NationStates Jolt Archive

How do you know?

What if the other poster is the only wage provider for a family?

He/she never intends to act on these 'impulses', so it is not 'worth' making the whole family suffer in order to receive treatment... especially considering the negative stigma attached to the impulses themselves.

He or she can also go to a psychiatrist for treatment. You don't have to tell anyone why you're going, and as long as no one has actually acted on the impulses, the psychiatrist isn't going to call the police.

There's nothing stopping you from being voluntarily committed to an instutution. Nothing.

Well, of course, except the danger of coming out of that institution labeled as a pedophile and having to worry about people like you fantasizing about killing them and the very real danger of someone acting out that fantasy. Not to mention the effect on his or her family and friends.

question for the pedophiles in this thread: Have you had stable relationships with people above the age of consent or is that icky or something? Im just curious.

Point of fact:

If pedophile behavior (acting on it) child molestation was not illegal and..

...

There would be far more child molestation than we see now.So now you add circular reasoning to your batch of logical fallacies. If the crime of child molestation wasn't a crime, there wouldn't be such a thing as child molestation.

So the idea that somehow, we're making the atmosphere too fearful for them to get help is a bunch of crap.

And I have you there.You have zero support for this argument. Every study has shown that the largest majority of pedophiles would prefer to not be afflicted with that paraphilia. Not because of fear, but because they feel that attraction to children is wrong.

Given that most people's insurance is through their employer, that psychiatric records are not withheld from the insurer, and that the repercussions for being identified as a pedophile are so great as to be life-ruining, yes the atmosphere of fear and hate prevents many from seeking help.

He or she can also go to a psychiatrist for treatment. You don't have to tell anyone why you're going, and as long as no one has actually acted on the impulses, the psychiatrist isn't going to call the police.

Can he say to you "hey, I have impulses that I'm working to control, but because of them, I'd rather you didn't leave me alone with your children" without endangering his life and the lives of everyone close to him?

Well, of course, except the danger of coming out of that institution labeled as a pedophile and having to worry about people like you fantasizing about killing them and the very real danger of someone acting out that fantasy. Not to mention the effect on his or her family and friends.

There's a whole neighborhood that would do it. It's not a fantasy - a point we've had to make to the two convicted molesters living in our neighborhood.

When you come out of an institution, your medical records are private. No one would know, unless you had been sent their involuntarily (i.e., if you had been convicted of acting out on your impulses).

Why should I commit myself to an institution? Why should I be denied a normal life because of something I cannot control? Why can't society HELP people like me instead of writing us all off? Why can't we be compassionate? Why? Why?! WHY?!

Because we'd rather violently abuse people. Don't you know that's in the best interest of society? /sarcasm

You have zero support for this argument. Every study has shown that the largest majority of pedophiles would prefer to not be afflicted with that paraphilia. Not because of fear, but because they feel that attraction to children is wrong.


Take that up with Dr. Samenow. He has too many reviews and studies to show that criminals have no place in blaming any of their impulses or lack of control on society.

I might add that my violent urges have a socially acceptable outlet.That certainly depends on the society. There are many places in the US even, that would not welcome you or consider the outlets for your violence socially acceptable.

question for the pedophiles in this thread: Have you had stable relationships with people above the age of consent or is that icky or something? Im just curious.
Speaking for myself: yes. Yes I have. As I said, I am not attracted to children all the time, and not even primarily. It is merely a partial attraction, quite possibly the most common form of paedophilism, though I have never researched it. I would suspect you'd get the same answer from the others.

Can he say to you "hey, I have impulses that I'm working to control, but because of them, I'd rather you didn't leave me alone with your children" without endangering his life and the lives of everyone close to him?

We first approached the convicted molesters in our neighborhood as false confidants.

Both of them asked for direct solitary contact with our children.

They weren't working to control their impulses at all.

If someone is, then I would expect them to get help immediately. I hear that shots of Depo Provera works extremely well for men with the problem.

That certainly depends on the society. There are many places in the US even, that would not welcome you or consider the outlets for your violence socially acceptable.
Serving in the military is still socially acceptable and legal in the US. So is killing people in combat according to the rules of engagement.

There are ZERO places in the US where acting on pedophilia is legal.

Why should I commit myself to an institution? Why should I be denied a normal life because of something I cannot control? Why can't society HELP people like me instead of writing us all off? Why can't we be compassionate? Why? Why?! WHY?!
Deep Kimchi, please answer this post rather than ignoring it.

The military, for instance, was an excellent outlet for my violent urges.


A matter of opinion. That would rather depend on how one views the institution of the military.


Enticing children to come to your house alone and then fondle them doesn't have any socially acceptable context in our society.

Which is irrelevent, since it was not suggested anywhere, in any context.

You create a strawman.

It has already been pointed out that paedophiles are only child molestors in very rare cases.

Deep Kimchi, please answer this post rather than ignoring it.
Why don't you see a psychiatrist, and ask for a recommendation of treatment?

The visit and its nature would be private.

Take that up with Dr. Samenow. He has too many reviews and studies to show that criminals have no place in blaming any of their impulses or lack of control on society.Pay attention.

1. Samenow studies institutionalized offenders.
2. Like some of the pedophilia apologists, you are relying on the writings of one (possibly biased) individual.
3 You still haven't quoted (or cited) anything by Samenow. As far as we can tell, you are twisting his conclusions to suit yourself or just making this crap up whole.
4. All academic work (including Samenow's) is subject to further interpretation and disproof.
5. No one here is claiming that pedophiles are "blaming society" for their unacceptable sexual attractions.
6. Despite your mindset, our (the US) system is based on a specific definition of criminal that includes formal society disapproval (the criminationalization of the act), and performance of said act with conscious intent. Pedophiles are not criminals as pedophilia is not a crime.

A matter of opinion. That would rather depend on how one views the institution of the military.


The difference here is that if I act out my violent urges by killing people in combat according to the rules of engagement, I suffer no legal consequences, even if my acts are publicized.

No pedophile can act out their urges by molesting children without suffering legal consequences (if caught).

Why don't you see a psychiatrist, and ask for a recommendation of treatment?

The visit and its nature would be private.
You are sidestepping the question, and you know it. Why can't society be more open to this, to help paedophiles in seeking help? Why can't it?

...

Excuse me. I must depart from the thread for a while. I'll check in on it when I return.

He or she can also go to a psychiatrist for treatment. You don't have to tell anyone why you're going, and as long as no one has actually acted on the impulses, the psychiatrist isn't going to call the police.

It is possible that such help could be obtained by sneaking around... but it is also likely that, at some point or another, the 'cry for help' would be discovered... someone at work sees something on an insurance claim, that they really shouldn't discuss... the town pharmacist reveals information he/she shouldn't about prescribed medication... a nosy neighbour sees the person seeking help going into such and such a specialists office for counselling...

Speaking for myself: yes. Yes I have. As I said, I am not attracted to children all the time, and not even primarily. It is merely a partial attraction, quite possibly the most common form of paedophilism, though I have never researched it. I would suspect you'd get the same answer from the others.
I had no idea you liked kids, I should really read through this thread more. Since you say partial attraction are you also by chance bisexual or beastialist(not sure if I said it right)?

There's a whole neighborhood that would do it. It's not a fantasy - a point we've had to make to the two convicted molesters living in our neighborhood.

When you come out of an institution, your medical records are private. No one would know, unless you had been sent their involuntarily (i.e., if you had been convicted of acting out on your impulses).

Convicted Child-Molestor =/= Paedophile.

Pay attention.

1. Samenow studies institutionalized offenders.
2. Like some of the pedophilia apologists, you are relying on the writings of one (possibly biased) individual.
3 You still haven't quoted (or cited) anything by Samenow. As far as we can tell, you are twisting his conclusions to suit yourself or just making this crap up whole.
4. All academic work (including Samenow's) is subject to further interpretation and disproof.
5. No one here is claiming that pedophiles are "blaming society" for their unacceptable sexual attractions.
6. Despite your mindset, our (the US) system is based on a specific definition of criminal that includes formal society disapproval (the criminationalization of the act), and performance of said act with conscious intent. Pedophiles are not criminals as pedophilia is not a crime.


I've cited Samenow's books. Two of them in particular.

He's spent years along with Yochelson studying criminal behavior (and pedophiles) as well as reviewing hundreds of other studies.

He is the pre-eminent criminal psychologist in the US, and enjoys an incredible, unimpeachable reputation as an expert witness on criminal psychology (including pedophilia).

Try again.

Serving in the military is still socially acceptable...

Not strictly true... you make another generalisation. Not everyone 'accepts' the military as 'socially acceptable'.

You are sidestepping the question, and you know it. Why can't society be more open to this, to help paedophiles in seeking help? Why can't it?

...

Excuse me. I must depart from the thread for a while. I'll check in on it when I return.


I personally don't have a problem with you getting help.

In fact, I would deem it essential.

The difference here is that if I act out my violent urges by killing people in combat according to the rules of engagement, I suffer no legal consequences, even if my acts are publicized.

No pedophile can act out their urges by molesting children without suffering legal consequences (if caught).

Which is irrelevent - since paedophiles and child-molestors are not exclusive identities of one another.

Serving in the military is still socially acceptable and legal in the US. So is killing people in combat according to the rules of engagement. (Emph. added) Are you still a member of the military on active duty in a combat zone? If not, then where, pray tell, do you have social acceptance to commit murder?

There are ZERO places in the US where acting on pedophilia is legal.You spoke of socially acceptable outlets for your violence, not legal ones.

Not strictly true... you make another generalisation. Not everyone 'accepts' the military as 'socially acceptable'.
It's legal.

(Emph. added) Are you still a member of the military on active duty in a combat zone? If not, then where, pray tell, do you have social acceptance to commit murder?


No longer still a member of the military. I was in the infantry in a combat zone before, where I was quite satisfied.

In Virginia, it is legal to own, carry, and use firearms under certain circumstances. Haven't had the circumstances come up yet where I've had to fire, but I've been in three situations so far where it would have been completely legal for me to do so.

There's a whole neighborhood that would do it. It's not a fantasy - a point we've had to make to the two convicted molesters living in our neighborhood.

When you come out of an institution, your medical records are private. No one would know, unless you had been sent their involuntarily (i.e., if you had been convicted of acting out on your impulses).
Yeah, no one ever figures that puzzle out. And nothing about being institutionalized costs money or disrupts the family. And therapists are helpful so long as the person never has to seek public aid for the therapy or such things. Medical privacy is a myth.

I've cited Samenow's books. Two of them in particular.

He's spent years along with Yochelson studying criminal behavior (and pedophiles) as well as reviewing hundreds of other studies.

He is the pre-eminent criminal psychologist in the US, and enjoys an incredible, unimpeachable reputation as an expert witness on criminal psychology (including pedophilia).

Try again.

Didn't you say his control groups were 'child-molestors'?

Paedophilia isn't a criminal psychology. It is only acting on paedophilic tendencies that is criminal.

If this man is an expert on criminal psychology, and he is discussing paedophilia, it is not unreasonable to assume he is talking about 'paedophilia' as the attraction of the child-molestor to the child.

Yeah, no one ever figures that puzzle out. And nothing about being institutionalized costs money or disrupts the family. And therapists are helpful so long as the person never has to seek public aid for the therapy or such things. Medical privacy is a myth.

It's a choice.

Do you want to take the chance that someday, you'll act on a fantasy that has no legal outlet, and ruin not only your life, but your family's life, and the lives of another family, or would you rather try and manage the damage now, thus affecting fewer people?

I personally don't have a problem with you getting help.

In fact, I would deem it essential.

Yet, if he admitted to you he need help you would incarcerate him if you could and you refuse to distinguish him from the individuals that have actually victimized children, how kind of you.

It's legal.

Which is not the same as socially acceptable.

Also - unless you are in a warzone, under declared conditions... any 'war activity' you might be carrying out to relieve your stress is probably NOT legal.

It's a choice.

Do you want to take the chance that someday, you'll act on a fantasy that has no legal outlet, and ruin not only your life, but your family's life, and the lives of another family, or would you rather try and manage the damage now, thus affecting fewer people?

By this exact logic - are you currently seeking medical help or on medication?

It's a choice.

Do you want to take the chance that someday, you'll act on a fantasy that has no legal outlet, and ruin not only your life, but your family's life, and the lives of another family, or would you rather try and manage the damage now, thus affecting fewer people?

Depends. The chance a pedophile will act is is incredibly small. The chance a pedophiles familiy and friends, as well as the pedophile, will be victimized if his predilictions are discovered is remarkably high. I guess weighing the odds it wouldn't be an easy decision. I mean if I was a father, (note: I'm not a pedophile) I would be putting my children in almost assured danger to protect potential children from an unlikely threat.

Which is not the same as socially acceptable.

Also - unless you are in a warzone, under declared conditions... any 'war activity' you might be carrying out to relieve your stress is probably NOT legal.

I am saying "in a war" and "in accordance with the rules of engagement".

It's not stress relief in any case. It's fun.

If it weren't socially acceptable for the military to kill people in wars in accordance with the rules of engagement, then it would be illegal. At the very least, I would have been prosecuted for what I've done.

But I haven't. In fact, there have been dinners where people brought up what I've done, and I was roundly hailed around the table for a job well done.

Try again.

By this exact logic - are you currently seeking medical help or on medication?
No, because I have legal outlets.

I am saying "in a war" and "in accordance with the rules of engagement".

It's not stress relief in any case. It's fun.

If it weren't socially acceptable for the military to kill people in wars in accordance with the rules of engagement, then it would be illegal. At the very least, I would have been prosecuted for what I've done.

But I haven't. In fact, there have been dinners where people brought up what I've done, and I was roundly hailed around the table for a job well done.

Try again.

But - you are not currently in the military. Thus - you have no outlet.

Thus, by your own reasoning, you are a danger to your family.

No, because I have legal outlets.

Such as...?

I've cited Samenow's books. Two of them in particular.

He's spent years along with Yochelson studying criminal behavior (and pedophiles) as well as reviewing hundreds of other studies.

He is the pre-eminent criminal psychologist in the US, and enjoys an incredible, unimpeachable reputation as an expert witness on criminal psychology (including pedophilia).

Try again.

