem is, many people don't support incarceration because they think of it as a "free ride" for criminals. That's why I suggested that criminals be allowed to work. The trades are certainly hurting for workers right now, so why not allow prisoners to apprentice?

The gods Seus and Hara went through a nasty divorse.

Your source on this strong drive is?
I'll back that statement up. My sex drive is particularly strong. I don't know any...way I could prove it, but if mine for good old-fashioned age-appropriate women is as strong as I feel it to be, I can only imagine what not having a legal or moral release of it would be like. Well, I kinda did when I taught high school, but my career depended on my finding an appropriate release elsewhere. I'd be lying if I said I didn't fantasize about some of the more scantily clad tartlets cruising the halls. The thing that always shook me out of that particular Lolitic reverie was the fact that I'm never attracted to bodies and nubility alone for more than a few minutes. All they'd have to do is try to talk to me and that would have been it.

Which makes me wonder about the intellectual sophistication of a pedophile. Surely they can't crave a relationship with someone who can barely converse. I've read only two books which could be considered as dealing with this topic. Obviously Lolita and Nude Men by Amanda Filipachi, wherein the 11-year-old daughter of someone the lead male character models for seduces him. It isn't perfectly convincing, but it is well written and won the then-young writer (I think she was 20 or so at the time) several awards and mentions.

Just wondering if what Terrorist Cakes wants is to punish only those who harm you either physically or harm your property. Of course that leaves the question on HOW they will be punished of course...

I don't want to punish anyone. I want to help those who are so messed-up that they feel the need to hurt others.

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

Who said anything about a free pass to abuse anybody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse

Wikipedia

"One famous false case of SRA involved a large number of children at McMartin preschool in Manhattan Beach, California in 1983. Under interrogation techniques such as the Reid technique, which was originally designed to trick adults into confessing, small children told police they had been sexually abused, forced to murder infants, and drink blood (see blood libel). They also recalled being flushed down the toilet and abused in sewers, taken into an underground cavern beneath the school, flying through the air, and seeing giraffes and lions. The original accuser appears to have been an alcoholic schizophrenic whose claims derived from her mental illness. Eventually the case collapsed under its own weight, but several completely innocent people were ruined financially and socially by association with the case."

Adam was created from the red earth and God breathed the breath o life into him.

Both the allegations of Satanic Ritual Abuse that where prevalent in the late 1980s and the suggestion that any one knew how the first man was created do not pass the absurdity test. If the fish is to big to be real and or if the story is to big to be real it probly is. Yet the people during the time of the satanic ritual abuse trials where ready and willing to believe all manner of absurd stories provided those stories came from the mouthes of children on the witness stand.

The satanic ritual abuse trials demonstrate the publics readyness to witch hunt. The same public the didn't spontaeneusly disapear in less than 30 years.

Yes, the death penalty is clearly making a society where murder is improbable. That's why Texas and California have such low crime rates.

Texas, for the year 2000, had only the 13th highest incidence of violent crime, on a state-by-state basis. California was only 9th.

I suspect there are other factors at work... Florida had the highest incidence of violent crime, South Carolina the 2nd highest.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

One little difference there...the people whose freedoms were being removed had done no one any harm. Criminals actually do people harm. Go figure. :rolleyes:

Behavior does not change rights. That's what makes them rights, not priveledges. Besides, we've all hurt people in our lives. Does that mean we shouldn't be able to vote?

It isn't better to give a criminal a job then to feed and house a law-abiding citizen. The problem is, many people don't support incarceration because they think of it as a "free ride" for criminals. That's why I suggested that criminals be allowed to work. The trades are certainly hurting for workers right now, so why not allow prisoners to apprentice?
This position I can actually agree with. I am sure there are jobs that prisoners could assume that are undesirable to others. Their upkeep will not be as costly as that of a law-abiding citizen with a family to support, hence the work need not be as arduous.

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.

Oops sorry trying to keep up with this thread.

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


That ignorant mob is comprised of most of the nation.

I fixed it so it's readable

Behavior does not change rights. That's what makes them rights, not priveledges. Besides, we've all hurt people in our lives. Does that mean we shouldn't be able to vote?
What is the objective, ontological reason for their existence as such? What makes them not a means to an end, but something that exists in and of itself?

And in any case, definitely people do harm others in the course of their lives. This is usually unintentional, and if it isn't, it tends not to be so great as to significantly deprive them of their freedom. Criminal behaviour almost always involves a great diminishment of one's personal freedoms.

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.
Excellent.

Because people don't want that unless they're not quite right in the head. And if they're not quite right in the head, punishment isn't really a detterent. In fact, if punishment were a detterent, crime rates should theoretically be lower in places with high rates of punishment, like Texas. There are two ways to lower crime rates: live in a dictatorship that uses fear tactics to completely immobilise criminals, or eliminate the causes of crime through education and rehabilitation. Which would you prefer?

So it's not possible for sane people to disagree with any law?

What you're really advocating here is punishing rational people for being self-interested.

And - does Canada HAVE a 'right to a job'? (Plus.. although my wife HAS been to Canada, I have not... it might be no more real than Narnia...)

It isn't a matter of 'fair'... it is a matter of why?

WHY does EVERYONE have a 'claim to rights'?

I've already clearly shown that 'rights' are an aspect of a society... granted BY that society. Which means... that society can choose NOT to grant those rights, also.

I believe Canada has some sort of right to not being denied a job without reason.
My point is: if one person has a right, everyone else has to have that right too. If ordinary citizens have a particular right, criminals should have it too, regardless of their behaviour.

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:

I've yet to see any one explain why a choice in ice cream flavor is different than a choice to engage in sexual interaction.

Behavior does not change rights. That's what makes them rights, not priveledges. Besides, we've all hurt people in our lives. Does that mean we shouldn't be able to vote?

Only if they're inalienable rights, and I don't think any rights should be inalienable.

Looks like a show and dance to me.

What's this legally thing. Shouldn't the big bold capatilised words read "children can not consent" not "CHILDREN CANNOT LEGALLY CONSENT"

Again care to explain why consent to sexual interaction isn't like consent to popcorn and a movie.

Children can consent to popcorn and a movie (an age appropriate movie), ONLY because we delegate that consent to them, because of the low risk.

Sexual intercourse, on a childs body, is physically likely to cause harm. Sexual intercourse is also likely to psychologically harm a child.

For both of those reasons, the law does not allow us to delegate that 'choice' to children.

Children lack the ability to truly consent - even to popcorn, because their brains simply do not process information in the same way as a mature brain... they cannot 'calculate' ramifications and reactions to their actions, the way a mature brain can... whether that is popcorn or paedophilia.

They are granted to us by birth.

How?

You speak of 'rights' as some metaphysical sounding imbuement of the soul.

Only if they're inalienable rights, and I don't think any rights should be inalienable.
He has just argued against an objective nature of things. Now he seems to aver that rights are objective and inalienable. A self-contradiction, it would seem.

The judgement we're making about people who commit crimes is that they've chosen to commit those crimes. They knew what the punishments were, and they committed the crimes anyway. That's voluntary acceptance of consequences.

But if people are given the death penalty, we are also judging their worth. We're making the desicion about whether or not they are good enough to live. That is arrogant and hypocritical.

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

I don't believe I'm spammed anything. The paragraph was relevent in every one of the 8 or 10 cases.

But if people are given the death penalty, we are also judging their worth. We're making the desicion about whether or not they are good enough to live. That is arrogant and hypocritical.

Only if you make the death penality decision after the fact (which is the reason I oppose flexibility in sentencing).

If a given crime carries a mandatory death sentence, then it's the criminal who is choosing it for himself.

Because people don't want that unless they're not quite right in the head. And if they're not quite right in the head, punishment isn't really a detterent. In fact, if punishment were a detterent, crime rates should theoretically be lower in places with high rates of punishment, like Texas. There are two ways to lower crime rates: live in a dictatorship that uses fear tactics to completely immobilise criminals, or eliminate the causes of crime through education and rehabilitation. Which would you prefer?

This is a ridiculous argument.

If punishment were a deterrent, crime rates should be lower.

Maybe they ARE lower than they would be?

As to your 'two choice' system - if I have to pick on of your two models, I'll pick the dictatorship - because that is REAL, and the other one relies on all people being equally inclined not to commit crimes... which is clearly imagination.

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 not been advocating for the right to hurt people.

Only if you make the death penality decision after the fact (which is the reason I oppose flexibility in sentencing).

If a given crime carries a mandatory death sentence, then it's the criminal who is choosing it for himself.
Yep, by the very assent they themselves give to the legal regime.

The only reason/way you would sympathize with such perverted human beings is if you are/ have had thoughts of being a pedophile. Other than that, we should re-educate them not let their desires be played out in another means, because no matter what ALTERNATIVE means there are, sooner or later they will want the real thing, so you really don't solve anything.

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

Every time I reply to a post two more pages of posts are added. The errors are simply done as a result of haste. If I slowed down more the typos and spelling errors would deminish.

It isn't better to give a criminal a job then to feed and house a law-abiding citizen. The problem is, many people don't support incarceration because they think of it as a "free ride" for criminals. That's why I suggested that criminals be allowed to work. The trades are certainly hurting for workers right now, so why not allow prisoners to apprentice?

So - trades will then move into the hands of the criminals? Effectively, creating an elite artisan CONVICT class?

If you were being serious and realistic... if you were advocating that prisoners should 'earn their keep' through something useful, like providing 'free' labour for construction of civic and community housing and buildings... laying railroad tracks, building roads and bridges, that kind of thing - I'd be inclined to agree.

But, taking away 'skill' work from law-abiding citizens is insanity.

This is a ridiculous argument.

If punishment were a deterrent, crime rates should be lower.

Maybe they ARE lower than they would be?

As to your 'two choice' system - if I have to pick on of your two models, I'll pick the dictatorship - because that is REAL, and the other one relies on all people being equally inclined not to commit crimes... which is clearly imagination.

Good call. From a political viewpoint, dictatorships are the only governments which actually work the way they are intended anyway... Gotta say i'm with you on pretty much all the comments you've posted on this issue. Good work!

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.

And what is sex truly? Is it a scientificly proven fact that sex is anything truly?

If you were being serious and realistic... if you were advocating that prisoners should 'earn their keep' through something useful, like providing 'free' labour for construction of civic and community housing and buildings... laying railroad tracks, building roads and bridges, that kind of thing - I'd be inclined to agree.

Essentially undesirable jobs, as I stated. I'd be so inclined too in such a scenario.

So - trades will then move into the hands of the criminals? Effectively, creating an elite artisan CONVICT class?

If you were being serious and realistic... if you were advocating that prisoners should 'earn their keep' through something useful, like providing 'free' labour for construction of civic and community housing and buildings... laying railroad tracks, building roads and bridges, that kind of thing - I'd be inclined to agree.

But, taking away 'skill' work from law-abiding citizens is insanity.

Hehe yeah, bring back the chain gang!

I don't want to punish anyone. I want to help those who are so messed-up that they feel the need to hurt others.

It's a cute idea, but how realistic is it?

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.

The matter psychological impedaments is quack psychology. I consider the argument analogous.

It's a cute idea, but how realistic is it?
It's realistic if rehabilitation is scientifically proven to work, and is only used in cases where it will actually have an effect; in all other cases, punishment would remain the deterrent par excellence.

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.

I am in full agreement.

Annoucement: To all the people attacking me, I can say no more. I've wasted enough time defending my belief while people stray from the issue at hand. I've got an actual life, surprisingly enough, and have places I need to be. Obviously, my refraining from fufilling my duties simply to argue with all of you would be futile, since none of you can be convinced.
I apologise to anyone whose comments I could not reply to. I'm sure you can soon enough find some else willing to argue with you. For now, however, I hold fast to my beliefs, as idealistic as they may seem. Unwavering adherence to beleifs is the driving force behind change. You may not think my mission as worthy as the mission of those who fought for the right's of other minorities, but that's your belief. I have a right to think that criminals are real people, and criminals have a right to be given a second chance. You have a right to disagree. However, you do not have the right to judge an entire group of people just because you have been indoctrined with some absurd ideology in which people's worth is temporary and forfeitable.
I remain steadily adhered to the idea that human worth is a permanent, irreversable thing. You may attempt to argue this point, but any rebuttles will be in vain, as I do not plan on ever returning to this thread. Perhaps one day you will understand the empathy I have for other people. Or perhaps you will continue to feel as though people can only be valuable if they fit some invisible objective standard of what is "good." Regardless, your personal beliefs are not of consequence to me, any more than mine should be of consequence to you.

The matter psychological impedaments is quack psychology. I consider the argument analogous.
I ask you to prove this.

I believe Canada has some sort of right to not being denied a job without reason.


Well... does it or doesn't it?