He is an expert on criminals. We are talking about non-criminals. Thus unless you show some other expertise he has nothing to say on this subject. And you haven't cited anything. Give me a quote including the book it came from and the page or a direct link. I go look it up at lunch. You make vague references to what Samenow said with no actual citation other than saying you're summarizing it from one of his books.

Such as...?
I mentioned it before.

There are legal conditions under which you can shoot people in Virginia.

I can carry, conceal, and under the right conditions, use a firearm.

I suppose you're completely unfamiliar with the self defense laws in Virginia, and completely unfamiliar with the legal category that people fall into if they are the target of a protective order.

I am saying "in a war" and "in accordance with the rules of engagement".

It's not stress relief in any case. It's fun.

If it weren't socially acceptable for the military to kill people in wars in accordance with the rules of engagement, then it would be illegal. At the very least, I would have been prosecuted for what I've done.

But I haven't. In fact, there have been dinners where people brought up what I've done, and I was roundly hailed around the table for a job well done.

Try again.

Yet you admit that you were surprised by your restraint in not murdering a person in your neighborhood. What are you legal outlets for your fantasies of murder, prey tell? (Notice my pun, GnI?)

I've cited Samenow's books. Two of them in particular.Citing, since you don't seem to understand, involves pointing to specific content (within a book, for example) and providing details so that another can find the quote or paraphrase to which you are referring. A link to an Amazon entry is not a citation. One would think that since you know his work so well, that you would be able to easily provide details on where in his voluminous work he makes such claims as you attribute to him. Were I grading your posts as an essay, you would fail.
He's spent years along with Yochelson studying criminal behavior (and pedophiles) as well as reviewing hundreds of other studies.Pedophiles who have committed the crime of molestation.

"Joined in 1970 by Stanton E. Samenow, this sixteen year research study would prove to be the longest, in-depth clinical research-treatment study of offenders that has been conducted in North America..." (from the FSU Criminology Dept. website--see? that's how you cite something.)

The study of offenders is not the same as studying non-offending pedophiles. I also find it amusing that he (and you) are still peddling 10-year old research.

He is the pre-eminent criminal psychologist in the US, and enjoys an incredible, unimpeachable reputation as an expert witness on criminal psychology (including pedophilia).Says who? Expert witnesses are purchased. They are paid for their time on the witness stand.

You try again.

I mentioned it before.

There are legal conditions under which you can shoot people in Virginia.

I can carry, conceal, and under the right conditions, use a firearm.

I suppose you're completely unfamiliar with the self defense laws in Virginia, and completely unfamiliar with the legal category that people fall into if they are the target of a protective order.

And, according to you, if it's not legal, just be sure to choose an unsavory target so people won't care that you're a murderer. Shall I quote you?

He is an expert on criminals. We are talking about non-criminals. Thus unless you show some other expertise he has nothing to say on this subject. And you haven't cited anything. Give me a quote including the book it came from and the page or a direct link. I go look it up at lunch. You make vague references to what Samenow said with no actual citation other than saying you're summarizing it from one of his books.

It's criminal thought, on which he and Yochelson are experts.

And, according to you, if it's not legal, just be sure to choose an unsavory target so people won't care that you're a murderer. Shall I quote you?

As long as it falls into the category of self defense, or shooting someone who is the target of a protective order, it's legal.

Quote that.

I mentioned it before.

There are legal conditions under which you can shoot people in Virginia.

I can carry, conceal, and under the right conditions, use a firearm.

I suppose you're completely unfamiliar with the self defense laws in Virginia, and completely unfamiliar with the legal category that people fall into if they are the target of a protective order.

But, although you get to carry a gun, you don't get to use it, do you.

Unless the 'right' conditions occur... which you have said already, you haven't had. You've had three options to use 'the tool of your trade', and been forced to deflate, unsatisfied, each time... no?

It's criminal thought, on which he and Yochelson are experts.

Actually, he's not. He's an expert on criminals. He studies criminals. Can you tell me how many pedophiles he's studied who never commtted a crime? According to you, none, because pedophiles and child molesters are equal says the good doctor. Whoops, tripped up by your own words. So was your 'citation' of him wrong, or did he not study any pedophiles who were not criminals? It can only be one or the other. I'll wait while you figure out where you drove the logic train off the tracks.

Yet you admit that you were surprised by your restraint in not murdering a person in your neighborhood. What are you legal outlets for your fantasies of murder, prey tell? (Notice my pun, GnI?)

;) I saw it.

But, although you get to carry a gun, you don't get to use it, do you.

Unless the 'right' conditions occur... which you have said already, you haven't had. You've had three options to use 'the tool of your trade', and been forced to deflate, unsatisfied, each time... no?

It's actually satisfying to see the look on someone's face when they are staring at the muzzle.

Since I spend a lot of time sheltering and training battered women to fight back, it's only a matter of time before I am in a position to legally shoot.

As long as it falls into the category of self defense, or shooting someone who is the target of a protective order, it's legal.

Quote that.

So if someone is the target of a protective order, I can knock on their door and shoot them? Cite that law please, but I think this was pulled from a dark and smelly place.

It's criminal thought, on which he and Yochelson are experts.

Actually - it is ACTING on the thought that is criminal.

Actually, he's not. He's an expert on criminals. He studies criminals. Can you tell me how many pedophiles he's studied who never commtted a crime? According to you, none, because pedophiles and child molesters are equal says the good doctor. Whoops, tripped up by your own words. So was your 'citation' of him wrong, or did he not study any pedophiles who were not criminals? It can only be one or the other. I'll wait while you figure out where you drove the logic train off the tracks.

He was the chief psychiatrist at St. Elizabeth's hospital in Washington DC for decades. Quite a few non-criminal pedophiles he studied there.

I strongly encourage you to read his books - then you would know, instead of trying to undermine his credibility with inane statements.

It's actually satisfying to see the look on someone's face when they are staring at the muzzle.

Since I spend a lot of time sheltering and training battered women to fight back, it's only a matter of time before I am in a position to legally shoot.

And you can't wait, can you? To fulfill your fantasies of draining the life of a man right before your eyes? Who cares if he already served his time or if there were ways to deal with him that didn't require you to take his life, because what's really important is that you satisfy that bloodlust. You can feel it right now, can't you?

Yeah, pedophiles are the dangerous ones.

It's actually satisfying to see the look on someone's face when they are staring at the muzzle.

Since I spend a lot of time sheltering and training battered women to fight back, it's only a matter of time before I am in a position to legally shoot.

But, you don't see any parallel...

A child molestor may enjoy the look on the childs face...

How do you actually RELEASE the desire. You don't get to kill people... so, by the logic you used earlier, you are putting your own family, and the families of others, at risk, unless you get medicated or see a psychiatrist.

And you can't wait, can you? To fulfill your fantasies of draining the life of a man right before your eyes? Who cares if he already served his time or if there were ways to deal with him that didn't require you to take his life, because what's really important is that you satisfy that bloodlust. You can feel it right now, can't you?

Yeah, pedophiles are the dangerous ones.

I've killed 41 people when I was in the military. And no, the life doesn't drain out of them. When they're dead before they hit the ground, there isn't any "draining".

He was the chief psychiatrist at St. Elizabeth's hospital in Washington DC for decades. Quite a few non-criminal pedophiles he studied there.

I strongly encourage you to read his books - then you would know, instead of trying to undermine his credibility with inane statements.

That's not possible. Remember, you said according to him all pedophiles are child molesters. Here, I'll quote.

Dr. Samenow says that pedophile = child molester.

Given that, he was either lying, or he didn't ever encounter in person or in his studies a non-offending pedophile. Or of course we could just consider you to be an unreliable source summarizing his work incorrectly. So was he lying, you're wrong or he never met a non-offending pedophile? Again, I'll wait.

We're not talking about Samenow's book says. We're talking about what you're claiming it says which means either the book is provably wrong or you are.

That's not possible. Remember, you said according to him all pedophiles are child molesters. Here, I'll quote.


You said that it wasn't possible for him to study pedophiles. When in fact he spent decades doing so. At a mental hospital.

I've killed 41 people when I was in the military. And no, the life doesn't drain out of them. When they're dead before they hit the ground, there isn't any "draining".

Whatever. We've established who is planning to act out their fantasies and who is not. We've established who has to done the work to make sure they'll get away with it and who has not.

Make sure you let us know when you actually do get your shot, so to speak. I'm quite sure your claims here will be admissable and there is no understanding of privacy. I think any investigation might be interested to know that you told us what you would do ahead of time that you bragged about how you make sure you know the exact law so you can know how to get in position to get your shot. Good thing you like to brag about yrou fantasies of violence.

Both of the pedos in my neighborhood loved (when they thought they were speaking in confidence) to recount their exploits.

It is a testament to my self control that no one was shot at that moment.

I've told the two registered offenders in my neighborhood (within two miles of my house) that if I ever see them and any of my children within 50 feet of each other, they won't have to worry about going to jail, or hiring a lawyer to defend themselves. They'll have to worry if they've made funeral arrangements in advance.

Yes, it was a threat. But the police seem remarkably unresponsive to the needs of a convicted child molester who is on parole.

"Yes, I made a violent and illegal threat, but hey, I didn't get caught so it doesn't count."

You said that it wasn't possible for him to study pedophiles. When in fact he spent decades doing so. At a mental hospital.

No, I said, according to you, it's not possible. Good. So we've established that either he didn't say that pedophile = child molester or he was lying when he said it. Good. If you're wondering what that slam was, it was your credibility leaving the room.

Can you tell me how many pedophiles he's studied who never commtted a crime? According to you, none, because pedophiles and child molesters are equal says the good doctor.

See, we're talking about what YOU said. Not what I think. I think you're full of it and the doctor never said anything like pedophiles = child molesters or that pedophiles will always offend or any of the other nonsense that doesn't match up with what we know of pedophiles. I think you are bastardizing his work.

Make sure you let us know when you actually do get your shot, so to speak. I'm quite sure your claims here will be admissable and there is no understanding of privacy. I think any investigation might be interested to know that you told us what you would do ahead of time that you bragged about how you make sure you know the exact law so you can know how to get in position to get your shot. Good thing you like to brag about yrou fantasies of violence.

That has no impact on the legality here in Virginia.

I had no idea you liked kids, I should really read through this thread more. Since you say partial attraction are you also by chance bisexual or beastialist(not sure if I said it right)?
Bisexual, yes, though not beastialist.

We first approached the convicted molesters in our neighborhood as false confidants.

Both of them asked for direct solitary contact with our children.

They weren't working to control their impulses at all.

If someone is, then I would expect them to get help immediately. I hear that shots of Depo Provera works extremely well for men with the problem.

That's not true and you know it. You don't want them to get help. You've said that you want them permanently incarcerated. Your example of someone who is an offender and unrepentant is not remotely related to the general populous of pedophiles. They are so few as to be statistically irrelevant in terms of the average population of pedophiles.

You've openly admitted that you enjoy being a physical threat and hopefully executioner to and of pedophiles even if they have never offended. Why would you want them to get help? It only limits you ability to legally kill people. Well, not QUITE legally, but it's all about what you can get away with, right?

That's not true and you know it. You don't want them to get help. You've said that you want them permanently incarcerated. Your example of someone who is an offender and unrepentant is not remotely related to the general populous of pedophiles. They are so few as to be statistically irrelevant in terms of the average population of pedophiles.

You've openly admitted that you enjoy being a physical threat and hopefully executioner to and of pedophiles even if they have never offended. Why would you want them to get help? It only limits you ability to legally kill people. Well, not QUITE legally, but it's all about what you can get away with, right?
You know, I'm going to randomly psycho-analyze and state that Kimchi knows unconsciously his urges are wrong, and knows he should stop them, but much like the homophobe who cannot face his own homosexuality, he cannot face up to the fact consciously and thus projects onto paedophiles.

That has no impact on the legality here in Virginia.

Fair enough. Like I said, make sure you brag if you get the opportunity, because I'll be sending this information along to the DA.

Why would you want them to get help? It only limits you ability to legally kill people. Well, not QUITE legally, but it's all about what you can get away with, right?

The only thing that legally limits the ability is whether or not they do an activity that gets a protective order.

Once they do that, and they make the mistake of violating the protective order, it's open season.

Whether or not that happens is entirely up to them, not me. Sooner or later, someone will fall into the legal conditions.

I don't have to push, cajole, or stretch anything in order to have the legal opportunity.

Fair enough. Like I said, make sure you brag if you get the opportunity, because I'll be sending this information along to the DA.
Considering that I practice law here in Northern Virginia, and have a good relationship with the prosecuting attorney in my area, and have discussed this very subject before, I'll be sure to pass his comments along as well.

It's perfectly legal to shoot if the person in question is the subject of a protective order, and they are violating the protective order. Period. No matter how much I talk about it beforehand.

The only thing that legally limits the ability is whether or not they do an activity that gets a protective order.

Once they do that, and they make the mistake of violating the protective order, it's open season.

Whether or not that happens is entirely up to them, not me. Sooner or later, someone will fall into the legal conditions.

I don't have to push, cajole, or stretch anything in order to have the legal opportunity.

And you can't wait to take someone's life. I'm trying to think if there is a name for someone who aches to take life from other people psychologically.

I'll tell you what, you bet your life on the security of that law. I'm quite sure that they won't find a way to try a vigilante constantly putting himself in position to use unnecessary force to kill someone and bragging about how they can't wait even if it's not all the way legal.

The only thing that legally limits the ability is whether or not they do an activity that gets a protective order.

Once they do that, and they make the mistake of violating the protective order, it's open season.

Whether or not that happens is entirely up to them, not me. Sooner or later, someone will fall into the legal conditions.

I don't have to push, cajole, or stretch anything in order to have the legal opportunity.

Of course - you also don't have to eagerly wait for the opportunity to arrive, and you don't have to indulge your 'desire' if the situation DOES arise.

Again - how are you getting your 'release' while you have no legal outlet? And - why is it your tendencies are different to those of the paedophile (except, of course, that paedophiles are statistically almost never likely to indulge their urges?) Why do they need medication and professional help, and you just need a permit and patience?

Considering that I practice law here in Northern Virginia, and have a good relationship with the prosecuting attorney in my area, and have discussed this very subject before, I'll be sure to pass his comments along as well.

It's perfectly legal to shoot if the person in question is the subject of a protective order, and they are violating the protective order. Period. No matter how much I talk about it beforehand.

Was the pedophile you were so proud of managing not to kill violating a protective order or where you just puffing yourself up and there was never really any need for restraint on your part?

And again, feel free to bet your life on that. I will make sure that your comments get to everyone who might care. The victim's family. The newspapers. The DA. Just think about it when you decide to take someone's life with unnecessary force, that I will make sure that all related information regarding your fantasies are made available.

Of course - you also don't have to eagerly wait for the opportunity to arrive, and you don't have to indulge your 'desire' if the situation DOES arise.

Again - how are you getting your 'release' while you have no legal outlet? And - why is it your tendencies are different to those of the paedophile (except, of course, that paedophiles are statistically almost never likely to indulge their urges?) Why do they need medication and professional help, and you just need a permit and patience?

The difference is what society accepts. Laws are general indications of what they accept.

Why do we arm the military and police, and give them legal power to kill? Why do most US states now allow concealed carry of firearms (rather liberally) and have loosened self defense laws?

Because settling things on an individual basis within certain legal proscriptions is socially acceptable.

If it were not socially acceptable to a majority of people, it would be illegal.

Looks like no one minds when a criminal gets killed, but everyone gets upset when a child is molested, or even cajoled by a pedophile.

Of course - you also don't have to eagerly wait for the opportunity to arrive, and you don't have to indulge your 'desire' if the situation DOES arise.

Again - how are you getting your 'release' while you have no legal outlet? And - why is it your tendencies are different to those of the paedophile (except, of course, that paedophiles are statistically almost never likely to indulge their urges?) Why do they need medication and professional help, and you just need a permit and patience?

Because 'crazy urges' only apply to other people. When it's you, it's just you going through another one of your 'spells'. I think it's a little sick that the biggest proponent of stopping these statistically non-dangerous people is someone who assures us that he will take someone's life even if it could have been avoided, so long as he doesn't think he'll go to jail. It's quite clear we've established who has the most dangerous fantasies and who is most likely to act out those fantasies. DK, pretty shot all of his credibility in the foot. And that's not even considering he quoted a doctor saying one thing and showed that his actual activities prove another.

Was the pedophile you were so proud of managing not to kill violating a protective order or where you just puffing yourself up and there was never really any need for restraint on your part?

And again, feel free to bet your life on that. I will make sure that your comments get to everyone who might care. The victim's family. The newspapers. The DA. Just think about it when you decide to take someone's life with unnecessary force, that I will make sure that all related information regarding your fantasies are made available.

As I said, our local prosecuting attorney is very familiar with my views.

There are also over 200 women in my classes who happen to be going around armed, with protective orders out against their abusive ex-spouses/boyfriends. The local prosecuting attorney thinks it's a great idea. No one has been shot yet, but I am assured that if an abusive ex-spouse does get shot, it will not result in any charges.

None. And most of these women talk daily about how they can't wait to shoot the son-of-a-bitch.

Why is this still an issue? Yes, pedofiles are people. So are serial killers, nazis and terrorists. Just because they're people doesn't mean that they're good, decent people.

The difference is what society accepts. Laws are general indications of what they accept.

Why do we arm the military and police, and give them legal power to kill? Why do most US states now allow concealed carry of firearms (rather liberally) and have loosened self defense laws?

Why do we require those people do everything reasonable to keep from using those 'powers'? Because killing people is wrong to everyone but sociopaths.


Because settling things on an individual basis within certain legal proscriptions is socially acceptable.

If it were not socially acceptable to a majority of people, it would be illegal.

Looks like no one minds when a criminal gets killed, but everyone gets upset when a child is molested, or even cajoled by a pedophile.
Um, no, actually, you are molesting the laws to make it appear they support you. Quick, what happens to a cop that uses that gun when they could have used lesser force? Looks like society considers that violence a necessary evil that should be avoided if at all possible. Not you, though. You long to take more human life. As you put it, it's fun.

It's not socially acceptable to almost anyone. It's just unavoidable. There is a significant difference.

Why is this still an issue? Yes, pedofiles are people. So are serial killers, nazis and terrorists. Just because they're people doesn't mean that they're good, decent people.

Paedophile =/= child molester.

Why is this still an issue? Yes, pedofiles are people. So are serial killers, nazis and terrorists. Just because they're people doesn't mean that they're good, decent people.
The issue is that paedophile does not automatically equal child molester, and few people will recognize that. The rest all write off paedophiles as if they were all horrible people for something they cannot control. I ask you to read through the thread for a more detailed explanation.

It's perfectly legal to shoot if the person in question is the subject of a protective order, and they are violating the protective order. Period. No matter how much I talk about it beforehand.For the person who obtained the protective order.

The only way you could legally shoot them is if they attacked you personally (self-defense) or attacked the spouse in front of you and the spouse/boyfriend wasn't capable of defending her or himself. Any other scenario lands your ass in hot water.

This, of course, has no bearing on you willy-nilly shooting persons you deem guilty of $crime sans trial.

Why do we require those people do everything reasonable to keep from using those 'powers'? Because killing people is wrong to everyone but sociopaths.


The law is quite clear on protective orders in Virginia, and how that person is legally classified. It matches exactly what is required for a civilian in Virginia to prove that the person in question is a suitable target for self defense gunfire.

Except that the court has approved it in advance.

Not twisting the laws at all. Just reading them.

The local prosecuting attorney sees NO problem with it. Won't prosecute if such a case comes up, because he knows it won't go anywhere.

The difference is what society accepts. Laws are general indications of what they accept.

Why do we arm the military and police, and give them legal power to kill? Why do most US states now allow concealed carry of firearms (rather liberally) and have loosened self defense laws?

Because settling things on an individual basis within certain legal proscriptions is socially acceptable.

If it were not socially acceptable to a majority of people, it would be illegal.

Looks like no one minds when a criminal gets killed, but everyone gets upset when a child is molested, or even cajoled by a pedophile.

You still avoid the question of treatment.

The great majority of paedophiles never offend... yet you claim just the thought is enough to make them a danger to their families, and the families of others. That is regardless od social acceptance or legality.

In your case, you have admitted you actively AIM to kill someone, as soon as you can legally get away with it. The fact you have no outlet must surely mean you are just as much of a risk to your own family, and other people's families... unless you are medicated or professionally 'treated'.

It's your own logic... you just seem to find it applies differently, when it applies to you.


It is worth pointing out - earlier your argument was that it was 'legal'... so the 'social acceptance' argument was sidetracked. Now, you appear to be arguing that it is 'socially acceptable'... so the 'legal' argument gets sidetracked.

In any case - 'excessive' force is NOT 'socially acceptable'.

The law is quite clear on protective orders in Virginia, and how that person is legally classified. It matches exactly what is required for a civilian in Virginia to prove that the person in question is a suitable target for self defense gunfire.

Except that the court has approved it in advance.

Not twisting the laws at all. Just reading them.

The local prosecuting attorney sees NO problem with it. Won't prosecute if such a case comes up, because he knows it won't go anywhere.

So you say. Can you link to that law please? I can find nothing about on any Virginia law sites.

The law is quite clear on protective orders in Virginia, and how that person is legally classified. It matches exactly what is required for a civilian in Virginia to prove that the person in question is a suitable target for self defense gunfire.

Except that the court has approved it in advance.

Not twisting the laws at all. Just reading them.

The local prosecuting attorney sees NO problem with it. Won't prosecute if such a case comes up, because he knows it won't go anywhere.

Of course, we have only your word on this... you could be entirely fabricating this 'prosecuting attorney' and his opinions... to try to make it sound like your argument is less 'crazy' than it sounds.... (To me, at least).

Of course, we have only your word on this... you could be entirely fabricating this 'prosecuting attorney' and his opinions... to try to make it sound like your argument is less 'crazy' than it sounds.... (To me, at least).

I thoroughly searched Virginia law and I only find protective orders specifically mentioned in denying people ownership of a gun. I don't see a list of exceptions for when someone can legally kill a person. I must have missed that law. I know DK, because he likes accurate citation, will correct my error and link the law.

So you say. Can you link to that law please? I can find nothing about on any Virginia law sites.
§ 19.2-152.9. Preliminary protective orders in cases of stalking and acts of violence.

A. Upon the filing of a petition alleging that (i) the petitioner is or has been, within a reasonable period of time, subjected to stalking or a criminal offense resulting in a serious bodily injury to the petitioner, and (ii) a warrant has been issued for the arrest of the alleged perpetrator of such act or acts, the court may issue a preliminary protective order against the alleged perpetrator in order to protect the health and safety of the petitioner or any family or household member of the petitioner. The order may be issued in an ex parte proceeding upon good cause shown when the petition is supported by an affidavit or sworn testimony before the judge or intake officer. Immediate and present danger of stalking or another criminal offense that may result in a serious bodily injury to the petitioner or evidence sufficient to establish probable cause that stalking or a criminal offense resulting in a serious bodily injury to the petitioner has recently occurred shall constitute good cause.

A preliminary protective order may include any one or more of the following conditions to be imposed on the respondent:

1. Prohibiting criminal offenses that may result in injury to person or property or acts of stalking in violation of § 18.2-60.3;

2. Prohibiting such other contacts by the respondent with the petitioner or the petitioner's family or household members as the court deems necessary for the health and safety of such persons; and

3. Such other conditions as the court deems necessary to prevent acts of stalking, criminal offenses that may result in injury to person or property, or communication or other contact of any kind by the respondent.

The section highlighted in bold is exactly the same requirement as that for any civilian in Virginia involved in a self defense shooting situation.

The section highlighted in bold is exactly the same requirement as that for any civilian in Virginia involved in a self defense shooting situation.
Um, good reading on your part. You realize that what you highlighted is the reason for granting a restraining order, no?

Whether that is the requirement for self-defense doesn't mean you can shoot anyone violating a protective order. You said you are just telling us the law. Why can't you cite what you're 'reading' to us? It does exist, doesn't it?

Um, good reading on your part. You realize that what you highlighted is the reason for granting a restraining order, no?

Whether that is the requirement for self-defense doesn't mean you can shoot anyone violating a protective order. You said you are just telling us the law. Why can't you cite what you're 'reading' to us? It does exist, doesn't it?


Self-defense in Virginia through the use of lethal force requires that the defender show that the other person is an "immediate" threat to life.

"The plea of self-defense is a plea of necessity and the necessity must be shown to exist or there must be shown such reasonable apprehension of the immediate danger, by some overt act, as to amount to the creation of necessity." Vlastaris, 164 Va. at 651, 178 S.E. at 776.

This apprehension of the immediate danger is created by the order.

You have the right to arm yourself, and even talk about it beforehand.

"The Supreme Court held the trial court should have instructed the jury "'that one who has been threatened with murderous assaults and has reason to believe that such assaults will be made, may arm himself in his defense and in such case no inference of malice can be drawn from the fact of preparation for it.'" Bevley, 185 Va. at 213, 38 S.E.2d at 332 (quoting State v. Summers, 188 S.E. 873, 875 (1936)

The threat of "serious bodily injury" is not vague in Virginia.

Furthermore, in determining the meaning of a statute, "[t]he validity of using other Code sections as interpretive guides is well established. The Code of Virginia constitutes a single body of law, and other sections can be looked to where the same phraseology is employed." King v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 708, 710, 347 S.E.2d 530, 531 (1986). Code § 18.2-369, which concerns abuse or neglect of incapacitated adults, reads: "For purposes of this subsection, 'serious bodily injury or disease' shall include but not be limited to (i) disfigurement, (ii) a fracture, (iii) a severe burn or laceration, (iv) mutilation, (v) maiming, or (vi) life threatening internal injuries or conditions, whether or not caused by trauma." The term "serious bodily injury" can also be found in other statutes. See Code § 10.1-1455 (handling of hazardous wastes), 16.1-228 (family abuse definition), 16.1-269.1 (transfer of juveniles to circuit court), 17-237 (sentencing guidelines), 18.2-67.3 (aggravated sexual battery), 29.1-740 (duty to stop and render assistance); 54.1-2400.1 (duty of mental health service providers to prevent violence), and 54.1-3434.3 (denial, revocation, and suspension of pharmacy registration).

With such widespread use of the term, it is plain that the term does have a common and well-recognized meaning. As such, ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and the inclusion of the term in the statute does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Therefore, the term is not unconstitutionally vague."


Like I said, I and many other attorneys, including the prosecuting attorney, have been over this.

Self-defense in Virginia through the use of lethal force requires that the defender show that the other person is an "immediate" threat to life.You still haven't explained how you as not-the-abused-spouse and not-the-person-obtaining-the-protective-order gets the license to kill in Virginia or any place else.

Self-defense in Virginia through the use of lethal force requires that the defender show that the other person is an "immediate" threat to life.



This apprehension of the immediate danger is created by the order.

You have the right to arm yourself, and even talk about it beforehand.



The threat of "serious bodily injury" is not vague in Virginia.




Like I said, I and many other attorneys, including the prosecuting attorney, have been over this.

Uh-huh. So in other words. you made this up and your good old boys network thinks it will stick. Like I said, evidence that you planned this out and even hoped for it is not going to play well when there is no explicit license to excessive force in the case of a protective order and the media gets a hold of it.

Headline - "Psychopath Cites Legal Loophole as Justification for Murder"

Yeah, you keeping betting on that one. Since, this is so established certainly you can link to an article or two of someone getting away with it. I mean, you're not expecting us to believe your anecdotal and ridiculous claims, are you? Thus far you've been challenged on two in this thread alone and they've not held up. Will you rise to the challenge on the third?

Uh-huh. So in other words. you made this up and your good old boys network thinks it will stick. Like I said, evidence that you planned this out and even hoped for it is not going to play well when there is no explicit license to excessive force in the case of a protective order and the media gets a hold of it.


Didn't make it up.

The law specifically states that in order to get a restraining order (protective order), you have to show probable cause that the person is an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm by their mere presence.

And, in order to shoot someone in self-defense, you only have to be shooting at someone who is defined as an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm, as defined by law.

It's crystal clear. And I've shown you the links, which you obviously refuse to believe.