Not that it matters, I guess... being an incarcerated rapist sounds like a good 'reason' not to give someone a job...


My point is: if one person has a right, everyone else has to have that right too.


That way lies chaos... and the sort of arguments that Nexus 'person' has been making.


If ordinary citizens have a particular right, criminals should have it too, regardless of their behaviour.

Why?

Apart - obviously - from the fact that incarcerating a criminal takes away their 'right' to move freely?

You really need to explain WHERE you think these 'rights' come from... and WHY they should be applied indiscriminately?

I've yet to see any one explain why a choice in ice cream flavor is different than a choice to engage in sexual interaction.

I've explained it twice. You've singularly failed to respond.

But if people are given the death penalty, we are also judging their worth. We're making the desicion about whether or not they are good enough to live. That is arrogant and hypocritical.

No - you create another strawman.

If we give someone the death penalty, we are preventing them from reoffending in most certain terms.

It is nothing to do with if they are 'good enough' to live, or 'judging their worth'... it is a simple matter of removing danger, and the fact that they have exempted themselves from the rules of propriety that would 'protect' them from such removal.

Umm...her personality?

You are aware are you not what it is that effects personality? That being the environment one grows up in. Who's to say that if Mother Terresa had grown up in Hitler's environment she wouldn't have gotten Hitler's personality?

Hehe yeah, bring back the chain gang!

It's the only 'sensible' way to employ someone that is an active drain through their own design. At least - that's how I see it.

However, you do not have the right to judge an entire group of people just because you have been indoctrined with some absurd ideology in which people's worth is temporary and forfeitable.
I remain steadily adhered to the idea that human worth is a permanent, irreversable thing. .
No less absurd than your claim that rights are inalienable and objectively valuable is, something you failed to evidence.

You are aware are you not what it is that effects personality? That being the environment one grows up in. Who's to say that if Mother Terresa had grown up in Hitler's environment she wouldn't have gotten Hitler's personality?
That flows from the argument that humans are a blank slate and have no thing such as an intrinsic human nature, which I reject completely. Her makeup was different to Hitler's. Sure, environment plays a role. It takes two to tango though, and genetic makeup is that second partner.

Now he's just being ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is the consept that one knows what a person would do if they where in another persons shoes for their intire lives. Do you discount the effects environment has on choices and personality?

It's realistic if rehabilitation is scientifically proven to work, and is only used in cases where it will actually have an effect; in all other cases, punishment would remain the deterrent par excellence.

The thing is... you need both.

Rehabilitation... well, it re-habilitates... which is 'cure'... not 'prevention'. Punishment provides the up-front incentive not to transgress, for those who might be tempted to do so.

I guess, ideally - we would actually need a third method... pre-habilitation... maybe in school... training at being a good citizen, that one can pass or fail depending on how one performs... with 'release' into the active society contingent on Graduation.

I remain steadily adhered to the idea that human worth is a permanent, irreversable thing.

At least now we know that you do think that rights are inalienable.

Which, of course, robs people of the freedom to commodify their own rights.

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

You're expecting people to disagree with that?

what he/she said!

step over the line(touch a child)..then i am league with the kill em folk..

i am against thought police/crime..some will argue it will eventually manifest itself and eventually a child will be harmed....then you punish..not before..pre emptive punishment is the most vile of all the nannystaters and the rights/lefts agenda to control or make you think the same as them.

hurt a child...have a really miserable time until you die..pretty simple.

There is no such thing as a 'willing child'. Children lack the mental 'hardware' to give reasoned consent... thus, ANY sexual encounter with a child is nonconsensual.

Why is there special hardware needed for sexual consent and not other choices a child is allowed to make?

The thing is... you need both.
Agreed.

Rehabilitation... well, it re-habilitates... which is 'cure'... not 'prevention'. Punishment provides the up-front incentive not to transgress, for those who might be tempted to do so.
For the time being that is indeed so. I believe some individuals are beyond rehabilitation though, and for them punishment is the only solution, both so as to prevent crime as well as to achieve justice.

I guess, ideally - we would actually need a third method... pre-habilitation... maybe in school... training at being a good citizen, that one can pass or fail depending on how one performs... with 'release' into the active society contingent on Graduation.
I would go for that. It's sort of rings of Plato's Republic in its scope, which many would find objectionable. I find it perfectly reasonable though. Especially in a minarchist society which allows greater freedoms to adults.

Why is there special hardware needed for sexual consent and not other choices a child is allowed to make?

I haven't been following your argument very closely, but it seems that they're asserting that the special equipment is required for all of those choices, but we allow kids to make some anyway because the wrong decision doesn't carry negative consequences.

Annoucement: To all the people attacking me, I can say no more. I've wasted enough time defending my belief while people stray from the issue at hand. I've got an actual life, surprisingly enough, and have places I need to be. Obviously, my refraining from fufilling my duties simply to argue with all of you would be futile, since none of you can be convinced.
I apologise to anyone whose comments I could not reply to. I'm sure you can soon enough find some else willing to argue with you. For now, however, I hold fast to my beliefs, as idealistic as they may seem. Unwavering adherence to beleifs is the driving force behind change. You may not think my mission as worthy as the mission of those who fought for the right's of other minorities, but that's your belief. I have a right to think that criminals are real people, and criminals have a right to be given a second chance. You have a right to disagree. However, you do not have the right to judge an entire group of people just because you have been indoctrined with some absurd ideology in which people's worth is temporary and forfeitable.
I remain steadily adhered to the idea that human worth is a permanent, irreversable thing. You may attempt to argue this point, but any rebuttles will be in vain, as I do not plan on ever returning to this thread. Perhaps one day you will understand the empathy I have for other people. Or perhaps you will continue to feel as though people can only be valuable if they fit some invisible objective standard of what is "good." Regardless, your personal beliefs are not of consequence to me, any more than mine should be of consequence to you.

How rude.

How dare you suggest that others lack 'empathy' JUST because they disagree with you?

How dare you imply that any opinion other than your own is a matter of 'indoctrination'?

I actually considered this debate interesting, and a valid use of my time, and now I feel like I've been wasting my time on an 'enfant terrible' with delusions of grandeur.

"I'm right, you are all wrong... because I say so, and I'm better than you. And if you don't like it, you must be a poopyhead. Now, I'm going, and I'm taking my ball."


You are disingenuous. You presented a premise of inalienable rights that you have consistently failed to expand upon, explain, or defend... and yet, you claim that the 'fault' in disagreement, lies with your opponents.

I'm disappointed.

There is a difference between right and wrong. So humping a cow is a form of natural sexuality? Good luck with that.

Pedophilia is wrong and immoral. As humans, we should not degrade our own values. We must protect the youth! I doubt these pedophiles would want substitutes of children. I think they would wnat to the real children to have fun with.

Humping a cow is very natural. Although from what I've read goats are prefered. The act of seaking pleasure is very natural indead. People like to do things that feal good to do. Care to explain why cow humping is unnatural? Or maybe you would like to explain why we should use holy water and cusifixes on dogs that hump human legs?

I would go for that. It's sort of rings of Plato's Republic in its scope, which many would find objectionable. I find it perfectly reasonable though. Especially in a minarchist society which allows greater freedoms to adults.

So sort of a means test for majority? If you can demonstrate that you're competent to be an adult, we'll let you be an adult.

Why is there special hardware needed for sexual consent and not other choices a child is allowed to make?

If you search back through my other posts, you'll find one a couple of pages ago that addresses this 'issue'.

So sort of a means test for majority? If you can demonstrate that you're competent to be an adult, we'll let you be an adult.
Essentially, yes. The education system should encourage appropriate behaviours in a society where maximum freedom exists. A society for responsible individuals to put it another way. Human nature is a factor, but I think humans can be educated to be good citizens without their creativity being stifled. If this helps prevent crime, all the better.

It is just like a criminal to try and justify their actions. Pedophiles can argue all they want the the child knew what was going on but that will never be accepted.

No one ever does in direct contradiction to what they feel is wrong thus you are correect in a way. Although it is to be noted the crime results from laws. You can't break a law that was never written. Not every one subject to the rule of law agrees with the laws they are subject too.

How very observant of you. Nice try with you logical leap thing.

I shall however point out the abvios. Less some one commits a crime they are not a criminal. Would you like to alledge that I've committed some crime?

For the time being that is indeed so. I believe some individuals are beyond rehabilitation though, and for them punishment is the only solution, both so as to prevent crime as well as to achieve justice.


Indeed. I agree. Punishment is still going to be needed... to make the 'incentive' valid, to deal with those who cannot be rehabilitated... and - in extreme cases... well, to deal more forcefully with those who are a danger.


I would go for that. It's sort of rings of Plato's Republic in its scope, which many would find objectionable. I find it perfectly reasonable though. Especially in a minarchist society which allows greater freedoms to adults.

I'm all in favour of greater freedoms... in an 'an it harm none, do as thou wilt' tradition. And - if one 'qualifies' as an adult, one 'earns' greater freedoms.

I guess, I'm talking about citizenship that relies on actually practising 'citizenship'.

How rude.
~snip
How dare you suggest that others lack 'empathy' JUST because they disagree with you?
~snip

Sorta like telling people they lack the stomach if they don't agree with you huh?

1.Physical.
2.Mental.

Children are not mature enough to be agreeing to such actions. Some may agree at the point but without fully understanding everything involved and unprepared for the emotional consequences afterwards. They are just not mature. Hence the term "children"

Physical problems including infection, flat out physical harm and pregnancy.

As to the mental aspects.

Getting a Teddy puts a child in a position to lose a teddy bear and thus suffer the truama of loss. Should we ban children from receiving stuffed animals?

Care to explain more on this mental truama stuff in regards to sexual imteractions?

I'm all in favour of greater freedoms... in an 'an it harm none, do as thou wilt' tradition. And - if one 'qualifies' as an adult, one 'earns' greater freedoms.

I guess, I'm talking about citizenship that relies on actually practising 'citizenship'.
Funny that Plato's political treatise actually offers something of benefit to minarchism. Which leaves one question unanswered; what would happen to those who failed to pass such an education?

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?

All of your solutions imply that the government needs to act on the issue. Why not just give them the benifit of the doubt? If we know they're paedophiles, that means that they've already commited a crime, and already served thier sentence. Once they have, we have no right to punish them further. I would be insulted if the government messed with my brain, gave me government sponsored porn, or forced me to attend virtual sex with children therapy after I had already served my alloted time for my crime. In conclusion, the best solution is inaction.

I notice you ignored my first point. Does this case now excuse pedophiles from any punishment because of one supposed bad case from 20 years ago?

Not one several. And i never suggested the people should be excussed for abusing people.

Funny that Plato's political treatise actually offers something of benefit to minarchism. Which leaves one question unanswered; what would happen to those who failed to pass such an education?

They could try again.

Without full access to adult privledges, they'd effectively be a sort of Nietzschean sheep race. The untermench.

They could try again.

Without full access to adult privledges, they'd effectively be a sort of Nietzschean sheep race. The untermench.
Rationally, the proposition is attractive. From a humane point of view? Not so desirable. Rationaly must supersede emotions in certain cases though...

Utterly irrelevant what your personal feelings are. The fact is, they can help provide information on the effects of certain actions on one's personality. Therefore they are useful.

My personal feelings a very relevent.

In this discussion it was already mentioned how a member of the medical profession suggested memories of sex abuse to a patient receiving hypnosis and that is not the only case. Shrinks are just as prone to ignorance and superstition as the general public. Only difference is when a shrink suggests there is truth in a matter gnorance and superstition it's a professional opinion when a lay man suggests there is truth in a matter gnorance and superstition it's just his opinion.

Sorta like telling people they lack the stomach if they don't agree with you huh?

Not really. I don't think I did say anyone lacked stomach for not agreeing with me...

*snip
There are professional, scientific psychologists and then there are quacks. The existence of the latter doesn't invalidate the work of the former. Hence your argument is weak. You are basing your rejection of psychological theory on a hunch and poor logic.

Perhaps you can explain what psychological misconduct has to do with the morality of child molestation? After all no one on here is saying anything about what shrinks think of the subject. The act itself is reprehensible and just because some disreputable people get people to make stuff up doesn't change that for those it occurs to it is a very tramatic event. It really is too bad that pedophiles don't stay in jail instead of getting out and reoffending again.

psychological misconduct is your interpretatation. I know of two shrinks who where involved in what you call psychological misconduct and they believe they did nothing wrong. In fact these two shrinks went on to write books on sex and children that are now considered to be the holy grail.

But you misinterpreted the context of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the same misinformed public that is ready to believe just about anything so long as a shrink says it. Still exists today. It's the same mob. It's the same witch hunt.

Perhaps you could explain to us what child is even interested in consenting without the adults prior suggestion?