There are now several hundred women out on the streets right now, carrying pistols, legally, who are armed by permit from the magistrate. The magistrate is also aware that they have the restraining/protective orders against their ex-spouses/boyfriends, and the magistrate agreed that I could instruct the women that this meant that if the man violated the order, she could shoot at him without waiting for the police.

It's not twisting anything - not a loophole. It's there in black and white.

Better yet - since the local prosecuting attorney and the magistrates say that it won't even make it to court, there isn't going to be anything I have to bet on.

You still haven't explained how you as not-the-abused-spouse and not-the-person-obtaining-the-protective-order gets the license to kill in Virginia or any place else.

Yeah, he's full of it.

http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1010071.doc

The principles governing a plea of self-defense are well-established. Self-defense is an affirmative defense to a charge of murder, and in making such a plea, a “defendant implicitly admits the killing was intentional and assumes the burden of introducing evidence of justification or excuse that raises a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.” McGhee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 562, 248 S.E.2d 808, 810 (1978). The “bare fear” of serious bodily injury, or even death, however well- grounded, will not justify the taking of human life. Stoneman v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. (25 Gratt.) 887, 900 (1874). “There must [also] be some overt act indicative of imminent danger at the time.” Vlastaris v. Commonwealth, 164 Va. 647, 652, 178 S.E. 775, 776 (1935). See also Yarborough v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 971, 975, 234 S.E.2d 286, 290 (1977); Mercer v. Commonwealth, 150 Va. 588, 597, 142 S.E. 369, 371 (1928). In other words, a defendant “must wait till some overt act is done[,] . . . till the danger becomes imminent.” Vlastaris, 164 Va. at 652, 178 S.E. at 777. In the context of a self-defense plea, “imminent danger” is defined as “[a]n immediate, real threat to one’s safety . . . .” Black’s Law Dictionary 399 (7th ed. 1999). “There must be . . . some act menacing present peril . . . [and] [t]he act . . . must be of such a character as to afford a reasonable ground for believing there is a design . . . to do some serious bodily harm, and imminent danger of carrying such design into immediate execution.” Byrd v. Commonwealth, 89 Va. 536, 539, 16 S.E. 727, 729 (1893).

But, hey, what does the Court of Appeals of Virginia know?

Yeah, he's full of it.

http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1010071.doc

The principles governing a plea of self-defense are well-established. Self-defense is an affirmative defense to a charge of murder, and in making such a plea, a “defendant implicitly admits the killing was intentional and assumes the burden of introducing evidence of justification or excuse that raises a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.” McGhee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 562, 248 S.E.2d 808, 810 (1978). The “bare fear” of serious bodily injury, or even death, however well- grounded, will not justify the taking of human life. Stoneman v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. (25 Gratt.) 887, 900 (1874). “There must [also] be some overt act indicative of imminent danger at the time.” Vlastaris v. Commonwealth, 164 Va. 647, 652, 178 S.E. 775, 776 (1935). See also Yarborough v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 971, 975, 234 S.E.2d 286, 290 (1977); Mercer v. Commonwealth, 150 Va. 588, 597, 142 S.E. 369, 371 (1928). In other words, a defendant “must wait till some overt act is done[,] . . . till the danger becomes imminent.” Vlastaris, 164 Va. at 652, 178 S.E. at 777. In the context of a self-defense plea, “imminent danger” is defined as “[a]n immediate, real threat to one’s safety . . . .” Black’s Law Dictionary 399 (7th ed. 1999). “There must be . . . some act menacing present peril . . . [and] [t]he act . . . must be of such a character as to afford a reasonable ground for believing there is a design . . . to do some serious bodily harm, and imminent danger of carrying such design into immediate execution.” Byrd v. Commonwealth, 89 Va. 536, 539, 16 S.E. 727, 729 (1893).

But, hey, what does the Court of Appeals of Virginia know?


Sorry, "bare fear" is not a protective/restraining order.

It's proven fear, which is quite different. So what do you know.

Didn't make it up.

The law specifically states that in order to get a restraining order (protective order), you have to show probable cause that the person is an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm by their mere presence.

And, in order to shoot someone in self-defense, you only have to be shooting at someone who is defined as an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm, as defined by law.

It's crystal clear. And I've shown you the links, which you obviously refuse to believe.

There are now several hundred women out on the streets right now, carrying pistols, legally, who are armed by permit from the magistrate. The magistrate is also aware that they have the restraining/protective orders against their ex-spouses/boyfriends, and the magistrate agreed that I could instruct the women that this meant that if the man violated the order, she could shoot at him without waiting for the police.

It's not twisting anything - not a loophole. It's there in black and white.
Actually, it isn't. Self-defense requires an overt act, not a standing 'understanding' of threat.

And I wonder what an ELECTED official like the DA will do when it hits the papers, or haven't you thought on that one. Especially papers estabilishing that you've been setting this situation up and longing for the chance to kill some inspecific person and get away with it because you have a predetermined agreement with the DA. Yeah, I wonder how that will play in the 'liberal' media.

Meanwhile, the court of appeals in VA disagrees with your pal. I wonder what the lawsuit will look like. *Dreams* I can see it now.

Actually, it isn't. Self-defense requires an overt act, not a standing 'understanding' of threat.

And I wonder what an ELECTED official like the DA will do when it hits the papers, or haven't you thought on that one. Especially papers estabilishing that you've been setting this situation up and longing for the chance to kill some inspecific person and get away with it because you have a predetermined agreement with the DA. Yeah, I wonder how that will play in the 'liberal' media.

Meanwhile, the court of appeals in VA disagrees with your pal. I wonder what the lawsuit will look like. *Dreams* I can see it now.

The "overt act" is the mere presence of someone who constitutes (by previous arrangement with the court) an "imminent" threat.

It says that right on the order. That's why police are REQUIRED to show up, and REQUIRED to arrest violators of the order. Precisely because their mere presence constitutes an "immediate" threat.

Besides, you're the one defending pedophiles and wifebeaters.

Sorry, "bare fear" is not a protective/restraining order.

It's proven fear, which is quite different. So what do you know.
A restraining order is not an overt act, my friend. And SELF-defense refers to a threat to YOU. So far, you've in no way shown how this applies at all. Again, this could all be settled by showing a past case, since you indicated this is established law. Care to link to an article or case? WHAT?!?! One doesn't exist?!?! But that can't be. That would mean that you once again got caught making crap up.

"overt act indicative of imminent danger "
OVERT ACT and IMMINENT danger.

"In the context of a self-defense plea, “imminent danger” is defined as “[a]n immediate, real threat to one’s safety"
Notice how it says to one's safety. That means that it must be a threat to you. That the victim is a THREAT TO YOU is not established even if you close your eyes and wish really, really hard.


"[and] [t]he act . . . must be of such a character as to afford a reasonable ground for believing there is a design . . . to do some serious bodily harm, and imminent danger of carrying such design into immediate execution"

Hmmm... this just keeps getting worse for you. Again, go ahead a roll those dice. But don't be surprised if it comes up craps and you end up in prison for the murder you committed.

Besides, you're the one defending pedophiles and wifebeaters.
...err...what? Where the CRAP did that come from? The only time the subject of domestic violence against women has ever been mentioned is by you, in only a couple posts as some kind of odd aside, up until now. Strawman argument.

...err...what? Where the CRAP did that come from? The only time the subject of domestic violence against women has ever been mentioned is by you, in only a couple posts as some kind of odd aside, up until now. Strawman argument.
Nope, I'm using the same legal method to arm women against wifebeaters. If Jocabia doesn't like the method, the women get beaten, sometimes to death.

That's defending wifebeaters.

Nope, I'm using the same legal method to arm women against wifebeaters. If Jocabia doesn't like the method, the women get beaten, sometimes to death.

That's defending wifebeaters.
That, good sir, is a red herring intended to redirect the argument. I don't think any of us are foolish enough to fall for it either.

The "overt act" is the mere presence of someone who constitutes (by previous arrangement with the court) an "imminent" threat.

It says that right on the order. That's why police are REQUIRED to show up, and REQUIRED to arrest violators of the order. Precisely because their mere presence constitutes an "immediate" threat.

Besides, you're the one defending pedophiles and wifebeaters.

They are not a threat to you, which is required for SELF-defense. But then you knew that. But, hey, don't bother reading what the courts said about your laws. You read them. I mean, you are more qualified than those judges.

When did I defend wifebeaters, liar? And I'm not defending pedophiles. I don't like their proclivities but they have rights. You're the advocating, fantasizing about, and praying for a chance to commit murderous violence.

Let's see how that weighs out. One of us is defending the rights of innocent law-abiding citizens and one of us is just begging for the opportunity to kill someone whether they deserve or not. Yep, I think I'd rather be on my side of the table.

A restraining order is not an overt act, my friend. And SELF-defense refers to a threat to YOU. So far, you've in no way shown how this applies at all. Again, this could all be settled by showing a past case, since you indicated this is established law. Care to link to an article or case? WHAT?!?! One doesn't exist?!?! But that can't be. That would mean that you once again got caught making crap up.

"overt act indicative of imminent danger "
OVERT ACT and IMMINENT danger.

"In the context of a self-defense plea, “imminent danger” is defined as “[a]n immediate, real threat to one’s safety"
Notice how it says to one's safety. That means that it must be a threat to you. That the victim is a THREAT TO YOU is not established even if you close your eyes and wish really, really hard.


"[and] [t]he act . . . must be of such a character as to afford a reasonable ground for believing there is a design . . . to do some serious bodily harm, and imminent danger of carrying such design into immediate execution"

Hmmm... this just keeps getting worse for you. Again, go ahead a roll those dice. But don't be surprised if it comes up craps and you end up in prison for the murder you committed.


Violation of a restraining order is AN OVERT ACT by a person DEEMED AND RULED by the COURT to be an IMMEDIATE THREAT TO LIFE by their MERE PRESENCE.

Try again.

Nope, I'm using the same legal method to arm women against wifebeaters. If Jocabia doesn't like the method, the women get beaten, sometimes to death.

That's defending wifebeaters.

From the same guy who says that innocent people are automatically criminals because a small percentage of them may become criminals. I'm not defending wife-beaters. You're not some hero, friend. You're a thug, who has bragged repeatedly about how fun violence is, how bad you are at controlling your temper, how you long to kill again, and how you're flauting the law and setting yourself up to kill again. I'm trying to keep you from doing it. That's not defending wife beaters, that's attacking violent criminals.

If a wife-beater is presenting a credible threat to a woman and her only out is to kill him, I hope she does. And I'll be arguing for her protection by the law and from the law. However, the major difference between the victim of wife-beating and you is that there is no immediate threat to you and most of them don't dream about repeatedly killing.

You try to equate yourself with these victims and ride on their backs to glorify your rather distasteful desires to murder people.

Violation of a restraining order is AN OVERT ACT by a person DEEMED AND RULED by the COURT to be an IMMEDIATE THREAT TO LIFE by their MERE PRESENCE.

Try again.

Show me your name on the restraining order. *Gasp* what it's not there?

Great, you don't qualify for self-defense.

Meanwhile, that is not what the law says. But you can feel free to prove me wrong, cite a case or a news article to prove you'r not just making this up. You can't. This is just more piles of bull manure you spew to brag about how you're going to do this or that violent act and how fun it is and how you can't wait to hurt or kill someone first chance you get.

That, good sir, is a red herring intended to redirect the argument. I don't think any of us are foolish enough to fall for it either.

He has to equate himself with victims, just like the pedophile in the other thread had to pretend like he was defending the child's right to self-determination. In that case, he painted those that denied him as fascists who didn't respect rights. When people know that logic has failed they villianize their oponents with made up drama and align themselves with someone everyone wants to protect like battered wives or children. It's the last bastion of someone who's argument has utterly failed.

He has to equate himself with victims, just like the pedophile in the other thread had to pretend like he was defending the child's right to self-determination. In that case, he painted those that denied him as fascists who didn't respect rights. When people know that logic has failed they villianize their oponents with made up drama and align themselves with someone everyone wants to protect like battered wives or children. It's the last bastion of someone who's argument has utterly failed.
Indeed. Hence why I saw right through it. Which is odd, since I used to fall for such red herrings all the time.

Violation of a restraining order is AN OVERT ACT by a person DEEMED AND RULED by the COURT to be an IMMEDIATE THREAT TO LIFE by their MERE PRESENCE.

Try again.
Never says mere presence anywhere. It says if the person has proven themselves likely to be a threat. Now, by the court ruling Jocabia stated, "likely" isn't good enough to shoot.(You can call the police, but you still can't shoot) Only if they start trying to emulate the conditions that got the restraining order in the first place can you shoot.
If I got a restraining order on you, and you passed me on the street, I doubt you'd like it if I shot you right there.

Never says mere presence anywhere. It says if the person has proven themselves likely to be a threat. Now, by the court ruling Jocabia stated, "likely" isn't good enough to shoot.(You can call the police, but you still can't shoot) Only if they start trying to emulate the conditions that got the restraining order in the first place can you shoot.
If I got a restraining order on you, and you passed me on the street, I doubt you'd like it if I shot you right there.
Of course. See, Kimchi here is just trying to find the best legal loophole he can so he can kill people at a whim. Frankly, he scares me. He's the kind of person that should be institutionalized, I think.

Indeed. Hence why I saw right through it. Which is odd, since I used to fall for such red herrings all the time.

Looks like that was the growling of a dog as it slinks away, tail between it's legs. All in all, a pretty nasty thing to say, but given that we basically proved everything he was saying wasn't true, I'm not surprised. It's not an uncommon occurrence.

Looks like that was the growling of a dog as it slinks away, tail between it's legs. All in all, a pretty nasty thing to say, but given that we basically proved everything he was saying wasn't true, I'm not surprised. It's not an uncommon occurrence.
Absolutely. A shame that people have to be that way about certain topics though. It frustrates me.

So, to get back on topic, does anyone have any other suggestions on how to proceed? Perhaps the most useful thing we could do is try and change the social outlook upon paedophilism. How do we go about that, though? That is the question I propose to you now.

Absolutely. A shame that people have to be that way about certain topics though. It frustrates me.

So, to get back on topic, does anyone have any other suggestions on how to proceed? Perhaps the most useful thing we could do is try and change the social outlook upon paedophilism. How do we go about that, though? That is the question I propose to you now.

We're doing it. It's beginning to occur. More and more study is being done on pedophilia. More and more people are realizing the difference. Even in these threads each time the discussion is more reasonable and there are more and more people pointing out the difference. Things are changing, but with this particular issue, it's going to be VERY slow.

We're doing it. It's beginning to occur. More and more study is being done on pedophilia. More and more people are realizing the difference. Even in these threads each time the discussion is more reasonable and there are more and more people pointing out the difference. Things are changing, but with this particular issue, it's going to be VERY slow.
I'm not so sure. Just looking around at everyday people, the attitude seems no different than it was ten years ago, for instance. In my experience, so far, nothing has changed on this at all. Of course, if I were to go just by my limited experience, there are many things that would have seemed to not change, such as acceptance of homosexuality, or even interracial relationships. Areas I live in often tend to be rather backwards when it comes to social acceptance. (And people wonder why I stay home most of the time...)

The vast majority of pedophiles are innocent of any crime related to pedophilia and will be for their entire lives. They are actually more likely to be innocent of any crime related to pedophilia than the rest of the population, according to the clinical definition of pedophilia (the criminal definition redefines it so that people who don't have the paraphilia can be labels as pedophiles).
Jocabia, this is what I would really like to address. You've admited that pedophiles are, according to conventional medical wisdom, less likely to commit a sexual offense against a child than the general population, so why is it that you advocate that pedophiles seek out treatment? Don't we normally advocate pre-emptive treatment of people at highter risk than the general population?
Why should I commit myself to an institution? Why should I be denied a normal life because of something I cannot control? Why can't society HELP people like me instead of writing us all off? Why can't we be compassionate? Why? Why?! WHY?!
Coming from a person who's asked the same questions, the only conclusion I can come up with is fear. Two kinds of fear, actually. The first is of course the fear that you and I will harm children. It's a perfectly understandable, and even comendable modivation. The second fear, the reason they write us off rather than study us, and the actions of those who take action, is that they're afraid they've been wrong about how they've been treating us. They're afraid that the massive social stygma, of which they've all been a part, will prove to be harmful rather than helpful. They're afraid of learning that they're responsible for harming children, moreso than people like us are.

You should also be encouraged by studies like Jocabia agknowledged in the post I quoted just before yours. They find that while people attracted to children represent 20% or more of the population, we represent only 10% or less of people who molest children. On the whole, this means that pedophiles are safer for children than people attracted to adults are.
Well, of course, except the danger of coming out of that institution labeled as a pedophile and having to worry about people like you fantasizing about killing them and the very real danger of someone acting out that fantasy. Not to mention the effect on his or her family and friends.
Are you saying that the psychiatric community wouldn't keep the reason for that commitment a secret? Didn't you say earlier that the psychiatric community wasn't part of the problem?
question for the pedophiles in this thread: Have you had stable relationships with people above the age of consent or is that icky or something? Im just curious.
Yes, I have had stable relationships with people above the age of consent. I'm perfectly capable of feeling sexual attraction to such individuals, though admitedly I find fewer adult women attractive than I do prepubsent girls. The ability to feel "normal" attractions need not be absent for one to be accurately labeled a pedophile, merely the presence of attraction to young children. I will admit that my ability to maintain stable relationships has been effected, but that's largely due to the trust issue of either keeping a big secret, or risking life and limb by trusting them to keep this secret between us. I've only mustered that kind of trust once so far.
Can he say to you "hey, I have impulses that I'm working to control, but because of them, I'd rather you didn't leave me alone with your children" without endangering his life and the lives of everyone close to him?
Incidentally, that's how I ended up working at an elementary school. I originally answered an ad talking about technical support, and they found me to be extremely qualified for the position and were very interested in retaining my services. I only later found out that they wanted me to work at an elementary school. Later still, I discovered that rather than tech support, they wanted me to provide suplementary instruction to elementary students by helping run a computer lab. Even later, I found out that they were essentially leaving me alone with a different classroom of 30 students each hour. Quite frankly, in spite of major allarms going off in my head, I was terrified to back out of the job because they'd want to know why, and my answer wasn't something I wanted anyone to know.
Why don't you see a psychiatrist, and ask for a recommendation of treatment?

The visit and its nature would be private.
It's only private if the psychiatrist believes that the person is not likely to commit a crime. Once the psychiatrist suspects someone will commit a crime, he or she is legally obligated to report it to the police. There have been psychiatrists who have taken any admission of pedophilia as meaning someone is likely to commit a crime. While this is likely not true of all psychiatrists, especially considering diciplinary action was taken against at least one such psychiatrist for doing this, it does happen, and considering the consequences to the pedophile in question, it would be foolish to accept the risk even if the probability the psychiatrist will behave this way is small.

It's not stress relief in any case. It's fun.

Excuse me? You're talking about killing people, and your response is "It's fun." And I'm the sicko who needs help?
He has to equate himself with victims, just like the pedophile in the other thread had to pretend like he was defending the child's right to self-determination. In that case, he painted those that denied him as fascists who didn't respect rights. When people know that logic has failed they villianize their oponents with made up drama and align themselves with someone everyone wants to protect like battered wives or children. It's the last bastion of someone who's argument has utterly failed.
I presume you have some evidence that I don't really care about children's right to self-determination? So far the only thing you've managed to say is that my arguements that one shouldn't have sex with children look to you as though I'm trying to shift the blame for actions I never intend to commit away from myself. I've stated repeatedly that a person cannot consent to be tortured for the rest of their lives, and stated that I believe this would be the result of adult-child sexual activities.

The proposal I made for replacing the age of consent (which is, at best a guess and at worst a steriotype, about when people have the maturity to handle sex) with a system for determining when a person really has the maturity to handle sex, you claimed was just a ploy on my part to make it possible to legally molest children, completely ignoring the fact that this supposition assumes that children could pass such a test, and thus posess the maturity to determine their own sex lives without interfearence from the law.

Just because you support denying this choice doesn't mean that isn't what you're doing.
I'm not so sure. Just looking around at everyday people, the attitude seems no different than it was ten years ago, for instance. In my experience, so far, nothing has changed on this at all. Of course, if I were to go just by my limited experience, there are many things that would have seemed to not change, such as acceptance of homosexuality, or even interracial relationships. Areas I live in often tend to be rather backwards when it comes to social acceptance. (And people wonder why I stay home most of the time...)
Big social changes happen slowly. Sure, there's still a lot of prejudice, but look at how long the other civil rights movements took to acheave even the limited acceptance their groups managed. Look at the bigotry against blacks even this long after the abolition of slavery and the striking down of Jim Crow laws. Look at how many gay bashers are still on the streets, and how in some places it still represents a threat to one's health and safety to be out. (I have a friend living in a deeply bigoted community in Texas who's having a real hard time with the social condemnation of his bisexuality.)

Things are moving forward in the acceptance of pedophiles, but civil rights movements are always hard to fight. It's rare to see meaningful change within just a decade, but as generations pass, people eventually learn to accept the previously derided group. With luck, your grandchildren will be reading about the prejudice against pedophiles in school and asking themselves, "How could people act like this toward people who never hurt anyone?" Change is slow, and people can be quite violent in their ignorant prejudice as one particular poster demonstrated quite effectively, but it is happening. It's just happening by inches rather than by legues.

Jocabia, this is what I would really like to address. You've admited that pedophiles are, according to conventional medical wisdom, less likely to commit a sexual offense against a child than the general population, so why is it that you advocate that pedophiles seek out treatment? Don't we normally advocate pre-emptive treatment of people at highter risk than the general population?

I believe it harms the pedophile. I believe treatment is in their interest and further decreases their risk to themselves and others.

You should also be encouraged by studies like Jocabia agknowledged in the post I quoted just before yours. They find that while people attracted to children represent 20% or more of the population, we represent only 10% or less of people who molest children. On the whole, this means that pedophiles are safer for children than people attracted to adults are.

Not simply acknowledged. I cited it often in several threads. You make it sound like I finally accepted it. Despite the fact that I wouldn't rise to your 'prove me wrong' baiting, I tend to cite a lot of information OFTEN.

Are you saying that the psychiatric community wouldn't keep the reason for that commitment a secret? Didn't you say earlier that the psychiatric community wasn't part of the problem?

The psychiatric community isn't the problem. They also aren't the only ones that see the records. Medical privacy is a myth.


Incidentally, that's how I ended up working at an elementary school. I originally answered an ad talking about technical support, and they found me to be extremely qualified for the position and were very interested in retaining my services. I only later found out that they wanted me to work at an elementary school. Later still, I discovered that rather than tech support, they wanted me to provide suplementary instruction to elementary students by helping run a computer lab. Even later, I found out that they were essentially leaving me alone with a different classroom of 30 students each hour. Quite frankly, in spite of major allarms going off in my head, I was terrified to back out of the job because they'd want to know why, and my answer wasn't something I wanted anyone to know.

Yes, this is exactly my point. The vast majority of pedophiles don't actually want to be put in a position where they might offend.


I presume you have some evidence that I don't really care about children's right to self-determination? So far the only thing you've managed to say is that my arguements that one shouldn't have sex with children look to you as though I'm trying to shift the blame for actions I never intend to commit away from myself. I've stated repeatedly that a person cannot consent to be tortured for the rest of their lives, and stated that I believe this would be the result of adult-child sexual activities.

I wasn't referencing you, but I do think your claims are self-serving and not well-founded. You're not the only pedophile on these forums. Get over yourself.

And you didn't say a single thing about maturity. You said whether they had the knowledge and cognitive ability. That has nothing to do with maturity. According to your requirements I could have passed any test that most 18-year-olds could pass when I was about seven.

Jocaiba has a point in regards to the proposed new method of determining the legality of sexual situations. Furthermore, enforcing such licenses would be nigh impossible without such huge infractions upon our civil rights that we might as well live in an Orwellian Big Brother society.

As for treatment, I have absolutely no intention at this time of even considering speaking to a psychiatrist. As both of you have said, not only are medical records public knowledge to those who weild the power to destroy a person's life permenantly, I would never trust a psychiatrist in this area anyway. For that matter, I wouldn't trust a psychiatrist in this area for anything at all. I spoke to one once in regards to my emotional issues. During a discussion about my life, I acknowledged my bisexuality. The psychiatrist proceeded to try to "cure" me of it with the typical claim that homosexuality and bisexuality are mental conditions as opposed to genetic(which science points to them being). At that point I tried to convince her otherwise, but even with proof(I had access to the internet via her laptop and thus used it to pull up a number of scientific articles) she refused to accept it. I've sworn off any psychologist from this area ever since.

I do hope my grandchildren are able to say that, though. I really do. I will do everything to encourage my children to be socially open-minded, and hope that they encourage the same from their children. With any luck, it will come to pass.

I believe it harms the pedophile. I believe treatment is in their interest and further decreases their risk to themselves and others.

I see. That makes a difference. I'd assumed you were talking about harm to others rather than to one's self. Clearly I've been misreading you. In that case, I would like to ask, aside from the stress, what exactly is the harm to the pedophile?

Not simply acknowledged. I cited it often in several threads. You make it sound like I finally accepted it. Despite the fact that I wouldn't rise to your 'prove me wrong' baiting, I tend to cite a lot of information OFTEN.

Sorry. I used the word agknowledged because I believed someone else posted the studies first, and you ran with them. It's possible you were the first one to post them, and if so, I'm sorry about that.

The psychiatric community isn't the problem. They also aren't the only ones that see the records. Medical privacy is a myth.

And that isn't a problem?

Yes, this is exactly my point. The vast majority of pedophiles don't actually want to be put in a position where they might offend.

It was intended as an illustration of your point. Just because we disagree on certain issues doesn't mean we disagree on everything. I personally think you're dead on with this point.

I wasn't referencing you, but I do think your claims are self-serving and not well-founded. You're not the only pedophile on these forums. Get over yourself.

I'm sorry. It looked like the sort of thing you were saying about me earlier. Especially your part about "had to pretend like he was defending the child's right to self-determination". Considering I argued in favor of a child's right to self-determination in both threads, I hope it makes sense to you why I would think you might be talking about me. Apparently I was wrong.

And you didn't say a single thing about maturity. You said whether they had the knowledge and cognitive ability. That has nothing to do with maturity. According to your requirements I could have passed any test that most 18-year-olds could pass when I was about seven.
Are you saying that you had the knowledge and cognative ability to pass those tests at the age of seven, yet wouldn't have been able to in spite of that? What characteristic did you lack that would have enabled you to pass those tests?

Jocaiba has a point in regards to the proposed new method of determining the legality of sexual situations.

He's right when he says that it would be virtually impossible to implement. Indeed, even agreeing on a standard to use to determine the compotency of a person to engage in sex is something that would be virtually impossible, since, as we've seen, no two of us give the same answer when asked what we feel those requirements should be, assuming that arbitrary age lines aren't an option. There is also the possibility that the tests would be abused in the same way mandatory voting tests were abused during Jim Crow times. I know the system has problems, but I think that it would, if properly implemented, be a better system than the current one based on arbitrary guesses of when someone has a set of qualifications no two people can agree on the nature of.

Furthermore, enforcing such licenses would be nigh impossible without such huge infractions upon our civil rights that we might as well live in an Orwellian Big Brother society.

The enforcement, theoretically, would function as the system functions now, with reports of sexual abuse being followed up by law enforcement much the same way as it is now. The only difference would be that the standard of "below the age of consent" would be replaced with the standard of "unlicensed". If it turns out that children really can't meet the requirements as a general rule, which is a definate possibility, then very little would have changed, since the police would still be quite strongly inclined to investigate any reports of sex involving a child. The only difference would be that if a child were exceptionally emotionally and mentally mature, then that child could produce a license and the police would move along. If it turned out that no child could pass such a test, because the people stating that there is a biological incompotence resulting from being prepubesent were right, then that would mean that those children would all be unlicensed.

As for treatment, I have absolutely no intention at this time of even considering speaking to a psychiatrist. As both of you have said, not only are medical records public knowledge to those who weild the power to destroy a person's life permenantly, I would never trust a psychiatrist in this area anyway. For that matter, I wouldn't trust a psychiatrist in this area for anything at all. I spoke to one once in regards to my emotional issues. During a discussion about my life, I acknowledged my bisexuality. The psychiatrist proceeded to try to "cure" me of it with the typical claim that homosexuality and bisexuality are mental conditions as opposed to genetic(which science points to them being). At that point I tried to convince her otherwise, but even with proof(I had access to the internet via her laptop and thus used it to pull up a number of scientific articles) she refused to accept it. I've sworn off any psychologist from this area ever since.