Seriously, you come up with a six year old who bullied a fully grown man into sex and then I might start listening to you.

Why would a need to find a 6 yo who bullied a full grown man into having sex?

(This post is about 4 pages long, so I highlighted (bold) and inflated (increased the size of) important facts.)
(Most of it is statistics, but I suggest you read them to understand the explanation and conclusion at the end)
(Don´t respond if you haven´t read it all.)

There are very few people in this entire thread that I respect.

Out of maybe 30 people, i´d say 3 or 4. Maybe.

Specifically Grave n idle.

Terrorist Cakes, you´re absolutely incorrect. Objectivity is created by humans, and therefore an illusion. Objectivity is decided by society. I´m sure if you were raped as a child, you´d have a different view on bad and good. Correct, good can only be defined by its opposite - bad. However, we, as a society, have decided that being raped is bad.

Especially when it happens to children. Unsuspecting targets that may not fully comprehend the situation. Targets that don´t understand, especially before the age of 7, when (scientifically indentified), children begin to understand concepts clearly and with better accuracy. This warps their minds. Lasting effects of psychological torture that breed all sorts of problems. Including a vicious chain of sexually abused children.

One of (or THE) worst of crimes (objectivtiy there, bud)... and you don´t think execution is a viable solution?

You like objectivity, Terrorist Cakes? Here are facts.

Over 75% of serial rapists report they were sexually abused as youngsters.

Nearly 70% of child sex offenders have between 1 and 9 victims; at least 20% have 10 to 40 victims.

An average serial child molester may have as many as 400 victims in his lifetime.

Victims of child sexual abuse report more substance abuse problems. 70-80% of sexual abuse survivors report excessive drug and alcohol use.

Almost 80% initially deny abuse or are tentative in disclosing. Of those who do disclose, approximately 75% disclose accidentally. Additionally, of those who do disclose, more than 20% eventually recant even though the abuse occurred.

Also, from a study performed by the Bureau of Justice...

A study was conducted of 9,691 male sex offenders, including 4,295 child molesters, who were tracked for 3 years after their release from prisons in 15 States in 1994. The 9,691 are two-thirds of all the male sex offenders released from prisons in the United States in 1994.

Highlights-

Within 3 years following their release, 5.3% of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime.

On average the 9,691 sex offenders served 3 1/2 years of their 8-year sentence.

Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime.

The 9,691 released sex offenders included 4,295 men who were in prison for child molesting.

Let us examine these facts, shall we?

Almost 80% initially deny abuse or are tentative in disclosing. Of those who do disclose, approximately 75% disclose accidentally.

This allows the offender, who has chosen to violate societies rules and "step outside of civilization." (Thanks, Grave n idle) to continue violating children. This is proven by this fact.. "An average serial child molester may have as many as 400 victims in his lifetime."

An AVERAGE serial child molester. 400.

Oh, and my "vicious cycle" theory? Over 75% of serial rapists report they were sexually abused as youngsters.

75 percent.

Nearly 70% of child sex offenders have between 1 and 9 victims; at least 20% have 10 to 40 victims.

That leaves 10% that can have up to 400 victims.

There were 4,295 child molesters in the study performed. That means 70% abused (an average of) 5 children. 20% abused an average of 25 children. And 10% could have abused up to 400 children. Let us make an average of 150 for that.

Now thats.. 15032 plus 21475 plus 64425 victims. 100932. That is on AVERAGE, for 4,295 child molestors.

Now, these-

On average the 9,691 sex offenders served 3 1/2 years of their 8-year sentence. This goes along completely with Grave n idle´s elimination proposal. Eliminate them from society through execution, and they can do no harm.

3 and 1/2 years for ruining the lives of up to 400 people. And this isn´t deserving of the death penalty?

Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime.

Four times. Think of that. They don´t change in 3 and 1/2 years, or 8, or ever. They´ve already let what they felt control them, and have chosen to ignore restraint.

Now-
Within 3 years following their release, 5.3% of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime.

This is including the regular sexual assaults (Not on children), but let´s go with it anyways. 5.3%. 50% of the studied population were child molesters, so we can (almost) safely reason that 2.65% are recidivists. That´s 113 people.

Another 79 plus 565 plus 1695 victims. 2339 MORE victims.

As Grave n idle said, execution is a permanent and pragmatic solution. To execute a convicted child molester is the only defense we have.

As a grand total, we have (an average of) 100932 plus 2339 CHILD victims. 103271 total victims of child abuse. And that´s ONLY 2/3rd of the prison population of MALE sexual offenders released in ONE year.

But you´re forgetting the "vicious cycle" theory. If this rate of child molestation occurs at a 75% rate (Over 75% of serial rapists report they were sexually abused as youngsters.) at a 25-1 ratio (100,000 victims compared to 4,000 offenders), then we´re in for one hell of a mess. 1,936,331. Nearly 2 million victims.

Some extra facts, now, to back up my (already heavily backed up) response.
1 in 4 girls is sexually abused before the age of 18.
1 in 6 boys is sexually abused before the age of 18.
1 in 5 children are solicited sexually while on the internet.
Nearly 70% of all reported sexual assaults (including assaults on adults) occur to children ages 17 and under.
An estimated 39 million survivors of childhood sexual abuse exist in America today.

Take a look at that last one. 39 million. SURVIVORS. That is a ridiculously insane number.

All of you who suggest alternative forms of satisfying pedophiles (Which is sick to begin with) are utterly insane. Do you taunt alcohol or drugs in the face of an alcoholic or drug addict? No. This raises their urges and their desires. Do you really want a pedophile to be encouraged (in his or her mind) to prey on children?

And, yes, the word is prey. PREY. Child molesters are PREDATORY. It is not simply the sexual impulse or sexual drive. It is the PREDATORY aspect of child molestation. Preying on the INNOCENT and HELPLESS. That is the difference (because some of you have brought up this point (about homosexuality being wrong before)) between homosexuality and pedophilia.

This is something that should not be encouraged in any way WHATSOEVER. There is no realistic solution for these people that violate the rights and ruin the LIVES of others (and others after them), besides execution.

The only way to protect ourselves from these predators of children is to get rid of them. The only way we can securely do that is through execution.

I am glad, Terrorist Cakes, that you were never the target of child molestation. But I am not glad of the opinion you have adopted, given your good fortune. 1 out of 6. You´re one of the 83% of the population that was not molested as a child.

Objectivity, as I said, is an illusion. Give it up. We have decided, as a society (and I think you´ll agree), that rape and child molestation are bad. Pedophiles have to control their urges, as someone said. I can´t find the quote, but it was something like this.. "Do I dream of men? yes. Do i fantasize about men? yes. But do I fuck every man I see? No." You may say "But atleast you can have sex with some men!" And you´re absolutely correct. The difference is.. murders and pedophiles need to control their urges. If they don´t, they are giving in to their PREDATORY inhibitions. Their instincts to be predatory and CAUSE HARM. To do so is not only WRONG (This is not subjective) but has to be stopped.

The only pragmatic solution is execution. If anyone can refute this point, I dare you to try.

I'll back that statement up. My sex drive is particularly strong. I don't know any...way I could prove it, but if mine for good old-fashioned age-appropriate women is as strong as I feel it to be, I can only imagine what not having a legal or moral release of it would be like. Well, I kinda did when I taught high school, but my career depended on my finding an appropriate release elsewhere. I'd be lying if I said I didn't fantasize about some of the more scantily clad tartlets cruising the halls. The thing that always shook me out of that particular Lolitic reverie was the fact that I'm never attracted to bodies and nubility alone for more than a few minutes. All they'd have to do is try to talk to me and that would have been it.

Which makes me wonder about the intellectual sophistication of a pedophile. Surely they can't crave a relationship with someone who can barely converse. I've read only two books which could be considered as dealing with this topic. Obviously Lolita and Nude Men by Amanda Filipachi, wherein the 11-year-old daughter of someone the lead male character models for seduces him. It isn't perfectly convincing, but it is well written and won the then-young writer (I think she was 20 or so at the time) several awards and mentions.


WoW a truth teller. (faints)

Children can consent to popcorn and a movie (an age appropriate movie), ONLY because we delegate that consent to them, because of the low risk.

Sexual intercourse, on a childs body, is physically likely to cause harm. Sexual intercourse is also likely to psychologically harm a child.

For both of those reasons, the law does not allow us to delegate that 'choice' to children.

Children lack the ability to truly consent - even to popcorn, because their brains simply do not process information in the same way as a mature brain... they cannot 'calculate' ramifications and reactions to their actions, the way a mature brain can... whether that is popcorn or paedophilia.

I never suggested intercourse exclusivly although you do. Teens are ready for intercourse as the a big enough to recieve. Yet many are still not considered ready to consent.

Pyschological harm is a imaginary construction for the most part. I think sexual interactions carry about the same risk of harm as popcorn and a movie provided risk of infection, physical injury, and unwanted pregnancy are accounted for.

I do not wish to see children put at risk of harm or harmed any more than you do.

I ask you to prove this.

Sorry can't hard to disprove quack psycology with quack psychology.

But I will leave you with this. What psychological scars would there be if intergenerational sex was widely accepted amongest the general public instead of rejected as gross and unholsome?

I've explained it twice. You've singularly failed to respond.

Sorry I didn't follow fast enough. My fualt shoot me now.

Sorry can't hard to disprove quack psycology with quack psychology.

But I will leave you with this. What psychological scars would there be if intergenerational sex was widely accepted amongest the general public instead of rejected as gross and unholsome?
To my mind, I can't think of any. I'd actually have to study the subjects of such activities using scientific method. Otherwise, my opinion would be nothing more than a belief. Hence, I value psychologists who actually do their job properly.

That flows from the argument that humans are a blank slate and have no thing such as an intrinsic human nature, which I reject completely. Her makeup was different to Hitler's. Sure, environment plays a role. It takes two to tange though, and genetic makeup is that second partner.

I'm with the blank slate argument.

I haven't been following your argument very closely, but it seems that they're asserting that the special equipment is required for all of those choices, but we allow kids to make some anyway because the wrong decision doesn't carry negative consequences.

Yup you didn't follow. While I agree that intergeneration sexual interactions can have negative consequences I attribute most of the negative consequences to a witch hunting public not the themselves. What I'm asking is why special consent is needed in regards to sex and not everything else.

I'm with the blank slate argument.
Then we're bound to disagree on the matter.

Sorry can't hard to disprove quack psycology with quack psychology.

But I will leave you with this. What psychological scars would there be if intergenerational sex was widely accepted amongest the general public instead of rejected as gross and unholsome?

Intergenerational sex? This isn't sex. This is rape, or abuse. We are talking about predatory sex. Sex without consent. Hell, without the ability to consent.

Homosexuality used to be portrayed as gross and unwholesome. Some still find it that way, but atleast it is somewhat accepted now. The difference, as I stated above, is that it is consentual.

"Intergenerational sex" does not exist because children do not have the ability to consent, and because pedophiles are predatory in nature.

You're wrong. And please, get an english dictionary.

we should castrate them, cut of their limbs, print a letter P on their foreheads with a searingly hot iron rod and put them to forced labour for a period of 30 years, minimum of course.

We just need smarter kids. I say we grind up books and inject them into their brains.

Paedophiles are people too

Sick disgusting people.

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.
x 8

DSN... You really do not need to make the exact same post (misspellings and all) 8 times in a thread. It seems you've stopped, but please don't bring it up again.

the problem is catholic church which wants to stop pedophile discrimination. they want themselves to be legalised.

Pedophiles / Paedophiles aren't people.

Pedophiles are the Gods way of giving us new and innovative ways to test new weapons and methods of destroying each other on live flesh.

One of my buddies reminded me of the Japanese habit of testing new swords on condemed prisoners. He said:

"With this sword, I can cut through four pedos. It's the new standard."

I think that's pretty good, right there. Except replace sword with "rusty spoon."

the problem is catholic church which wants to stop pedophile discrimination. they want themselves to be legalised.

No, the Catholic Church still hates Pedophiles and Gays. And they've been legalized since 325 A.D.

And they do procescute any priests they find raping children.

But, thank you for attempting to blame those evil Christians. Better luck next time ;)

oh, i belive their attempts to protect priests from catholic church accused of pedophilia are discriminative? and no, comparing few cases in america is not everything. pope himself issues a decrea to keep pedophile cases silent. better luck protecting emperor palpatine and church next time;)

snip[/SIZE]

Over 75% of serial rapists report they were sexually abused as youngsters.

They would it gains them symathothy.

An average serial child molester may have as many as 400 victims in his lifetime.

Rather an odd figure maybe the whole world was under water ones too.

Victims of child sexual abuse report more substance abuse problems. 70-80% of sexual abuse survivors report excessive drug and alcohol use.