It sounds like you had a bad experience, and I don't blame you in the least for being concerned. Both about their discression and about their compotence.

I do hope my grandchildren are able to say that, though. I really do. I will do everything to encourage my children to be socially open-minded, and hope that they encourage the same from their children. With any luck, it will come to pass.
That's really the dream, that later generations will be able to take for granted the freedoms we are currently denied. And teaching your children tollerance is perhaps the most important step.

I see. That makes a difference. I'd assumed you were talking about harm to others rather than to one's self. Clearly I've been misreading you. In that case, I would like to ask, aside from the stress, what exactly is the harm to the pedophile?

I suppose you're nebulous term stree will do. What harm do you think cannot qualify as stress? The should seek help to deal with unhealthy urges that make them unable to work with children while controlling themselves, for example.


Sorry. I used the word agknowledged because I believed someone else posted the studies first, and you ran with them. It's possible you were the first one to post them, and if so, I'm sorry about that.

And that isn't a problem?

It's not the fault of the community. If you'd like the psychiatric community to stage a coup, you're going to have to invest in a lot of guns. They don't make the laws.


It was intended as an illustration of your point. Just because we disagree on certain issues doesn't mean we disagree on everything. I personally think you're dead on with this point.

I recognized that. I was telling you that your illustration was a good one.


I'm sorry. It looked like the sort of thing you were saying about me earlier. Especially your part about "had to pretend like he was defending the child's right to self-determination". Considering I argued in favor of a child's right to self-determination in both threads, I hope it makes sense to you why I would think you might be talking about me. Apparently I was wrong.

Are you saying that you had the knowledge and cognative ability to pass those tests at the age of seven, yet wouldn't have been able to in spite of that? What characteristic did you lack that would have enabled you to pass those tests?
Maturity. I find it a little disconcerting that you think that maturity and cognitive ability/knowledge are equal. Obviously, maturity is not that simple. I'm a prime example.

I suppose you're nebulous term stree will do. What harm do you think cannot qualify as stress? The should seek help to deal with unhealthy urges that make them unable to work with children while controlling themselves, for example.

Um, didn't I just say that I worked in an elementary school? In fact, I've proven so good at my job that the teachers and my supervisor keep trying to push me into a career in education. I've claimed repeatedly that I have no intention of ever having sex with children, so how exactly am I unable to work with children while controlling myself?

It's not the fault of the community. If you'd like the psychiatric community to stage a coup, you're going to have to invest in a lot of guns. They don't make the laws.

I'd be more inclined to provide said guns if it weren't for stories like Kyronea's.

I recognized that. I was telling you that your illustration was a good one.

I see. My bad. In that case, thanks.

Maturity. I find it a little disconcerting that you think that maturity and cognitive ability/knowledge are equal. Obviously, maturity is not that simple. I'm a prime example.
A prime example of someone with a lot of maturity but low cognative ability and knowledge, or a prime example of someone with high cognative ability and knowledge but low maturity? Frankly, either claim looks to be highly self-depreciating, so I'm assuming you mean something different, but I really can't figure out what that something different might be.

How can you talk about giving rights to someone that destroys the lives of others? Paedophiles are worse than monsters.

Kill them, slowly, publicly and brutally. That should be a nice deterrent to other twisted sick shits. :sniper:

How can you talk about giving rights to someone that destroys the lives of others? Paedophiles are worse than monsters.

Kill them, slowly, publicly and brutally. That should be a nice deterrent to other twisted sick shits. :sniper:
Once again: develop better reading comprehension. I do NOT speak of actual child molesters. I speak of paedophiles, those with physical attraction to children. They are two completely different things. A paedophile does not automatically act upon his or her urges. They are merely attracted. Indeed, as shown earlier in this thread, there is scientific and statistical evidence showing that paedophiles are on the whole far LESS likely to molest children than non-paedophiles. As ridiculous as that sounds, it's true. I suggest research and open-minded thought rather than simple emotionalism. It will do you well on a great deal of things.

Um, didn't I just say that I worked in an elementary school? In fact, I've proven so good at my job that the teachers and my supervisor keep trying to push me into a career in education. I've claimed repeatedly that I have no intention of ever having sex with children, so how exactly am I unable to work with children while controlling myself?

Ok, so you didn't say it was a problem? I using your example of yourself and clearly it's a concern you have or where you lying? Don't get mad at me if react to your posts based on what they say. I understand your sensitivity on this issue, but you're being ridiculous and absurdly defensive.



I'd be more inclined to provide said guns if it weren't for stories like Kyronea's.

His example is not as common as some would have you believe.


I see. My bad. In that case, thanks.

A prime example of someone with a lot of maturity but low cognative ability and knowledge, or a prime example of someone with high cognative ability and knowledge but low maturity? Frankly, either claim looks to be highly self-depreciating, so I'm assuming you mean something different, but I really can't figure out what that something different might be.
I was a seven-year-old who was molested. My cognitive ability was nearly unparalleled and, because of a particular bent on figuring out what happened, neither was my knowledge of human sexuality. Knowledge and ability to understand the logistics of sex or consequences of sex doesn't make you prepared to deal with them nor able to understand what was and wasn't able to deal with. Emotional maturity while it requires a minimum of cognitive ability is not equal to it, nor does come from some magical cognitive development. It's a result of experiences and our growth. And while age and maturity are not equal, your access to maturity goes up exponentially with age as do your experiences and your opportunities for growth.

Ok, so you didn't say it was a problem? I using your example of yourself and clearly it's a concern you have or where you lying? Don't get mad at me if react to your posts based on what they say. I understand your sensitivity on this issue, but you're being ridiculous and absurdly defensive.

He was refering to this

The psychiatric community isn't the problem. They also aren't the only ones that see the records. Medical privacy is a myth.

Ok, so you didn't say it was a problem? I using your example of yourself and clearly it's a concern you have or where you lying?

The source of my concern was what would happen if I were discovered. Let's face it, a pedophile working in an elementary school isn't exactly going to look benign. Termination would seem a forgone conclusion if I were found out, and the threat of legal action and false acusations were a greater risk with me being in this position. Any initial concerns I may have had about my self-control have proven, through constant interaction with children from a position of authority for over a year, to be unfounded.

Don't get mad at me if react to your posts based on what they say. I understand your sensitivity on this issue, but you're being ridiculous and absurdly defensive.

I see. I didn't explain myself well enough. It would seem that the assumptions you made about my self-control issues may well have been justified based on what I've said. I hope I've managed to clear this up.

Now, based on this new information, what would you say is the harm done to me that would mean I should seek professional treatment?

His example is not as common as some would have you believe.

Common or no, the fact that it happens doesn't inspire confidence.

I was a seven-year-old who was molested.

Shall I assume this was an experience that would have qualified as rape without age of consent laws?

My cognitive ability was nearly unparalleled and, because of a particular bent on figuring out what happened, neither was my knowledge of human sexuality.

It seems that your knowledge about sex came after your actual experience, rather than before. Or am I misreading this?

Knowledge and ability to understand the logistics of sex or consequences of sex doesn't make you prepared to deal with them nor able to understand what was and wasn't able to deal with.

Can you please let me know what exactly it is that you can understand and deal with now that you couldn't back then? I'm still not sure I get it. I'm trying to understand what you're saying, but I still don't think I understand.

Emotional maturity while it requires a minimum of cognitive ability is not equal to it, nor does come from some magical cognitive development. It's a result of experiences and our growth. And while age and maturity are not equal, your access to maturity goes up exponentially with age as do your experiences and your opportunities for growth.
Do we have a way of measuring emotional maturity? Is there some psychological test which can quantify a person's emotional maturity like IQ tests and the like can quantify cognative ability?

The source of my concern was what would happen if I were discovered. Let's face it, a pedophile working in an elementary school isn't exactly going to look benign. Termination would seem a forgone conclusion if I were found out, and the threat of legal action and false acusations were a greater risk with me being in this position. Any initial concerns I may have had about my self-control have proven, through constant interaction with children from a position of authority for over a year, to be unfounded.

I see. I didn't explain myself well enough. It would seem that the assumptions you made about my self-control issues may well have been justified based on what I've said. I hope I've managed to clear this up.

You have. Fair enough.


Now, based on this new information, what would you say is the harm done to me that would mean I should seek professional treatment?

If you have found a way to deal with your urges to commit sexual acts with people who cannot consent then good for you. I don't think it's likely for people to find a healthy place starting from that platform. All evidence appears to agree with me. You haven't shown any that suggests otherwise.


Common or no, the fact that it happens doesn't inspire confidence.

Doctors sometimes misdiagnose cancer. Better avoid doctors. And surgeons, because they sometimes leave things inside you. And pretty much every type of service you can imagine. If you focus on anecdotal evidence regardless of likelihood of the event in the anecdote, then you have no reason to have confidence in any service. Of course, that would be illogical, but hey, why bother with logic, huh?

I fly on planes all the time. The fact that crashes happen don't inspire confidence, common or no. But then we realize that the frequency of occurance is less than most other accidents and we realize that to worry about crashing is illogical.


Shall I assume this was an experience that would have qualified as rape without age of consent laws?

I was four when it happened. It wasn't the age of consent laws that made it wrong. What made it wrong was that I was FOUR.


It seems that your knowledge about sex came after your actual experience, rather than before. Or am I misreading this?

Yes, I wasn't knowledgeable about sex at four. I was by seven and, no, very little of it came from the actual experience. My molester taught me to read, do multiplication tables, etc. For obvious reasons, my mother was a bit more reluctant to leave us with babysitters so she starting taking me with her to the university library while she was studying to be a nurse. University's have books on human sexuality. Given the level of understanding that some adults have when they get to college, they start a fairly basic level and, obviously, they get pretty in depth.


Can you please let me know what exactly it is that you can understand and deal with now that you couldn't back then? I'm still not sure I get it. I'm trying to understand what you're saying, but I still don't think I understand.

Do you have the same level of sexual maturity you had when you were seven? Or are you telling me you don't understand what maturity is?


Do we have a way of measuring emotional maturity? Is there some psychological test which can quantify a person's emotional maturity like IQ tests and the like can quantify cognative ability?
Not really. There have been suggested tests, but they are not widely accepted. Mostly because the things that make us mature are not really quantifiable and come from everywhere and most tests of emotional 'maturity' end up having a strong slant toward certain moralities and ideologies.

You have. Fair enough.

Good to know we've cleared that up. I'm sorry to have left you misinformed and then gotten upset at you for being misinformed. It was truly not my intention and I shouldn't have let that happen.

If you have found a way to deal with your urges to commit sexual acts with people who cannot consent then good for you. I don't think it's likely for people to find a healthy place starting from that platform. All evidence appears to agree with me. You haven't shown any that suggests otherwise.

So you're saying, if I understand you, that not every pedophile will require psychological help, just those having dificulty dealing with their sexual desires? I can agree with that.

Doctors sometimes misdiagnose cancer. Better avoid doctors. And surgeons, because they sometimes leave things inside you. And pretty much every type of service you can imagine. If you focus on anecdotal evidence regardless of likelihood of the event in the anecdote, then you have no reason to have confidence in any service. Of course, that would be illogical, but hey, why bother with logic, huh?

I fly on planes all the time. The fact that crashes happen don't inspire confidence, common or no. But then we realize that the frequency of occurance is less than most other accidents and we realize that to worry about crashing is illogical.

I can't really argue with that logic. I mean I have no evidence that the instance of abuse from the psychiatric community is significantly higher than the instance of plane crashes. Of course I have no evidence suggesting it's lower than the instance of skinned knees resulting from bicycle crashes either, but you're right that assuming the worst based on only anecdotal evidence, even if that assumption is widely held, is an illogical position.

Still, you'll forgive me if I wait to see an independent review of the instance of these practices before I start financing a coup on their behalf.

I was four when it happened. It wasn't the age of consent laws that made it wrong. What made it wrong was that I was FOUR.

I'm afraid that isn't what I was asking about. Was there consent, even if it couldn't meet the standard of "informed consent" (which is based soely on the age of participants)? Were you tricked, forced, or cohersed? I should think, given your reactions so far, that the answer to that second question was yes, and if so, it doesn't seem to apply to what I've been talking about. Rape is rape, regardless of the age of the victum.

Yes, I wasn't knowledgeable about sex at four. I was by seven and, no, very little of it came from the actual experience. My molester taught me to read, do multiplication tables, etc. For obvious reasons, my mother was a bit more reluctant to leave us with babysitters so she starting taking me with her to the university library while she was studying to be a nurse. University's have books on human sexuality. Given the level of understanding that some adults have when they get to college, they start a fairly basic level and, obviously, they get pretty in depth.

I had assumed as much.

Do you have the same level of sexual maturity you had when you were seven? Or are you telling me you don't understand what maturity is?

Basicly that I don't understand the meaning of the word maturity. I have no idea what the qualifications for maturity are, and never has anyone been able to explain it to me.

Not really. There have been suggested tests, but they are not widely accepted. Mostly because the things that make us mature are not really quantifiable and come from everywhere and most tests of emotional 'maturity' end up having a strong slant toward certain moralities and ideologies.
If you can't test for maturity, why do you assume that people have it at one age, but don't have it at another? Indeed, if it can't be observed and measured, then, from a scientific standpoint, how do you know it exists in anyone? I just don't see the logic in having as a basic qualification, something we can't observe or test.

... if it can't be observed and measured, then, from a scientific standpoint, how do you know it exists in anyone? I just don't see the logic in having as a basic qualification, something we can't observe or test.
Kinda like spirituality, love, happiness ... all those internal states? Those things that we know exist, but just can't prove?

Kinda like spirituality, love, happiness ... all those internal states? Those things that we know exist, but just can't prove?
Which activities do we have spirituality, love, or happiness as rerequisites for being allowed to participate in them?

I can't believe this thread is still going!

I can't believe this thread is still going!
I can't believe you don't believe it. ;)

Which activities do we have spirituality, love, or happiness as rerequisites for being allowed to participate in them?
Either I'm missing something, or you need to explain a bit more. :confused:

No they are not,,,They are sick disgusting twisted bastards and they should all be locked up forever.

Either I'm missing something, or you need to explain a bit more. :confused:
Jocabia has stated that the lack of emotional maturity is the meaningful difference between children and adults in regards to the ability or nonability to consent to sex. Thus this is the reason why children aren't allowed to control their own sex lives, because they would not have the emotional maturity to make good decisions, resist manipulation, and deal with the emotional consequences of sex.

I was pointing out that maturity isn't something we can measure, so it makes little sense to use the level of maturity a person is likely to posess as a reasonable standard for when one can and cannot limit a person's right to self-determination.

1. Jocabia has stated that the lack of emotional maturity is the meaningful difference between children and adults in regards to the ability or nonability to consent to sex. Thus this is the reason why children aren't allowed to control their own sex lives, because they would not have the emotional maturity to make good decisions, resist manipulation, and deal with the emotional consequences of sex.

2. I was pointing out that maturity isn't something we can measure, so it makes little sense to use the level of maturity a person is likely to posess as a reasonable standard for when one can and cannot limit a person's right to self-determination.
1. This is true. There are quite a few adults who have the self-same problems.

2. This is also true. However, the line must be drawn somewhere, because we know that children below a certain age are universally unable to make informed decsions on their own.

This is why the law ( at least in America ) stipulates a set age at when a person is to be considered legally an adult.

1. This is true. There are quite a few adults who have the self-same problems.

Which would seem to indicate that we've set the bar too low, and that you should be in support of my proposal to raise the age of consent to 26.

2. This is also true. However, the line must be drawn somewhere, because we know that children below a certain age are universally unable to make informed decsions on their own.

I'm not sure you've explained the need for a line. Determining if a person can make informed decisions on one's own could be done on an individual basis, could it not? I mean isn't that how we deny the mentally ill their rights?

This is why the law ( at least in America ) stipulates a set age at when a person is to be considered legally an adult.
What is that line based on? If we can't measure maturity, how do we know that we've put the line in the right place?

Jocabia has stated that the lack of emotional maturity is the meaningful difference between children and adults in regards to the ability or nonability to consent to sex. Thus this is the reason why children aren't allowed to control their own sex lives, because they would not have the emotional maturity to make good decisions, resist manipulation, and deal with the emotional consequences of sex.

I was pointing out that maturity isn't something we can measure, so it makes little sense to use the level of maturity a person is likely to posess as a reasonable standard for when one can and cannot limit a person's right to self-determination.

Because we don't have an agreed upon test doesn't mean it doesn't exist from a scientific standpoint. It's simply more complicated then we are prepared to deal with. Intelligence is actually slightly less complicated and we still have disagreements on intelligence testing, because many regard them as oversimplified. There is a nearly universal scientific agreement (at least amont scientists in that field) in the existence of maturity and it's role in decision-making. The disagreement is in how to test for it any way that doesn't assume too much.

And we don't have it as a requirement because of that lack of agreement. Instead we use a standard of age because age has a direct correllation to experience and experience has a direct correllation to maturity. That much everyone can agree on. Now this is not a linear correllation, nor is it the same in all people, the same way language acquisition or fine motor control development are not the same in all people. But we know that there is a compelling correllation. So given that we understand the correllation, that we have no better way to address it and that it something necessary to address, we use age.

Without explaining the entire science of developmental psychology and relating it to this subject, the basis of emotional maturity has to do with the fact that young children have an inability to recognize certain types of harm. Their understanding of it is very basic. As they grow they begin to recognize it but they have a difficult time weighing all of the types of harm into their decisions. Some of these same problems may continue into adulthood, as fact has it, but initially they don't even have the capacity for the type of decision-making necessary for many of the tasks we expect of adults every day. The fact that they develop this ability to understand only begins the process of actually understanding and using that abilty. We have no real ability to verify that they begin to use that understanding so we use information we have on general social, emotional and cognitive development of healthy children and we assume. That's the best we can do until we have a better way and, as of yet, no one has proposed on that wasn't heavily stinking of a particular morality.

As such, with priveleges like driving we give other tests to verify whatever ways we can that one is ready for the responsibility, but with rights like voting or sex, we simply assume that one has the ability at a certain age in absense of a better way of determining such a thing.

And we can limit self-determination if we have a compelling reason. In children, we have a clear and compelling reason to limit thier self-determination. That's why children can't be emancipated until a certain age. That's why children can't live on their own until a certain age. That's why children don't vote, don't drive, don't serve on juries, etc. There are clear and obvious maturations going on in children and if you didn't recognize that you couldn't claim to be a pedophile. Because children to you would be exactly the same as every other adult.

No they are not,,,They are sick disgusting twisted bastards and they should all be locked up forever.

You think people who think about killing someone should be locked up for murder?

Because we don't have an agreed upon test doesn't mean it doesn't exist from a scientific standpoint. It's simply more complicated then we are prepared to deal with. Intelligence is actually slightly less complicated and we still have disagreements on intelligence testing, because many regard them as oversimplified. There is a nearly universal scientific agreement (at least amont scientists in that field) in the existence of maturity and it's role in decision-making. The disagreement is in how to test for it any way that doesn't assume too much.

So it's a question of definition then? We can't objectively define maturity? That would suggest to me that maturity isn't an objective value, but rather a subjective one in the first place.

And please don't mistake "scientific agreement" with "agreement among scientists". Much like a scientist having the opinion that God exists doesn't make it a scientific opinion, scientists agreeing that maturity is something objective that has a role in decision-making doesn't make it scientific agreement.

And we don't have it as a requirement because of that lack of agreement. Instead we use a standard of age because age has a direct correllation to experience and experience has a direct correllation to maturity. That much everyone can agree on. Now this is not a linear correllation, nor is it the same in all people, the same way language acquisition or fine motor control development are not the same in all people. But we know that there is a compelling correllation. So given that we understand the correllation, that we have no better way to address it and that it something necessary to address, we use age.

But if we don't have a way of measuring maturity, how can we know if maturity correlates with age? I don't see how we can establish correlation when we're dealin with an unmeasurable quantity.

Without explaining the entire science of developmental psychology and relating it to this subject, the basis of emotional maturity has to do with the fact that young children have an inability to recognize certain types of harm. Their understanding of it is very basic. As they grow they begin to recognize it but they have a difficult time weighing all of the types of harm into their decisions. Some of these same problems may continue into adulthood, as fact has it, but initially they don't even have the capacity for the type of decision-making necessary for many of the tasks we expect of adults every day. The fact that they develop this ability to understand only begins the process of actually understanding and using that abilty. We have no real ability to verify that they begin to use that understanding so we use information we have on general social, emotional and cognitive development of healthy children and we assume. That's the best we can do until we have a better way and, as of yet, no one has proposed on that wasn't heavily stinking of a particular morality.

I know you aren't fond of hypotheticals, but this seems to be a point where one is absolutely vital to the purpose of clarifying your opinion on the matter. If it were possible to determine a person's individual level of maturity using a test which were impartial and lacked bias, would you support the use of that test as a qualification for sexual activity rather than age?

As such, with priveleges like driving we give other tests to verify whatever ways we can that one is ready for the responsibility, but with rights like voting or sex, we simply assume that one has the ability at a certain age in absense of a better way of determining such a thing.

So we deny priveleges based on objective, measurable qualifications, but we deny rights on the basis of a "best guess"? There's something that seems remarkably backward about that.

And we can limit self-determination if we have a compelling reason. In children, we have a clear and compelling reason to limit thier self-determination. That's why children can't be emancipated until a certain age. That's why children can't live on their own until a certain age. That's why children don't vote, don't drive, don't serve on juries, etc.

I understand that you believe there is a clear and compelling reason to limit the rights of children to determine their own fates and actions, and the multitude of laws which do so is definately evidence that lawmakers agree with you, but simply stating that these rights are denied to children doesn't constitute an arguement for why these and others should be denied to them.

Perhaps you've made the false assumption that I believe age to be a valid grounds to deny these rights?

There are clear and obvious maturations going on in children and if you didn't recognize that you couldn't claim to be a pedophile. Because children to you would be exactly the same as every other adult.
Those maturations which are clear and obvious are physical maturations. The ability to recognise a lack of pysiological maturation does not neccessitate agreement with you that the lack of physiological maturation translates to a lack of mental or emotional maturity.

You think people who think about killing someone should be locked up for murder?

Ummmmmmmm NO thought and act are two seperate things.....You cna think about killing someone, but as long as you don't act on it no crime. My comments apply to those that commit the act or a crime against children. Any one of these scum bags that commit a sex crime against a child should be put away froever, they can not be reformed, the best answer is to exacute them so they never can offend again.

:D

Ummmmmmmm NO thought and act are two seperate things.....You cna think about killing someone, but as long as you don't act on it no crime. My comments apply to those that commit the act or a crime against children. Any one of these scum bags that commit a sex crime against a child should be put away froever, they can not be reformed, the best answer is to exacute them so they never can offend again.

:D

Then you're not talking about the vast majority of pedophiles. You want to revise your original statement in the thread then, my friend? Is that what you're saying?

So it's a question of definition then? We can't objectively define maturity? That would suggest to me that maturity isn't an objective value, but rather a subjective one in the first place.

They can define maturity. Tests that test humans test the effects of maturity to determine if it is there. We can agree what maturity is, we simply can't agree with what it would manifest itself as entirely. This is also true of intelligence, but the accepted view that intelligence exists is still an objective view.


And please don't mistake "scientific agreement" with "agreement among scientists". Much like a scientist having the opinion that God exists doesn't make it a scientific opinion, scientists agreeing that maturity is something objective that has a role in decision-making doesn't make it scientific agreement.

Except this opinion is based on scientific study. Please don't confuse you're self-serving lack of understanding of maturity as the lack of understanding existing.

I'll warn you, your argument at this point sounds very much like the ol' "evolution is just a theory" argument drug out by creationists. It's based on an oversimplification of scientific principle and refusing to analyze or even make oneself aware of the evidence and then making assumptions based on one's own ignorance of the topic at hand. If you are going to argue this matter, it shouldn't be necessary to teach you the entire topic first.


But if we don't have a way of measuring maturity, how can we know if maturity correlates with age? I don't see how we can establish correlation when we're dealin with an unmeasurable quantity.

It's not unmeasurable. There is just disagreement on the best way to measure it and, as such, such measurements cannot be used a method for allowing other people to take advantage of children.

Once again, you're simplifying the argument to make it absurd. Because it's too complicated to quantify in some simple way doesn't make it unmeasurable.


I know you aren't fond of hypotheticals, but this seems to be a point where one is absolutely vital to the purpose of clarifying your opinion on the matter. If it were possible to determine a person's individual level of maturity using a test which were impartial and lacked bias, would you support the use of that test as a qualification for sexual activity rather than age?

If we could test for all of the factors that amount to sexual maturity, yes, I would be entirely on board for such a test being administered in order to allow children the freedom to engage or not as they like. I do, however, think the actual logistics would be problem, much like age limits on alcohol, driving and such are a problem, now. My guess is that such a problem would be no worse than the current state of affairs though.


So we deny priveleges based on objective, measurable qualifications, but we deny rights on the basis of a "best guess"? There's something that seems remarkably backward about that.

Not in children. In children, we've always limiting their right to self-determination for a lot more than a "best guess". There is a strict and compelling need to protect children from themselves and others because of the development they go through during childhood. How many 9-year-old drivers do you know? That's because with priveleges we use both the 'best guess' and the objective, measurable qualifications. We do both. The rights are less restricted, not more.


I understand that you believe there is a clear and compelling reason to limit the rights of children to determine their own fates and actions, and the multitude of laws which do so is definately evidence that lawmakers agree with you, but simply stating that these rights are denied to children doesn't constitute an arguement for why these and others should be denied to them.

I made an argument why. You're inability to understand the argument has nothing to do with whether it was made. They are engaged in a maturation process that requires our protection. They aren't in a posiition to engage in self-determination without putting themselves and others in danger. Simplifying an argument to absurdity because you can't deal with its complexity is not in your best interest unless you're just trying to fool people who don't know any better.


Perhaps you've made the false assumption that I believe age to be a valid grounds to deny these rights?

No, I haven't. I've made the correct assumption that you lack the knowledge in this area to make such a determination. I used those examples because you're not the only one reading this.


Those maturations which are clear and obvious are physical maturations. The ability to recognise a lack of pysiological maturation does not neccessitate agreement with you that the lack of physiological maturation translates to a lack of mental or emotional maturity.
Really? Can you give me a physical maturation test that would always apply? Body hair doesn't always apply and is only a very basic form of this maturation. Growth in height varies. Muscle development varies. Breast development varies. Nearly ever factor varies so dramatically that the only thing we can really test is whether or not puberty has begun.

And a lack of physiological maturation in terms of brain development when talking about the maturation I'm talking about HAS to translate to a lack of mental or emotional maturity. It's the way our brains work. But even once that development occurs that only allows that type of maturation to begin. If we tested for it, it would only tell us the child is capable of maturing in that way, it's a starting line, not a finish line, much like checking for body hair. Once meeting such a requirement occurs they still have to do the work of developing this aspect of themselves and how long it takes we have some idea of. We can't nail it down to days but we can nail it down to within a year or two, in terms of normal healthy development.

And in the case of human beings, we assume normal healthy development. Otherwise, we would test everyone for every abnormality known to man. We don't. It's not logistically possible. Nor is their any indicator it's necessary.

Yes, I believe paedophilia is a sexuality in itself, and they have rights, NAMBLA and such, fine with me.
What I do NOT support, however, is the opposite of consented sexual acts with a child. Rape. It's a terrible word, but it happens, I normally don't give much of a care with the pro-paedophilia activists, it's their right to opinion, but it sickens me to wake up one morning and read the paper and see the news that another child has been abducted, raped, and had his/her body found in a lake somewhere, Paedophiles are people too, but the question is-Is it possible to consent a child concerning sexual acts? As mentioned in the first post, they are mostly too young to understand.
I'm confused now, I'll be sleeping and thinking.