Not every one who was ones involved in a intergenerational sexual interaction considers themselves to be a victim.

Almost 80% initially deny abuse or are tentative in disclosing. Of those who do disclose, approximately 75% disclose accidentally.

What's odd here is that there was an edit. It was suggested that 20% recanted even when there was abuse. It was edited out for some reason. I will still ask how would any know that there was abuse after the recant? A crystal ball perhaps?

Nearly 70% of child sex offenders have between 1 and 9 victims; at least 20% have 10 to 40 victims. That leaves 10% that can have up to 400 victims.[/B]

There were 4,295 child molesters in the study performed. That means 70% abused (an average of) 5 children. 20% abused an average of 25 children. And 10% could have abused up to 400 children. Let us make an average of 150 for that.

[B]Now thats.. 15032 plus 21475 plus 64425 victims. That is on AVERAGE, for 4,295 child molestors. Now,

On average the 9,691 sex offenders served 3 1/2 years of their 8-year sentence. This goes along completely with Grave n idle´s elimination proposal. Eliminate them from society through execution, and they can do no harm.

3 and 1/2 years for ruining the lives of up to 400 people. And this isn´t deserving of the death penalty?


Miserable statistical analysis. Also I wonder how many of supposed victims are of the belief that their lives are totally ruined. Your numbers are bizarre to say the least.


Preying on the INNOCENT and HELPLESS.

I think what you mean be innocent here is untouched by the filth that is sex. I think of them as helpless also.

You L337P30PL3Z

Are very representative of the type of people who participated in the 1980s satanic ritual sexual abuse witch hunts.

Intergenerational sex? This isn't sex. This is rape, or abuse. We are talking about predatory sex. Sex without consent. Hell, without the ability to consent.

Homosexuality used to be portrayed as gross and unwholesome. Some still find it that way, but atleast it is somewhat accepted now. The difference, as I stated above, is that it is consentual.

"Intergenerational sex" does not exist because children do not have the ability to consent, and because pedophiles are predatory in nature.

You're wrong. And please, get an english dictionary.

Would have took to long allthough now that things have slowed down I can take more time writting posts.

x 8

DSN... You really do not need to make the exact same post (misspellings and all) 8 times in a thread. It seems you've stopped, but please don't bring it up again.

It was pertanant 8 times.

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.

I agree, but they dont deserve a window.

They would it gains them symathothy.


Rather an odd figure maybe the whole world was under water ones too.



Not every one who was ones involved in a intergenerational sexual interaction considers themselves to be a victim.


What's odd here is that there was an edit. It was suggested that 20% recanted even when there was abuse. It was edited out for some reason. I will still ask how would any know that there was abuse after the recant? A crystal ball perhaps?



Miserable statistical analysis. Also I wonder how many of supposed victims are of the belief that their lives are totally ruined. Your numbers are bizarre to say the least.


Preying on the INNOCENT and HELPLESS.

I think what you mean be innocent here is untouched by the filth that is sex. I think of them as helpless also.

You L337P30PL3Z

Are very representative of the type of people who participated in the 1980s satanic ritual sexual abuse witch hunts.

This is no witch hunt. There is no intergenerational sex. That is rape or abuse of underaged children who cannot consent. Who are not accepting but have no way of denying. You sir, are an idiot. Innocent as in you believe in the "blank slate" theory. I'm assuming you mean the theory that states that humans are born with a blank state. When pedophiles prey on younger children who don't have a sense of perception yet, they warp and pervert their minds. Innocent as in not preyed upon, not taken advantage of. They are helpless because of what I just said, "they are not accepting but have no way of denying."

Also.. miserable statistical analysis? Check my numbers. Check my math. You are dead wrong, and my results are dead accurate. Bizzare? Not in the least.

And in response to the victims thing you said. (How many consider themselves victims?)

Every. Single. One.

What is a victim? Let us consult www.dictionary.com

1. One who is harmed or killed by another: a victim of a mugging.
2. One who is harmed by or made to suffer from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition: victims of war.
3. A person who is tricked, swindled, or taken advantage of: the victim of a cruel hoax.

"A person who is [tricked, swindled, or] taken advantage of."

This is the most pertinent one against your argument. Children cannot consent. Children don't have the ability, understanding, or peception to consent. They are BEING TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF. They are by definition a victim, and EVERY SINGLE ONE considers themself one.

Someone very close to me has had to suffer through this, and you have no right to tell me who considers themself a victim or not.

In response to the other stuff, I used only the part of the quote I needed. The edit was to bold and enlarge words.

You are an idiot.

You are an idiot.

Says it all right there does it? I'd respond more in depth but you have given me the perfect reason not to.

The only pragmatic solution is execution. If anyone can refute this point, I dare you to try.[/SIZE]

Thank you for this post. I hope you save it for re-publication whenever the need arises. The facts are disturbing.

I wish I knew for sure whether my sister-in-law was really molested by her father, along with all of her siblings. Unfortunately, she is not a credible person, suffering as she does from a personality disorder and extreme narcism. I realize, of course, that these emotional disturbances are exactly the kind of thing that manifest in some abuse survivors. She has steadfastly stuck to her story for 20+ years, and yet she has allowed her parents to babysit her children for over 11 years.

I don't understand this. I don't understand why someone who claims to have been repeatedly raped by her own father would allow that same man to be alone with her children, and why after claiming that her mother knew about the abuse all along and allowed it to happen, she would all that woman the same privaledge of being alone with her children? Why? This brings me to doubt the assertion that she was molested. Is this common in abuse survivors? To knowingly place their own children in harms way? Can someone explain this to me?

If I had no doubts I would be on these people like a duck on a junebug and be willing to testify to what their accuser has said. But I do have doubts because this gal is certifiabley nuts herself. She makes HORRIBLE choices and lives in the realm of fantasy. What are the odds that she would place her own children into the hands of a child molester? Got any numbers on that one?

the problem is catholic church which wants to stop pedophile discrimination. they want themselves to be legalised.

The Catholic Church has done a huge disservice to millions by pretending the big pink elephant in the room wasn't there. Shame on the Catholic Church. I hope every one of those pedophile priests burns in that hell they so believe in.

I suggest we have a "ring" of sorts, that goes around the erm... nut sack. This ring would incur a high voltage shock, at random intervals, no less than 4 hours apart, no greater than 30 minutes apart. Also, give the person they molested/raped/whatevered a sort of switch token where anytime they feel like shit they can press the switch and it'll invoke a 10,000 volt electric current through said pedophile's nuts. They will have to wear this the rest of their life. In the case that they try to remove it, it is also packed with a small ammount of C4 plastic explosive, where apon removal, it shall detonate. I think that is a punishment fitting of the crime.

Thank you for this post. I hope you save it for re-publication whenever the need arises. The facts are disturbing.

I wish I knew for sure whether my sister-in-law was really molested by her father, along with all of her siblings. Unfortunately, she is not a credible person, suffering as she does from a personality disorder and extreme narcism. I realize, of course, that these emotional disturbances are exactly the kind of thing that manifest in some abuse survivors. She has steadfastly stuck to her story for 20+ years, and yet she has allowed her parents to babysit her children for over 11 years.

I don't understand this. I don't understand why someone who claims to have been repeatedly raped by her own father would allow that same man to be alone with her children, and why after claiming that her mother knew about the abuse all along and allowed it to happen, she would all that woman the same privaledge of being alone with her children? Why? This brings me to doubt the assertion that she was molested. Is this common in abuse survivors? To knowingly place their own children in harms way? Can someone explain this to me?

If I had no doubts I would be on these people like a duck on a junebug and be willing to testify to what their accuser has said. But I do have doubts because this gal is certifiabley nuts herself. She makes HORRIBLE choices and lives in the realm of fantasy. What are the odds that she would place her own children into the hands of a child molester? Got any numbers on that one?


No, no numbers, just a theory. From what I gather, abuse survivors are more likely to not know how to deal with families, as they are potential pedophiles themselves. (not that all of them are, of course, just they could be). The way any adults relate to their families as they grow up and the way the handle their own families is immensely affected by the sexual abuse on the mother. Also, the way her mother reacted couldve have her think that it was right, seeing as her own mother allowed it to happen, or so she claims.
You should know that fabricated sexual abuse reports constitute only 1% to 4% of all reported cases. Of these reports, 75% are falsely reported by adults and 25% are reported by children. Also victims of child sexual abuse are more likely to experience major depressive disorder as adults. I couldn't tell you whether she's lying or not (I'm most definitely not an authority in the matter), but here is a personal experience so you can think about it and think about how her mother's behavior affected the child eventually, when she was a grown-up: My mom was working in a hospital, and a three year-old child was brought in, a victim of rape by her father. The doctor was really upset, and my mom had never seen him as much as growl, so she went over to see what had happened. He was obviously telling the mom she couldn't take the child again with her unless her father was no longer a threat and what she said was "it's her father. He can do anything he wants with her." Now, I'm sad to tell you that many people like that still exist. Also, and remember this is just a theory, I could imagine that she wanted her children to have a normal family, with grandparents and all. Some people think that other people "soften with years", so maybe she thinks that. Maybe being abused and with her mother's approval she doesn't really think much of it. I don't know though, and I don't understand it either, this is just theories I'm coming up with. But, wouldn't it be better if you consulted with a psychiatrist or an authority on the matter?
They could help you see the symptons of abuse or not, and act on their behalf if necessary. :)

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...
*Snipped for length*
It's true, pedophiles are people. Rapists are, too. And it's true that we shouldn't "write off" any of these people.

However, none of that has anything to do with how we choose to punish them or restrain them from harming others. People do awful things some times, and it's not necessary to dehumanize them in order to punish them.

To my mind, whenever any person decides to rape another--whether that other person is adult or child--then the attacker is giving up any right to the sanctity of their own body. They are deciding to live by the code that they get to do whatever they want, regardless of what their victim wants, and I view that as their resignation from the contract of mutual bodily respect that members of society are bound to follow.

Personally, I don't believe any rapist or child molester should be permitted to live. However, given the flaws in our system of justice, I also believe that it is inappropriate for the government to hand down death sentences. This forces me to adopt the compromise that rape and child molestation should carry the automatic minimum sentence of life with no possibility of parole. Ideally, the rapist/molester would be sentenced to hard labor, with all proceeds of their efforts going directly to charities and organizations that help rape victims.

Saying that a pedophile "is a person too" does not have any bearing on the issue. They committed an unacceptable act, and they renounced any claim they might once have had to have their own body treated with respect. If they are permitted to continue breathing, then they should feel very, very thankful.

I would actually find it quite amusing to have them all lined up and killed one by one. If they were to be killed, I'd hope they could make it creative, say, reinactments from movies, such as Final Destination. Put it on prime time or something... hell, have the "execution channel." But sence there was a (stupid) precedent setting case that outlawed the death penalty for rape, I say we go with the ball-ring.

"Jenkins, 63, doesn't flinch when he talks about it now. "Castration has done precisely what I wanted it to do," he said. "I have not had any sexual urges or desires in over two years. My mind is finally free of the deviant sexual fantasies I used to have about young girls."

Full article ---> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13709072/
(also in the Washington Post today)

(This post is about 4 pages long, so I highlighted (bold) and inflated (increased the size of) important facts.)
(Most of it is statistics, but I suggest you read them to understand the explanation and conclusion at the end)
(Don´t respond if you haven´t read it all.)

There are very few people in this entire thread that I respect.

Out of maybe 30 people, i´d say 3 or 4. Maybe.

Specifically Grave n idle.

Terrorist Cakes, you´re absolutely incorrect. Objectivity is created by humans, and therefore an illusion. Objectivity is decided by society. I´m sure if you were raped as a child, you´d have a different view on bad and good. Correct, good can only be defined by its opposite - bad. However, we, as a society, have decided that being raped is bad.

Especially when it happens to children. Unsuspecting targets that may not fully comprehend the situation. Targets that don´t understand, especially before the age of 7, when (scientifically indentified), children begin to understand concepts clearly and with better accuracy. This warps their minds. Lasting effects of psychological torture that breed all sorts of problems. Including a vicious chain of sexually abused children.

One of (or THE) worst of crimes (objectivtiy there, bud)... and you don´t think execution is a viable solution?

You like objectivity, Terrorist Cakes? Here are facts.

Over 75% of serial rapists report they were sexually abused as youngsters.

Nearly 70% of child sex offenders have between 1 and 9 victims; at least 20% have 10 to 40 victims.

An average serial child molester may have as many as 400 victims in his lifetime.

Victims of child sexual abuse report more substance abuse problems. 70-80% of sexual abuse survivors report excessive drug and alcohol use.

Almost 80% initially deny abuse or are tentative in disclosing. Of those who do disclose, approximately 75% disclose accidentally. Additionally, of those who do disclose, more than 20% eventually recant even though the abuse occurred.

Also, from a study performed by the Bureau of Justice...

A study was conducted of 9,691 male sex offenders, including 4,295 child molesters, who were tracked for 3 years after their release from prisons in 15 States in 1994. The 9,691 are two-thirds of all the male sex offenders released from prisons in the United States in 1994.

Highlights-

Within 3 years following their release, 5.3% of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime.

On average the 9,691 sex offenders served 3 1/2 years of their 8-year sentence.

Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime.

The 9,691 released sex offenders included 4,295 men who were in prison for child molesting.

Let us examine these facts, shall we?

Almost 80% initially deny abuse or are tentative in disclosing. Of those who do disclose, approximately 75% disclose accidentally.

This allows the offender, who has chosen to violate societies rules and "step outside of civilization." (Thanks, Grave n idle) to continue violating children. This is proven by this fact.. "An average serial child molester may have as many as 400 victims in his lifetime."

An AVERAGE serial child molester. 400.

Oh, and my "vicious cycle" theory? Over 75% of serial rapists report they were sexually abused as youngsters.

75 percent.

Nearly 70% of child sex offenders have between 1 and 9 victims; at least 20% have 10 to 40 victims.

That leaves 10% that can have up to 400 victims.

There were 4,295 child molesters in the study performed. That means 70% abused (an average of) 5 children. 20% abused an average of 25 children. And 10% could have abused up to 400 children. Let us make an average of 150 for that.

Now thats.. 15032 plus 21475 plus 64425 victims. 100932. That is on AVERAGE, for 4,295 child molestors.

Now, these-

On average the 9,691 sex offenders served 3 1/2 years of their 8-year sentence. This goes along completely with Grave n idle´s elimination proposal. Eliminate them from society through execution, and they can do no harm.

3 and 1/2 years for ruining the lives of up to 400 people. And this isn´t deserving of the death penalty?

Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime.

Four times. Think of that. They don´t change in 3 and 1/2 years, or 8, or ever. They´ve already let what they felt control them, and have chosen to ignore restraint.

Now-
Within 3 years following their release, 5.3% of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime.

This is including the regular sexual assaults (Not on children), but let´s go with it anyways. 5.3%. 50% of the studied population were child molesters, so we can (almost) safely reason that 2.65% are recidivists. That´s 113 people.

Another 79 plus 565 plus 1695 victims. 2339 MORE victims.

As Grave n idle said, execution is a permanent and pragmatic solution. To execute a convicted child molester is the only defense we have.

As a grand total, we have (an average of) 100932 plus 2339 CHILD victims. 103271 total victims of child abuse. And that´s ONLY 2/3rd of the prison population of MALE sexual offenders released in ONE year.

But you´re forgetting the "vicious cycle" theory. If this rate of child molestation occurs at a 75% rate (Over 75% of serial rapists report they were sexually abused as youngsters.) at a 25-1 ratio (100,000 victims compared to 4,000 offenders), then we´re in for one hell of a mess. 1,936,331. Nearly 2 million victims.

Some extra facts, now, to back up my (already heavily backed up) response.
1 in 4 girls is sexually abused before the age of 18.
1 in 6 boys is sexually abused before the age of 18.
1 in 5 children are solicited sexually while on the internet.
Nearly 70% of all reported sexual assaults (including assaults on adults) occur to children ages 17 and under.
An estimated 39 million survivors of childhood sexual abuse exist in America today.

Take a look at that last one. 39 million. SURVIVORS. That is a ridiculously insane number.

All of you who suggest alternative forms of satisfying pedophiles (Which is sick to begin with) are utterly insane. Do you taunt alcohol or drugs in the face of an alcoholic or drug addict? No. This raises their urges and their desires. Do you really want a pedophile to be encouraged (in his or her mind) to prey on children?

And, yes, the word is prey. PREY. Child molesters are PREDATORY. It is not simply the sexual impulse or sexual drive. It is the PREDATORY aspect of child molestation. Preying on the INNOCENT and HELPLESS. That is the difference (because some of you have brought up this point (about homosexuality being wrong before)) between homosexuality and pedophilia.

This is something that should not be encouraged in any way WHATSOEVER. There is no realistic solution for these people that violate the rights and ruin the LIVES of others (and others after them), besides execution.

The only way to protect ourselves from these predators of children is to get rid of them. The only way we can securely do that is through execution.

I am glad, Terrorist Cakes, that you were never the target of child molestation. But I am not glad of the opinion you have adopted, given your good fortune. 1 out of 6. You´re one of the 83% of the population that was not molested as a child.

Objectivity, as I said, is an illusion. Give it up. We have decided, as a society (and I think you´ll agree), that rape and child molestation are bad. Pedophiles have to control their urges, as someone said. I can´t find the quote, but it was something like this.. "Do I dream of men? yes. Do i fantasize about men? yes. But do I fuck every man I see? No." You may say "But atleast you can have sex with some men!" And you´re absolutely correct. The difference is.. murders and pedophiles need to control their urges. If they don´t, they are giving in to their PREDATORY inhibitions. Their instincts to be predatory and CAUSE HARM. To do so is not only WRONG (This is not subjective) but has to be stopped.

The only pragmatic solution is execution. If anyone can refute this point, I dare you to try.

The evidence certainly DOES seem to 'back it up'.

Excellent post, thanks for doing the homework. :)

But, wouldn't it be better if you consulted with a psychiatrist or an authority on the matter?
They could help you see the symptons of abuse or not, and act on their behalf if necessary. :)

Anytime I have ever tried to discuss someone else's problems with a therapist, they return me to the subject of myself. so....lol. I HAVE discussed it with a detective that was working on some family issues between my brother and his wife. He encouraged me to report the case as if it were a fact, and let family services sort it out. I was not comfortable with that. I can't put a man through that if I don't have any real proof that it ever happened. HOWEVER, my children have never been allowed near either of those people for any length of time, to err on the safe side without making waves. I just quietly decline the offers and always have.

Gotta get to work, more later....=)

I never suggested intercourse exclusivly although you do. Teens are ready for intercourse as the a big enough to recieve. Yet many are still not considered ready to consent.

Pyschological harm is a imaginary construction for the most part. I think sexual interactions carry about the same risk of harm as popcorn and a movie provided risk of infection, physical injury, and unwanted pregnancy are accounted for.


"Sexual consent" was the phrase you used, I believe. That is not limited to NON-intercourse, activity... so we have to assume intercourse MIGHT come under that banner.

You use nebulous terms - which are not helpful. You talk about paedophilia, and the matter of consent.... but - the 6 year old has different physical and mental capabilities to the 16 year old... even though both MIGHT be considered 'below the age of consent', legally.

The actual age at which the mental faculty to handle 'cause and effect' data properly matures - is in the late teens... 17 or 18. So - a sixteen year old cannot REALLY comprehend the ramifications of their actions. Sure - most sixteen year olds are, or wish to be, sexually active... but that doesn't mean their brains are capable of fully comprehending it.

A six year old cannot even approach that kind of data handling.


How is 'psychological harm' an imaginary construct? Victims of sexual abuse have a greater than usual (MUCH greater) potential to offend, in turn. The same for violent abuse.

We are 'conditioned' by our young-lif experiences... our usual development processes are 'broken' by abuse... that IS 'psychological harm', whether YOU like the idea or not.

As for your assertion that: "...sexual interactions carry about the same risk of harm as popcorn and a movie provided risk of infection, physical injury, and unwanted pregnancy are accounted for..."

Clearly this is ridiculous, on a number of levels:

1) 'are accounted for' is the operative term there... disease, injury, and pregnancy are not risks of popcorn. To say the things are the same, if you 'account' for the differences, is like saying Mount Everest is 'like' Holland, if you 'allow' for the altitude difference.

2) The risks of harm connected to ONE incidence of 'sexual' contact, are out of proportion to the risks of harm for one incidence of 'popcorn' contact. Even if you 'allow' for the differences, the SCOPE of difference is vast.

3) I have seen no evidence that popcorn leads to repeat offences. Sexual abuse, on the other hand, is clearly evidenced as causal. Even if we 'allow' the differences AND the scope... the NATURE of the harm is different.


I do not wish to see children put at risk of harm or harmed any more than you do.

This 'assertion' is not supported by your arguments.

Sorry I didn't follow fast enough. My fualt shoot me now.

A little over dramatic, perhaps?

After all - you are the poster that was complaining no one had responded... which is clearly not the case...

Intergenerational sex? This isn't sex. This is rape, or abuse. We are talking about predatory sex. Sex without consent. Hell, without the ability to consent.

Homosexuality used to be portrayed as gross and unwholesome. Some still find it that way, but atleast it is somewhat accepted now. The difference, as I stated above, is that it is consentual.

"Intergenerational sex" does not exist because children do not have the ability to consent, and because pedophiles are predatory in nature.

You're wrong. And please, get an english dictionary.

Exactly - it is a matter of consent, and the capacity for consent.

Sex with a child is rape. Every time. Because a child CAN NOT make a valid assertion of consent.

Yup you didn't follow. While I agree that intergeneration sexual interactions can have negative consequences I attribute most of the negative consequences to a witch hunting public not the themselves. What I'm asking is why special consent is needed in regards to sex and not everything else.

We don't ask for special consent.

A child doesn't ACTUALLY get to 'consent' to popcorn, either. That consent is given by adults (usually, one assumes, the parent).

The child gets to choose whether or not they WANT popcorn, but the consent is already given by the guardian.

Exactly - it is a matter of consent, and the capacity for consent.

Sex with a child is rape. Every time. Because a child CAN NOT make a valid assertion of consent.
It honestly terrifies me how many people don't seem to understand the concept of "consent." Or, at least, don't consider it important enough to worry about.

These are the people who equate consentual homosexual sex with child rape. These are the people who insist that a 12 year old girl "consented" to have sex with a 45 year old man, which makes it all ok. These are the people who seem to think that consentual fornication is wrong, while it's ok for a husband to force his wife to have sex against her wishes. These are the people who think that it's not child rape if the man gets "married" to his 14-year-old victim first.

Deeply sick. Deeply, deeply sick.

0- Quick realisation of threat followed by situation analysis then making the decision to fight the problem.

1- A rehabilitation program for people with those urges to help them overcome it.

2- Execution of criminals.

My approach to any problem is quite simple and as its seen above.

Does consent make things acceptable, in general?

There was that case a while ago, about those 2 Germans who had a consensual cannibalistic 'relationship'.

While consent is important, consent per se does noe make a thing acceptable.

Over 75% of serial rapists report they were sexually abused as youngsters.

They would it gains them symathothy.

An average serial child molester may have as many as 400 victims in his lifetime.

Rather an odd figure maybe the whole world was under water ones too.

Victims of child sexual abuse report more substance abuse problems. 70-80% of sexual abuse survivors report excessive drug and alcohol use.

Not every one who was ones involved in a intergenerational sexual interaction considers themselves to be a victim.

Almost 80% initially deny abuse or are tentative in disclosing. Of those who do disclose, approximately 75% disclose accidentally.

What's odd here is that there was an edit. It was suggested that 20% recanted even when there was abuse. It was edited out for some reason. I will still ask how would any know that there was abuse after the recant? A crystal ball perhaps?

Nearly 70% of child sex offenders have between 1 and 9 victims; at least 20% have 10 to 40 victims. That leaves 10% that can have up to 400 victims.[/B]

There were 4,295 child molesters in the study performed. That means 70% abused (an average of) 5 children. 20% abused an average of 25 children. And 10% could have abused up to 400 children. Let us make an average of 150 for that.

[B]Now thats.. 15032 plus 21475 plus 64425 victims. That is on AVERAGE, for 4,295 child molestors. Now,

On average the 9,691 sex offenders served 3 1/2 years of their 8-year sentence. This goes along completely with Grave n idle´s elimination proposal. Eliminate them from society through execution, and they can do no harm.

3 and 1/2 years for ruining the lives of up to 400 people. And this isn´t deserving of the death penalty?


Miserable statistical analysis. Also I wonder how many of supposed victims are of the belief that their lives are totally ruined. Your numbers are bizarre to say the least.


Preying on the INNOCENT and HELPLESS.

I think what you mean be innocent here is untouched by the filth that is sex. I think of them as helpless also.

You L337P30PL3Z

Are very representative of the type of people who participated in the 1980s satanic ritual sexual abuse witch hunts.

You cannot actually argue against any of the statistics, can you... so you try to make sarcastic asides, like 'underwater paedophiles'...?

As for asserting that JUST because someone makes use of evidence as a resource, that they are 'the same' as witch-hunters... perhaps, this is why you seem to prefer to make your arguments free from any taint of evidence or support?

Does consent make things acceptable, in general?

There was that case a while ago, about those 2 Germans who had a consensual cannibalistic 'relationship'.

While consent is important, consent per se does noe make a thing acceptable.
If somebody wants to donate their body to be eaten, why should it not be acceptable to honor their wishes?

It was pertanant 8 times.

No. Not really.

One isolated case of miscarriage of justice, does not overturn all the times the system HAS been right. It just means we need to be more careful.

It certainly is not such a strong argument that it needs to be copy and pasted onto every third page of the thread.

You are an idiot.

Don't lower yourself, my friend.

It would be a shame to see you the victim of mod action, because you responded to baiting.

Says it all right there does it? I'd respond more in depth but you have given me the perfect reason not to.

In other words - I have no way to argue against these 'fact' things you keep using, so I'll take this easy 'out'...?

If somebody wants to donate their body to be eaten, why should it not be acceptable to honor their wishes?


Let's say that the German court ruled: MURDER.

Let's say that the German court ruled: MURDER.
Well, then they ruled that the party in question did not, in fact, consent. Either that, or this might fall under the fuzzy topic of "assisted suicides."

It honestly terrifies me how many people don't seem to understand the concept of "consent." Or, at least, don't consider it important enough to worry about.

These are the people who equate consentual homosexual sex with child rape. These are the people who insist that a 12 year old girl "consented" to have sex with a 45 year old man, which makes it all ok. These are the people who seem to think that consentual fornication is wrong, while it's ok for a husband to force his wife to have sex against her wishes. These are the people who think that it's not child rape if the man gets "married" to his 14-year-old victim first.

Deeply sick. Deeply, deeply sick.

I agree. I very much agree.

Consent becomes... what's the phrase so popular at the moment... 'an inconvenient truth', to some arguments... so it is argued as being, itself, irrelevent.

Well, then they ruled that the party in question did not, in fact, consent. Either that, or this might fall under the fuzzy topic of "assisted suicides."


The Court ruled that no Contract/Agreement to do a thing that is immoral, illegal, or against Public Policy has any legal standing.

The Court ruled that no Contract/Agreement to do a thing that is immoral, illegal, or against Public Policy has any legal standing.
I don't know a thing about the case in question, so I can't really debate it with you.

At any rate, even if they did rule that it is "murder" for an individual to donate their body to be eaten, I would still say their ruling was wrong. We allow people to ask that their bodies be buried in the ground, to be eaten by all manner of other organisms, so why should being eaten by a fellow human be considered so reprehensible?

I don't know a thing about the case in question, so I can't really debate it with you.

At any rate, even if they did rule that it is "murder" for an individual to donate their body to be eaten, I would still say their ruling was wrong. We allow people to ask that their bodies be buried in the ground, to be eaten by all manner of other organisms, so why should being eaten by a fellow human be considered so reprehensible?


Let me tell you a standard thing that applies to ALL contracts, in every bit of the civilized world, and even in the larger part of the not-so-civilized world:

Any Contract/Agreement that goes against or circumvents conventional morality, legality, or public policy is nill and void.
In most places, entering such a contractual agreement is a criminal offense per se.

Conventional morality is hard to define, but legality or public policy is not so hard to define.

Let us say that you and I made a contract with the stated objective of overthrowing the Bush Administration.
You and I would agree ( or so I think ) that this does goes against conventional morality, but it certainly would go against Public Policy.
Therefore, entering such a Contract is illegal per se.

Let me tell you a standard thing that applies to ALL contracts, in every bit of the civilized world, and even in the larger part of the not-so-civilized world:

Any Contract/Agreement that goes against or circumvents conventional morality, legality, or public policy is nill and void.
In most places, entering such a contractual agreement is a criminal offense per se.

Conventional morality is hard to define, but legality or public policy is not so hard to define.

I understand what you are saying. Do you understand what I am replying?

Yes, it is possible for people to define public policy to state that cannibalism is wrong, and (in so doing) to make it illegal for people to practice cannibalism. No, I do not feel that this is appropriate or just.

Keep in mind, it is still legal for a man to rape his wife in much of the "civilized" world. Battering one's wife carries a significantly lower penalty than battering a stranger in virtually every "civilized" nation on Earth.

A great many people have trouble grasping the concept of "consent," particular when it applies to women and children (who are, traditionally, property, and therefore their consent is often regarded as unnecessary). As public policy is typically set by human beings, it is no surprise that public policy often reflects the misconceptions and flawed logic of the human beings who write the policy.

I understand what you are saying. Do you understand what I am replying?

SNIP


Yes, I do understand what you are saying.
But what I am saying, is that within a Democracy ( which I favour very strongly) , morality is defined by what the Majority says it is.


The Majority defines what you may consent to.

If you disagree ( which I assume you do ), then I invite you to lay out what kind of mechanism defines the framework of actions that you deem acceptable.
What the Final Argument or Arbiter is.
( Hint: within the context of Democracy, I don't think an appeal to God would settle matters at all. )

Yes, I do understand what you are saying.
But what I am saying, is that within a Democracy ( which I favour very strongly) , morality is defined by what the Majority says it is.

That's super. Why are you debating with me, then? I very clearly don't agree with you, and this thread isn't about that particular debate. :)


The Majority defines what you may consent to.

As a neuroscientist, I can assure you that a 12 year old child will not be able to demonstrate adult judgment and consent no matter what the majority states. Yes, the majority could rule that it will recognize a 12 year old child's "consent," but this is no different than when majorities rule that a woman who wore a short skirt "consented" to be raped.

Personally, I don't define morality based on peer pressure. If you want to do so then that's your business, but I'm glad I live in a country where pure democracy is regarded with the appropriate amount of skepticism.


If you disagree ( which I assume you do ), then I invite you to lay out what kind of mechanism defines the framework of actions that you deem acceptable.
What the Final Argument or Arbiter is.

We've had this discussion before, and I've already answered you. I believe the Founders of the US were on the right track when they identified certain fundamental rights that each citizen possesses, and when they specified that these are rights which no majority gets to fuck with. It doesn't matter if a majority of people think blacks should live in slavery, or if a majority thinks that 12 year old girls like marrying 45 year old men, or if a majority thinks that rape is okay.


( Hint: within the context of Democracy, I don't think an appeal to God would settle matters at all. )
I don't think an appeal to God settles anything, ever, any more than appeal to the Tooth Fairy would do. God is even more irrelevant than majority opinion.

Bottle:

En Bref, one either accepts The Majority as The Final Arbiter,
or one is NOT a democrat.


I care very little about what the Founding Fathers had to say,
and there would be no effective appeal to 'em either ( in the sense that one cannot prove or disprove that the Founding Fathers wanted, say, Sutthee, repressed ).

I'm sure you are honest in your appeal to the FF, but as far as philosophy goes, I consider it a bit of a cop-out.

Bottle:

En Bref, one either accepts The Majority as The Final Arbiter,
or one is NOT a democrat.
Ok. I'm neither a democrat nor a Democrat, so I don't mind that one bit.


I care very little about what the Founding Fathers had to say,
and there would be no effective appeal to 'em either ( in the sense that one cannot prove or disprove that the Founding Fathers wanted, say, Sutthee, repressed ).

I did not appeal to the FF, I simply said that I think the Founders were on the right track. That's not an appeal to authority, that's just called "an example."

I don't believe my position is right BECAUSE the Founders said it (which would be an appeal to authority), I simply gave an example of people who tried to apply the kind system I am talking about, and whom I happen to agree with.

If you don't install some form of final argument, how can you ever prove an appeal to ( whatever norm ) as correct?

You can't appeal to enlightment, or reasonability ( unless you wish to confine the argument to one specific culture only ) since such norms are not transcultural.

Yeah, pedophiles are 'people.' So is everyone. Osama bin Laden is people. Big fuckin' deal. They're people who want to fuck little kids. They're people who don't deserve to live.

Don't lower yourself, my friend.

It would be a shame to see you the victim of mod action, because you responded to baiting.

Heh, didn´t know you could get in trouble for such a minor offense. Besides, you have to admit, his posts in general (and the one I referred to specifically) were.. well, a tad bit insipid. (I don´t think he was baiting me for a reaction, I don´t attribute that much to his own intelligence, but in any case.. it only worked in that way because someone I love very much was a victim of child sexual abuse, and I know the ramifications of such events, and it sickens me that people can share the same view as Dark Shadowy Nexus.) Thanks for the warning.

If you don't install some form of final argument, how can you ever prove an appeal to ( whatever norm ) as correct?

I don't believe it is possible to prove than an appeal to a norm is objectively correct. Which is why I don't bother.

Yeah, pedophiles are 'people.' So is everyone. Osama bin Laden is people. Big fuckin' deal. They're people who want to fuck little kids. They're people who don't deserve to live.Wanting something is not sufficient grounds to deserve death. The key point is whether they try to act on it.
Most heterophiles or homophiles don't go out and rape people if they don't have sex regularly (or ever). The same is true for pedophiles; most don't go out and abuse kids. They know it's wrong, or at least know that it's not acceptable in society.
Unless there is some radical mind altering drug or surgery, there's very little people can do about what they want. What they can (usually) do is not act on their desires.

Wanting something is not sufficient grounds to deserve death. The key point is whether they try to act on it.
Most heterophiles or homophiles don't

You lose by comparing homosexuality or heterosexuality (normal and health sexual preferences) with pedophilia (a mental illness).

As for whether wanting something is not enough to warrant death? I think that's arguable.

You lose by comparing homosexuality or heterosexuality (normal and health sexual preferences) with pedophilia (a mental illness).

Do remember that homosexuality was considered a mental illness for a very, very long time. Our definition of "mental illness" has not always been up to par.

In the context of what he was saying, the comparison is valid. Most heterosexuals that I know of don't actually have sexual relations with every person they feel attracted to, nor do most homosexuals. If a pedophile experiences sexual feelings toward children but never acts on them in any way, who has been harmed?

Think about a man who feels sexually attracted to a particular woman, but that woman is totally not attracted to the man. His feelings of attraction do not hurt her in any way, but the way he chooses to act upon them may. If he chooses to force sex upon her, he is a rapist. However, if he chooses to regonize that she is not consenting to his advances, and leaves her the hell alone, then he's not a rapist.

One could draw a parallel to a pedophile who recognizes that children are non-consenting parties, in this context.


As for whether wanting something is not enough to warrant death? I think that's arguable.I don't see how. For one thing, how are you going to legally establish that somebody wants something, if they never act on those feelings?

Do remember that homosexuality was considered a mental illness for a very, very long time. Our definition of "mental illness" has not always been up to par.

I do remember that, but that doesn't make pedophilia a sexuality.

In the context of what he was saying, the comparison is valid. Most heterosexuals that I know of don't actually have sexual relations with every person they feel attracted to, nor do most homosexuals. If a pedophile experiences sexual feelings toward children but never acts on them in any way, who has been harmed?

Most heterosexuals and homosexuals DO eventually have sexual relations, though. It is unreasonable to assume pedophiles will be able to restrain themselves forever when the rest of us don't.

One could draw a parallel to a pedophile who recognizes that children are non-consenting parties.

Eh. A murder might well recognize that it's wrong to take a life, but that doesn't mean he'll stop himself.

I don't see how. For one thing, how are you going to legally establish that somebody wants something, if they never act on those feelings?

Who said anything about legality? Not me.

En Bref, one either accepts The Majority as The Final Arbiter,
or one is NOT a democrat.That makes me doubt any sensible person could be a democrat. I have no faith in the masses. They're fickle, and rife with 'group-think'.

You lose by comparing homosexuality or heterosexuality (normal and health sexual preferences) with pedophilia (a mental illness). Homosexuality was considered a mental illness not too long ago.
Either way, it's no ground to dismiss the argument. In all three cases the preference is wired in the brain. Obviously one case is aberrant, but unless you can point out how it works significantly differently in neurological or psychological terms from the other two, the argument holds.

As for whether wanting something is not enough to warrant death? I think that's arguable.Everythign is arguable. Some people argue sex with under-12-year-olds is ok. That's no reason to seriously consider it.

Heh, didn´t know you could get in trouble for such a minor offense. Besides, you have to admit, his posts in general (and the one I referred to specifically) were.. well, a tad bit insipid. (I don´t think he was baiting me for a reaction, I don´t attribute that much to his own intelligence, but in any case.. it only worked in that way because someone I love very much was a victim of child sexual abuse, and I know the ramifications of such events, and it sickens me that people can share the same view as Dark Shadowy Nexus.) Thanks for the warning.

You probaby wouldn't get in trouble...but Mods have harsh days, sometimes. :) Like I say - it would be shame for YOU to be the one that came off worst, after being the one who made arguments and cited evidence.

I'm not entirely convinced Nexus is NOT just fishing for a reaction. Posting the SAME comment 6 or 8 times in one thread, and accusing anyone who disagrees of being on a witch-hunt, sounds like fishing for reactions, to me.

Alot of people show this in a way that doesnt harm children.

Ever hear of "role playing"?

Homosexuality was considered a mental illness not too long ago.

As I said before, that doesn't make pedophilia just like homosexuality, or not a mental illness.


Either way, it no ground to dismiss the argument. In all three cases the preference is wired in the brain.

Ah, genetic determinism. I don't buy it.

Obviously one case is aberrant, but unless you can point out how it works significantly differently in neurological terms from the other two, the argument holds.

What's "aberrant" about it then, according to you? I mean hey, if it's just like homosexuality or heterosexuality. Nothing aberrant at all.

Ah, genetic determinism. I don't buy it. Oh, you don't need to, you get it free.
I never said it was genetically hardwired. There are different ways it could get wired into the brain. How the brain turns out is not written down in the DNA, it forms in an interaction from the DNA the cellular machinery that works on the DNA, the environmental factors in the womb, etc.

This 'assertion' is not supported by your arguments.

Just becuase I consider most of your world imaginary does not mean I wish harm on a child.

I don't believe it is possible to prove than an appeal to a norm is objectively correct. Which is why I don't bother.

Fair enough.
But still: what norm are we to enforce with all the rigor of the Law?

No, no numbers, just a theory. From what I gather, abuse survivors are more likely to not know how to deal with families, as they are potential pedophiles themselves. (not that all of them are, of course, just they could be). The way any adults relate to their families as they grow up and the way the handle their own families is immensely affected by the sexual abuse on the mother. Also, the way her mother reacted couldve have her think that it was right, seeing as her own mother allowed it to happen, or so she claims.
You should know that fabricated sexual abuse reports constitute only 1% to 4% of all reported cases. Of these reports, 75% are falsely reported by adults and 25% are reported by children. Also victims of child sexual abuse are more likely to experience major depressive disorder as adults. I couldn't tell you whether she's lying or not (I'm most definitely not an authority in the matter), but here is a personal experience so you can think about it and think about how her mother's behavior affected the child eventually, when she was a grown-up: My mom was working in a hospital, and a three year-old child was brought in, a victim of rape by her father. The doctor was really upset, and my mom had never seen him as much as growl, so she went over to see what had happened. He was obviously telling the mom she couldn't take the child again with her unless her father was no longer a threat and what she said was "it's her father. He can do anything he wants with her." Now, I'm sad to tell you that many people like that still exist. Also, and remember this is just a theory, I could imagine that she wanted her children to have a normal family, with grandparents and all. Some people think that other people "soften with years", so maybe she thinks that. Maybe being abused and with her mother's approval she doesn't really think much of it. I don't know though, and I don't understand it either, this is just theories I'm coming up with. But, wouldn't it be better if you consulted with a psychiatrist or an authority on the matter?
They could help you see the symptons of abuse or not, and act on their behalf if necessary. :)


Bizare numbers again. Most be fabricated. The Cathlic church claims most of the sex abuse cases luanched against it are bogus. Also nasty divorces also end up having claims of sexual abuse that are fabricated. Fabricated claims of sex abuse is a common problem in divorse court.

Almost everbody tells the truth about sex abuse. They just lie about everything else. Do honestly expect to get this one over on any one other than your loyal mob?

Pedos are people? Well, so are Osama bin Laden, Richard "Nightstalker" Ramirez, Adolf Hitler, and loads of other pleasant characters. Being a person doesn't make you automatically worth protecting. Pleanty of people are better off dead.

They are not people. They are beasts. They belong in something much like a pig pen if they remain alive. Better off dead however.

They are not people. They are beasts. They belong in something much like a pig pen if they remain alive. Better off dead however.

Many people are beasts.
It don't matter that they sexually prefer kids.
What matters is that they don't act upon their preference.
If they do, I guess we can always lynch 'em.
The easiest place to do so is... in jail!

Just becuase I consider most of your world imaginary does not mean I wish harm on a child.

It isn't 'my' world, my friend. Just 'the' world.

If you cannot discern between 'real' risk to a child, I have no way to make the leap of faith it would require to assume their best interests matter to you.

They're people. They're disgusting people that need to be kept away from the rest of society, but they're people.

Bizare numbers again. Most be fabraiated. The Cathlic church claims most of the sex abuse cases luanched against it are bogus. Also nasty divorces also end up having claims of sexual that are fabricated. Fabracated claims of sex abuse is a common problem in divorse court.

Almost everbody tells the truth about sex abuse. They just lie about everything else. Do honestly expect to get this one over on any one other than your loyal mob?

Again - when faced with actual evidence, your response is to suggest some huge conspiracy, or simply ignore the facts.

Just because you don't LIKE the evidence, does not mean it is automatically flawed.

They belong in nothing more than a Pig Pen.

They belong in nothing more than a Pig Pen.
That's disgusting. Pigpen isn't old enough to consent.

http://i6.tinypic.com/1z2k29v.jpg

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?


Remove their balls with a rusty knife and shoot them behind the ear .
No more pedophile .

kill em all. god let sort em out*nods*

That's disgusting. Pigpen isn't old enough to consent.

http://i6.tinypic.com/1z2k29v.jpg


dude when you are not annoying the shit out of me you are making me piss myself ... STOP that..:p

Again - when faced with actual evidence, your response is to suggest some huge conspiracy, or simply ignore the facts.

Just because you don't LIKE the evidence, does not mean it is automatically flawed.

Don't like the evidence? No it's not a dislike of the evidence, it's where the hell did you get that figure. The evidence looks as bogus as the young earth evidence the religious right puts out. Come to think of it both the religious right and the figures that number guy spits out have somethings in common. They both look bogus on the face and they both are used to foward a cuase. Go figure.

I remember there was this 20 Billion dollars a year figure given out by a government agency that was supposed to represent how much the child porn industry made. Simple math would tell any one there simply wasn't enough money in the potential market to support that figure. I know how this works and it's no grand conspiricy. Her it is Ta Da. You have an agenda. You make up figures to support your agenda.

People

If your going to make up figures at least do yourselves a favor. Make up pluasable figures. Figures that at least look like they might have possability to be real. Otherwise you make yourselves look bad.

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.

Bullshit. I knew how the plumbing worked when I was, like, five years old (liberal parents), and I was quite capable of knowing that it was something that I did not want to participate in.

Believe it or not, children are sentient and capable of learning, as opposed to being mindless automatons who magically become self-aware on their 18th birthdays.

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?

However, pedophiles are not going to be completely satisfied by virtual child pornography(Which makes me shudder just thinking of someone actually enjoying that.) Even if we do supply them with virtual porn, they will still want more, and thus, they will continue to molest and rape children. It must be punished, not with castration like you stated, but with just and harsh enough enforcement. Pedophilia, be it a preference in sexuality, a mental illness, or a form of evil, must be punished.

Bullshit. I knew how the plumbing worked when I was, like, five years old (liberal parents), and I was quite capable of knowing that it was something that I did not want to participate in.

Believe it or not, children are sentient and capable of learning, as opposed to being mindless automatons who magically become self-aware on their 18th birthdays.
Early sexual experiences can confuse a child and damage the development of his/her reproductive system. Not too mention the emotional pain later on. You think a pedophile is actually going to tell a kid what he/she is going to do to them? No. Let's look at the case of a young boy named Jeffrey.

10 year old Jeffrey was tricked by two pedophiles who said they would help him find his bike after they had stolen it. After tricking Jeffrey into believing they couldn't find it, they asked him for sex. Not knowing what sex is, but thinking it was probably bad, Jeffrey replied no. The two scumbags than suffocated him on a cloth doused with gasoline, raped and sodomized his corpse, and threw it into a river. The two are now rotting in prison, thankfully. Now, tell me, did the pedophiles respect Jeffrey's request not to have sex? No. Why? Because they are pedophiles.

Because they are so sick and disgusting they will do anything to have sex with a child.

Because they are scum.

Because, although they are people, they are about as low as you can go in the human race.

Pedophiles don't respect kids, otherwise they wouldn't be pedophiles.

Early sexual experiences can confuse a child and damage the development of his/her reproductive system. Not too mention the emotional pain later on. You think a pedophile is actually going to tell a kid what he/she is going to do to them? No. Let's look at the case of a young boy named Jeffrey.

10 year old Jeffrey was tricked by two pedophiles who said they would help him find his bike after they had stolen it. After tricking Jeffrey into believing they couldn't find it, they asked him for sex. Not knowing what sex is, but thinking it was probably bad, Jeffrey replied no. The two scumbags than suffocated him on a cloth doused with gasoline, raped and sodomized his corpse, and threw it into a river. The two are now rotting in prison, thankfully. Now, tell me, did the pedophiles respect Jeffrey's request not to have sex? No. Why? Because they are pedophiles.

Because they are so sick and disgusting they will do anything to have sex with a child.

Because they are scum.

Because, although they are people, they are about as low as you can go in the human race.

Pedophiles don't respect kids, otherwise they wouldn't be pedophiles.

They're in jail, though, not because they are pedophiles, but because they are murderers and rapists, and for that they should be in jail.

But what if they'd consulted Jeffrey's parents, asked Jeffrey for sex, he'd said no, and then they left him alone?

They'd still be pedophiles, but they wouldn't have hurt anyone.

That makes me doubt any sensible person could be a democrat. I have no faith in the masses. They're fickle, and rife with 'group-think'.

I agree. Its a fact, the more people in a group, the stupider the group is going to act. Americans, as a collective consciouness, act stupid to the tune of 300 Million. That is so way fucking stupid that Americans will believe anything the politicians spoon feed them and spend their lives half way between paranoia and panic. I mean, c'mon, Americans buy into that kabuki-patriotism that Fox News is dishing out, ffs.

And before you ask, yeah, I am an American. I am sick of stupidity.

You probaby wouldn't get in trouble...but Mods have harsh days, sometimes. :) Like I say - it would be shame for YOU to be the one that came off worst, after being the one who made arguments and cited evidence.

I'm not entirely convinced Nexus is NOT just fishing for a reaction. Posting the SAME comment 6 or 8 times in one thread, and accusing anyone who disagrees of being on a witch-hunt, sounds like fishing for reactions, to me.

Do you all remember the story about that guy who killed a whole housefull of people and kidnapped the kids to repeatedly rape them in COEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO? The guy that committed the crime, Joseph Edward Duncan III, had been BLOGGING about how misunderstood child molesters are FOR MONTHS before he snapped and went on the killing spree.

Now I am just assuming that the FBI is already watching this thread, already knows who the pervs are, and is watching them closely. If they aren't, they sure as shit oughta be. If the FBI had been watching Duncan better those murders might not have had a chance to happen.

Full Story:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/03/idaho.children/index.html

People

If your going to make up figures at least do yourselves a favor. Make up pluasable figures. Figures that at least look like they might have possability to be real. Otherwise you make yourselves look bad.

Who's making themselves look bad? Run that by me one more time, Baby Fucker?

LOL

People

If your going to make up figures at least do yourselves a favor. Make up pluasable figures. Figures that at least look like they might have possability to be real. Otherwise you make yourselves look bad.

I feel sorry for you.

Seriously... if debate is about 'winning'? If 'winning' is SO important you think inventing evidence is a valid tactic?

I think you and I must be done here.

However, pedophiles are not going to be completely satisfied by virtual child pornography(Which makes me shudder just thinking of someone actually enjoying that.) Even if we do supply them with virtual porn, they will still want more, and thus, they will continue to molest and rape children. It must be punished, not with castration like you stated, but with just and harsh enough enforcement. Pedophilia, be it a preference in sexuality, a mental illness, or a form of evil, must be punished.

I feel very strongly that castration of convicted child molesters is a reasonable precaution for society to take, particularly after the second offense.

Bullshit. I knew how the plumbing worked when I was, like, five years old (liberal parents), and I was quite capable of knowing that it was something that I did not want to participate in.

Believe it or not, children are sentient and capable of learning, as opposed to being mindless automatons who magically become self-aware on their 18th birthdays.

Knowing how the plumbing works, knowing if that 'sounds like fun'... are in NO way connected to 'being able to give reasoned consent'.

I don’t agree with accepting pedophiles as a viable sexual preference. It might be a psychological disorder, but only a pedophile is going to try to justify it as legitimate.

I don’t have a big problem with one-time murderers the way a lot of other people here do. Everyone has one bad day and sometimes things happen on that one bad day. Your average one time murderer is generally the easiest inmate to rehabilitate. The conmen and pedophiles are the criminals that bother me. They’re chronic offenders who are wired to be what they are no matter what they do. They shouldn’t be treated with any sympathy at all. Their victims might need some of that sympathy for having their lives screwed up, but not them. It's very sad that pedophiles are so screwed up in the head but that doesn't give them the right to ruin everyone else's life to get their jollies.

The idea of giving sexual predators online sites of any type for gratification isn’t smart. It’s like giving serial killers a site where they can practice killing virtual people. Once they get used to the virtual thing they are going to want it all. We don’t have the psychological advances to cure conditions like pedophilia but we sure as hell shouldn’t be handing out cookies and patting them on the head for it. Till psychology catches up with a treatment we need to have a harsh treatment of these freaks of nature, to limit the amount of damage they can do. Especially since so far the technology seems to be on their side.

This is why I don't like Dark Shadowy Nexus getting involved in these sorts of threads. All he ever manages to do is make people hate pedophiles more than they already do.

Let's take this slowly and we'll see what we can salvage.

I feel the best place to start is, as always, drawing the distinction between thought and action. Pedophiles are people with a sexual attraction to children. Child molesters are people who rape children. These are two totally different groups, and while there is some overlap, it's important to remember that 90% of the people who rape children aren't attracted to children, and thus don't fit the definition of a pedophile. On the other side of the equation, I'm an example of a pedophile who has never had sex with a child and never intends to.

As to the idea of allowing virtual child porn (which is the legal term for what the original poster suggests), I find that the arguements against this material all stem from the idea that the material encourages pedophiles to go molest children. This is just as idiotic as the idea that ordinary pornography encourages the rape of women. This is also a dangerous causality arguement, since it seems to suggest that the rapist is unable to control himself because of the porn, thus it was the porn's fault rather than the rapist. I don't know about you, but I'm not fond of the idea of letting rapists, of any stripe, off the hook.

Cruel and unusual punishment next. While this debate seems to have been a tangent, I feel I should weigh in on it if only to remain relevant. Thought-criminals shouldn't be punished at all, of course, but I see no reason not to punish rapists severely.

This of course brings us to the stickier subject of the nature of conscent.

I've seen a lot of people here explain that children aren't allowed to conscent to anything, and that their parents give conscent on their behalf for things like "popcorn and a movie". I hope you realise the dangerous precedent this line of thinking offers. If children aren't allowed self-determination, and the parent is the decision maker, that would mean that the parents would be able to provide conscent on behalf of their children. Considering the percentage of child molesters who molest their own children (Link (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/figure5_2.htm)) I think you might want to rethink putting the child's ability to conscent in the hands of the person most likely to abuse them. It should be noted that this line of thinking has actually led to a piece of legislation which specifically renders incestuous offenders immune to prosecution. (Link (http://www.protect.org/california/pc1203_066Explanation.html))

Let's now move on the subject of harm. Specifically, the nature of the harm resulting from sex. This can be classified into three broad categories, each of which I'll address separately. It should go without saying that these reffer only to nominally conscentual activities, and that anything which would be classified as rape if it happened to an adult should be similarly classified with a child.

1) Physical
This form of harm includes such obvious issues as tearing and bruising as well as less obvious questions of pregnancy complications and disease. These are all risks which can be compensated for by someone who is careful, and especially so if the sexual activities are nonpenetrative in nature. Thus the arguement against sex with children cannot be made entirely on the basis of physical harm.

2) Inherent mental harm
This would be the harm which stemms from mental sources which are inherent rather than a product of social consequences. I am not convinced that such harm actually exists, and I'm not convinced that it doesn't. The fact of the matter is that this inherent mental trauma cannot be studied in isolation because of the existence of the third kind of harm.

3) Social condemnation
This includes the social consequences of a child having sex with an adult, and the associated psychological trauma which stemms from society's reaction rather than from some inate property of sex. This, I believe, is where the majority of the harm occurs, and if any harm exists in category 2, it is exacerbated by the harm in this category. This includes the need for secrecy which characterises sexual relationships between adults and minors. It also includes the obvious psychological trauma of having someone you care about taken away from you, which, from the prospective of the child, is what happens many times when the courts become involved. A more subtle manefestation of this form of harm comes as a result of our culture which treats sex in general as something dirty and immoral. A child who enjoys it, comes to feel ashamed of his/her enjoyment of this evil thing.

I feel that the harm to a child resulting from social condemnation should be more than enough reason for any pedophile to refrain from having sex with kids. It is unacceptable to expose a child to the lifetime of psychological torture this would mean, even if the other two kinds of harm aren't present. How anyone could expose someone they claim to care about to that kind of abuse is beyond me.

I feel this is an appropriate juncture to speak about the secrecy which surrounds sexual abuse. You people tend to give far too much credit to the social engineering skills of the child molester in so manipulating the child. The fact is that all of society is guilty of making the child feel complicit in his/her own molestation, even in the case of forcable rape. Many parents have repeatedly expressed that they'd rather their children be murdered than raped, so what exactly does that additude say about the likely reaction of those parents to revelations that their children were abused? Children aren't half as stupid as you people seem to think they are. They know that their parents aren't likely to take this well, and so they hide it themselves because they're more afraid of their parents' disaproval than they are of a repeated rape.

On the subject of a child's mental compotency, I think now would be a good time to talk about this little thing called informed conscent. What is it? What are the requirements for being deemed compotent to control your own sex life? Well, clearly the requirement is that you are older than some arbitrary age, but that isn't really helpful in understanding why.

I would suggest that a more reasonable method would be to simply define those characteristics which make a person able to give conscent and apply them rather than an arbitrary standard like age. The conditions I would sugget would be:

1) A demonstrable, thorough knowledge of sex and the possible consequences of it.
2) A demonstrable ability to make decisions based information provided.

A simple cognitive examination could be used, and people could be thus licensed for sex. If they have a license, they can conscent, and if they don't, it's statutory rape. If anyone has additional qualifications, I welcome the chance to improve my understanding of the concept of informed conscent.

On to the law as it stands now. I have two primary beefs with the existing legislation regarding the age of conscent.

The first is that such a "line in the sand" is arbitrary, and fails to take into account the fact that people mature at different rates. As a result, people who aren't actually ready are given full rights to control their sexuality while people who are ready early are routinely denied the right of sexual self-determination.

The second major problem I have is the tendency of "pragmatic" legislators to include "close in exceptions". These are laws which state, essentially, that minors while unable to conscent to have sex with adults, are apparently perfectly capable of conscenting to sex with minors. The worst of this is the simple fact that early bloomers are being actively encouraged to prey on their peers who aren't developing as rapidly as they are.

As to the "statistical analasys" in the long post a few pages back that got such high praise, I feel it does a poor job of analysing the statistics, and anyone who actually did read the post all the way through (like is suggested in the first couple of lines) should know better than to praise the accuracy of the analasys. I don't question the raw statistics that it is based on (though I would be well within my rights to request a source), but rather my beef is with the analasys.

Of course I'm a pedophile, so my word on the matter means absolutely nothing. As the entire post is so long that you'd fall asleep before finishing my walkthrough, I'll just have to walk you through a couple of errors in the analasys and hope you'll take the time to check the many other errors out yourself.

This is including the regular sexual assaults (Not on children), but let´s go with it anyways. 5.3%. 50% of the studied population were child molesters, so we can (almost) safely reason that 2.65% are recidivists.
This is a rather ameture statistical error, and was one of the most glaringly obvious on my first read through. If you assume that sex offenders in general have a recidivicm rate of 5.3%, and then cut the population of sex offenders you're looking at in half, the recidivism rate for the resulting halved population is not also cut in half. The rate would (making the same assumption as the original poster) remain at 5.3%.
As a grand total, we have (an average of) 100932 plus 2339 CHILD victims. 103271 total victims of child abuse. And that´s ONLY 2/3rd of the prison population of MALE sexual offenders released in ONE year.

But you´re forgetting the "vicious cycle" theory. If this rate of child molestation occurs at a 75% rate (Over 75% of serial rapists report they were sexually abused as youngsters.) at a 25-1 ratio (100,000 victims compared to 4,000 offenders), then we´re in for one hell of a mess. 1,936,331. Nearly 2 million victims.
I'm afriad this particular section suffers from the same problem which disproves the existence of vampires (at least one kind of vampire). The idea is that if you start with one vampire, biting let's say one neck a week, and that everyone bitten by a vampire becomes a vampire, in one week, starting with only one vampire, you've got two vampires. The following week 4, then 8, then 16, then 32. After eight weeks, you've got 256 vampires. In a one year, 4,503,599,627,370,496 vampires will exist. This exceeds the current population of the earth, so vampires of this kind cannot exist, or we'd all be vampires and will have starved to death by now.

How this applies to the post, it creates the assumption of a 20 fold growth rate of child sex offenders each generation. Assuming this is accurate, the number of such offenders should have reached a critical threashold a long time ago, since this is clearly greater than the average human population growth over basicly all of human history.

I'll leave you all to finish the examination of this statistical analasys yourselves.

If there's anything important I've missed, please, feel free to let me know.

10 year old Jeffrey was tricked by two pedophiles who said they would help him find his bike after they had stolen it. After tricking Jeffrey into believing they couldn't find it, they asked him for sex. Not knowing what sex is, but thinking it was probably bad, Jeffrey replied no. The two scumbags than suffocated him on a cloth doused with gasoline, raped and sodomized his corpse, and threw it into a river. The two are now rotting in prison, thankfully. Now, tell me, did the pedophiles respect Jeffrey's request not to have sex? No. Why? Because they are pedophiles.

No, it's because they're rapists.

Pedophiles are fine until they act on their urges.
I've thought plenty of people were good-looking..."loved" some, lusted after others, and (just in passing) thought "hey, he/she isn't too hard on the eyes..." but I have never acted on that impulse.
If I had, it would have constituted (in some, if not most cases) rape.

Once a person has violated someone - particularly a child - by forcing sexual activities on them, then that person has no rights as a human being any longer.
By taking away the rights of another, you forfeit your own.
If I were to kill someone, then I have taken away their right to live. I, therefore, have given up my rights in the process.
Same goes for rapists, be they pedophiles or no.

Knowing how the plumbing works, knowing if that 'sounds like fun'... are in NO way connected to 'being able to give reasoned consent'.

Ummm... yeah, actually, they are.

3) Social condemnation
This includes the social consequences of a child having sex with an adult, and the associated psychological trauma which stemms from society's reaction rather than from some inate property of sex. This, I believe, is where the majority of the harm occurs, and if any harm exists in category 2, it is exacerbated by the harm in this category. This includes the need for secrecy which characterises sexual relationships between adults and minors. It also includes the obvious psychological trauma of having someone you care about taken away from you, which, from the prospective of the child, is what happens many times when the courts become involved. A more subtle manefestation of this form of harm comes as a result of our culture which treats sex in general as something dirty and immoral. A child who enjoys it, comes to feel ashamed of his/her enjoyment of this evil thing.

...

Children aren't half as stupid as you people seem to think they are.

...

On the subject of a child's mental compotency, I think now would be a good time to talk about this little thing called informed conscent. What is it? What are the requirements for being deemed compotent to control your own sex life? Well, clearly the requirement is that you are older than some arbitrary age, but that isn't really helpful in understanding why.

I would suggest that a more reasonable method would be to simply define those characteristics which make a person able to give conscent and apply them rather than an arbitrary standard like age. The conditions I would sugget would be:

1) A demonstrable, thorough knowledge of sex and the possible consequences of it.
2) A demonstrable ability to make decisions based information provided.

A simple cognitive examination could be used, and people could be thus licensed for sex. If they have a license, they can conscent, and if they don't, it's statutory rape. If anyone has additional qualifications, I welcome the chance to improve my understanding of the concept of informed conscent.

On to the law as it stands now. I have two primary beefs with the existing legislation regarding the age of conscent.

The first is that such a "line in the sand" is arbitrary, and fails to take into account the fact that people mature at different rates. As a result, people who aren't actually ready are given full rights to control their sexuality while people who are ready early are routinely denied the right of sexual self-determination.

The second major problem I have is the tendency of "pragmatic" legislators to include "close in exceptions". These are laws which state, essentially, that minors while unable to conscent to have sex with adults, are apparently perfectly capable of conscenting to sex with minors. The worst of this is the simple fact that early bloomers are being actively encouraged to prey on their peers who aren't developing as rapidly as they are.

Quoted for truthery.

Also, the correct spelling is "consent", not "conscent".

These people have sick minds, so I really don't care. Paedophiles may be people physically but mentally, they are in such a perverse state that is highly abnormal. A human being may find itself sexually attracted to someone who is underaged and I suppose, as long as it results in nothing overly perverse, that it doesn't matter but too often, people act on those urges. Then that is wrong. NAMBLA, for example, would fit this criteria (acting on the urges).