-Edit...Wow...Lots of posts in one thread

They can define maturity. Tests that test humans test the effects of maturity to determine if it is there. We can agree what maturity is, we simply can't agree with what it would manifest itself as entirely. This is also true of intelligence, but the accepted view that intelligence exists is still an objective view.

Okay, they can define maturity. Would you consider it dishonest of me to admit my ignorance and ask for the agreed upon definition?

Except this opinion is based on scientific study. Please don't confuse you're self-serving lack of understanding of maturity as the lack of understanding existing.

I'll warn you, your argument at this point sounds very much like the ol' "evolution is just a theory" argument drug out by creationists. It's based on an oversimplification of scientific principle and refusing to analyze or even make oneself aware of the evidence and then making assumptions based on one's own ignorance of the topic at hand. If you are going to argue this matter, it shouldn't be necessary to teach you the entire topic first.

I should point out that those creationists usually get an explaination and evidence when they do make those statements. So far, I've seen you repeatedly refused me even that level of consideration.

It's not unmeasurable. There is just disagreement on the best way to measure it and, as such, such measurements cannot be used a method for allowing other people to take advantage of children.

And there it is. You refuse to even see that if this were used, those children allowed to determine their own sex lives would hardly be being taken advantage of. Even your own response to the hypothetical refutes this characterization.

Once again, you're simplifying the argument to make it absurd. Because it's too complicated to quantify in some simple way doesn't make it unmeasurable.

So it can be quantified in some more complex way?

If we could test for all of the factors that amount to sexual maturity, yes, I would be entirely on board for such a test being administered in order to allow children the freedom to engage or not as they like. I do, however, think the actual logistics would be problem, much like age limits on alcohol, driving and such are a problem, now. My guess is that such a problem would be no worse than the current state of affairs though.

Thank you for breaking your "no hypotheticals" rule. This really does help. Now we've agreed that it's a valid proposal in theory, and we have only to agree on the details of implementation. Those may prove insurmountable, but I still feel we've passed a major hurtle.

Not in children. In children, we've always limiting their right to self-determination for a lot more than a "best guess". There is a strict and compelling need to protect children from themselves and others because of the development they go through during childhood. How many 9-year-old drivers do you know? That's because with priveleges we use both the 'best guess' and the objective, measurable qualifications. We do both. The rights are less restricted, not more.

I see. The "best guess" standard is universal among all the rights a human being ever recieves from his/her society, so that makes it alright.

I made an argument why. You're inability to understand the argument has nothing to do with whether it was made.

Actually, I was saying that this particular part of your post didn't constatute a valid arguement, not that you've entirely failed to make one.

They are engaged in a maturation process that requires our protection.

Why? You say that our protection is required as though it should be self-evident, but I don't understand why the fact that someone is undergoing a process of maturation neccissarily requires protection. Would you feel less inclined to protect a child who was not undergoing a maturation process, and simply stopped maturing before reaching adulthood?

They aren't in a posiition to engage in self-determination without putting themselves and others in danger.

This seems like grounds for commiting someone to a mental instatution. This seems like a determination that could be easily made by a court or pannel of experts, rather than something so vague that we need to rely on a "best guess" for.

Simplifying an argument to absurdity because you can't deal with its complexity is not in your best interest unless you're just trying to fool people who don't know any better.

Simplifying the arguement to absurdity? How have I done that? I genuinely don't understand how maturity is defined. I admited as much back in post 874. Presumably you've just missed a post again.

No, I haven't. I've made the correct assumption that you lack the knowledge in this area to make such a determination. I used those examples because you're not the only one reading this.

Then, if not for my sake, but for the sake of those other readers, would you please inform them what the medical community defines maturity as?

Really? Can you give me a physical maturation test that would always apply? Body hair doesn't always apply and is only a very basic form of this maturation. Growth in height varies. Muscle development varies. Breast development varies. Nearly ever factor varies so dramatically that the only thing we can really test is whether or not puberty has begun.

How did you get this from my post?

And a lack of physiological maturation in terms of brain development when talking about the maturation I'm talking about HAS to translate to a lack of mental or emotional maturity. It's the way our brains work. But even once that development occurs that only allows that type of maturation to begin. If we tested for it, it would only tell us the child is capable of maturing in that way, it's a starting line, not a finish line, much like checking for body hair. Once meeting such a requirement occurs they still have to do the work of developing this aspect of themselves and how long it takes we have some idea of. We can't nail it down to days but we can nail it down to within a year or two, in terms of normal healthy development.

So we psychologists can't agree on what the effects of maturity are, and all attempts at testing for it have been biased by cultural factors, yet neuroscientists can tell whether a person is capable of posessing this trait? How did they test that?

And in the case of human beings, we assume normal healthy development. Otherwise, we would test everyone for every abnormality known to man. We don't. It's not logistically possible. Nor is their any indicator it's necessary.
True, but when there is evidence that a person's development is not normal, we usually allow them to prove that, and adjust our reactions accordingly, do we not? At lest when a person's development is impaired in some way we do. Generally, when a person's development occurs faster for whatever reason, those people aren't allowed to prove it and be granted their legitimate human rights. Even emancipation has an age limit, and doesn't occur unless there's a compelling interest in removing the child from the home environment anyway.

I'm afraid.
Were go the line.

I like anime porn and they look childlish but still nubile but I like it,
I'm not a pedophile just becouse I like childlish nubile females
but some think so.

I suggest fighting by watching parents who are unnaturally attuned to children instead than the sexual sector.
How do people try to stop this?, with more pedophic messages that we must love the children.

At the same people say and admit they want partness looking like their mothers and fathers.
That disgusts me. Today everything about love is compared with children, adults are seen as children this is a fact.
People always draw parallels with security and being a baby sucking at mothers tits.
I think I see overgrown children everywhere in a overproctective society
that doesn't let people grow up propher.

Anyway, I think that society should cut down it's pedophiac child idolisation.
In the name of family values we see pictures of children everywere and children are prioritied above adult needs.
I don't like it and I think this helps the pedophies activate and prosper.
I think it's disgusting even before it reavels it's true pedophic form.
How do people try to stop this?, with more pedophic messages that we must love the children.

They are perverted father figures and bad authority figures.

Intelligence doesn't exist and all forms of objectivism is doubvious.
I suggest using both subjective and objectivistic versions of each argument each time.

An objective view means that all are wrong about everything
and no one can know anything
becouse there is only one automatic truth and there you automatically believe that's only automatic that believe.
So if one where wrong you are always wrong.
Becouse if it's not automatic delivered from some mathematic princip that governs all intelligence at all time then it can not be objective.

The logical out come must be that an objective fact has an moment 22,
that you can't know anything that is not objective.

Objectivist solve this by saying that science alone has the ability to be receptive this automatic moment 22-fact they call objective
but that requires human beings have some supernatural power
to first bee wrong and dropp out of universe and returning to the same universe being right about a fact that isn't affected no matter what you do.
If you where to exist planet earth then that planet would no longer be exactly the same and there fore it's not possible to look at the earth.
My point is that if a persons brain can be wrong then the universe also be wrong otherwise people would either be right all the time or wrong.
Logic that is "right" mus have some mechanic patter coorensponding to reality that means that universe can change and be irrational at times.

If it science exist in society now then it's impossible that it doesn't exist in society and there fore science automatically always exist.

I'm not against science thogh just the objectivistic science.

Even in mathematics everything is relative and subjective.
The numbers change doesn't they and operants are relative and formulas produce relative result.
Relativity is about comparing
and subjectivity about a spectrum of valid views.
You must change the perspective entirely each time you do something knew otherwise you know nothing.

Okay, they can define maturity. Would you consider it dishonest of me to admit my ignorance and ask for the agreed upon definition?

You have a couple of weeks. Not all things can be defined in a couple of sentences or even a couple of pages. This is a complicated matter that people study for years to understand.


I should point out that those creationists usually get an explaination and evidence when they do make those statements. So far, I've seen you repeatedly refused me even that level of consideration.

Yes, I've not explained it. Unless of course you count my explanation.

Without explaining the entire science of developmental psychology and relating it to this subject, the basis of emotional maturity has to do with the fact that young children have an inability to recognize certain types of harm. Their understanding of it is very basic. As they grow they begin to recognize it but they have a difficult time weighing all of the types of harm into their decisions. Some of these same problems may continue into adulthood, as fact has it, but initially they don't even have the capacity for the type of decision-making necessary for many of the tasks we expect of adults every day. The fact that they develop this ability to understand only begins the process of actually understanding and using that abilty. We have no real ability to verify that they begin to use that understanding so we use information we have on general social, emotional and cognitive development of healthy children and we assume. That's the best we can do until we have a better way and, as of yet, no one has proposed on that wasn't heavily stinking of a particular morality.


And there it is. You refuse to even see that if this were used, those children allowed to determine their own sex lives would hardly be being taken advantage of. Even your own response to the hypothetical refutes this characterization.

Again, you oversimplify and try to argue from that position. Again, since you ignored it, they don't have a way of measuring it that is satisfactory so if they allowed it to be used children would be taken advantage of. It's like you don't read what you're replying to, but we both know that's not the problem. The problem is that if you reply to what I say, then you'll have to *gasp* admit that there is such a thing and that you don't know what you're talking about.


So it can be quantified in some more complex way?

Sure. Can we do it? Probably, but given the subject, we can't get an agreement on a way to do it.


Thank you for breaking your "no hypotheticals" rule. This really does help. Now we've agreed that it's a valid proposal in theory, and we have only to agree on the details of implementation. Those may prove insurmountable, but I still feel we've passed a major hurtle.

I don't consider this a victory. If we could make a machine that creates food then it would be possible to feed the world without all that farmland, but it doesn't have any bearing on a discussion of whether or not farmland is necessary now or shouldn't be treated as necessary.

I use hypotheticals all the time. My problem with yours is that this is a practical issue, not a philosophical one and as such hypotheticals should make practical sense.


I see. The "best guess" standard is universal among all the rights a human being ever recieves from his/her society, so that makes it alright.

What makes it alright is that ignoring what we know is dangerous. You realize that evolution is a 'best guess'. That gravity is a 'best guess'. We formulate theories on all available knowledge. If you don't like the theories present new information. You haven't. Instead you've argued that your lack of knowledge of how they formulated the theories make them wrong.


Actually, I was saying that this particular part of your post didn't constatute a valid arguement, not that you've entirely failed to make one.

Then what you wrote was illogical. suggesting that my list was not part of an argument. You didn't say it wasn't a valid argument. You said it wasn't an argument. I pointed out that it was support for an argument and didn't stand alone. If you knew that, then you're just being obtuse.


Why? You say that our protection is required as though it should be self-evident, but I don't understand why the fact that someone is undergoing a process of maturation neccissarily requires protection. Would you feel less inclined to protect a child who was not undergoing a maturation process, and simply stopped maturing before reaching adulthood?

Again, you bastardize the argument. The point is that they aren't done maturing which would include both groups. Seriously, do you know the difference between an argument and contradiction?


This seems like grounds for commiting someone to a mental instatution. This seems like a determination that could be easily made by a court or pannel of experts, rather than something so vague that we need to rely on a "best guess" for.

It seems like grounds for putting them under the care of others. Fortunately, we already do that. And again, you have an issue of praciticality, to grant special rights to individuals who we cannot objectively say will nto be harmed by the very act of granting such special rights.


Simplifying the arguement to absurdity? How have I done that? I genuinely don't understand how maturity is defined. I admited as much back in post 874. Presumably you've just missed a post again.

Yes. You admit I made an argument but then separate a part of my argument out and say it doesn't constitute an argument. You flip things around like suggesting that because I talk about protecting people who are maturing that I don't care about people who aren't maturing and haven't matured, althought it's obvious in my statements what I'm referring to. You have throughout any conversation even remotely close to pedophilia intentionally overgeneralized the argument or separated the parts of the argument to the point of not making any sense and then complained because they don't make sense. You're argument pretty much rests on ignorance or logical fallacies and you act as if the fact you're not convinced is somehow compelling. It's not. It's self-serving.


Then, if not for my sake, but for the sake of those other readers, would you please inform them what the medical community defines maturity as?

Again, do you have a few weeks. For the purpose of this argument I explained how it applies.


How did you get this from my post?

Come to think of it, while a good argument, the flow wasn't totally clear. The point is that physical maturations that are clear and obvious, according to you, are no more easily measurable than those that aren't clear and obvious, according to you. Now to nearly everyone who is versed in such studies, the physiological, mental and emotional maturation process of children is clear and obvious, and, to be fair, it's also clear and obvious to most parents.


So we psychologists can't agree on what the effects of maturity are, and all attempts at testing for it have been biased by cultural factors, yet neuroscientists can tell whether a person is capable of posessing this trait? How did they test that?

Portions of our brain develop giving us the ability to form a moral compass, to weigh the effects of our actions on ourselves and others in greater than the simple understanding of immediate consequences. We're aware of the development of the brain necessary for our ability to form such processes. So we can tell if a brain is developing properly to allow for this type of development.

We also have some ability to tell when natural development is retarded so as to meet the needs of children who are not developing properly, but as has always been the case it is much easier to tell which children are suffering from retarded development than which children are subject to accelerated development. This has pretty much always been a problem because the needs of those with retarded development are more urgent and more obvious. Just about any abnormally intelligent adult can confirm that their needs were not met in school because of a lack of understanding.

While our understanding of the brain and development is still growing, this doesn't mean what we do have is a clear understanding that not erring on the side of care is dangerous to children.


True, but when there is evidence that a person's development is not normal, we usually allow them to prove that, and adjust our reactions accordingly, do we not? At lest when a person's development is impaired in some way we do. Generally, when a person's development occurs faster for whatever reason, those people aren't allowed to prove it and be granted their legitimate human rights. Even emancipation has an age limit, and doesn't occur unless there's a compelling interest in removing the child from the home environment anyway.

Again, we allow them to prove that when it's possible. And generally in the case of developmental abnormality we err on the side of caution. We're doing that.

People are allowed to prove when their development is accellerated, it's just that our understanding of accellerated development is more limited than retarded development. The reaons for this are obvious, but since being obvious doesn't seem to mean that you accept it, I'll give the reasons. People who develop too slowly are incapable of the activities expected at them at a given age. By necessity, we have to find ways to help these individuals function in society. However, for accellerated individuals, they are generally quite capable of normal function and thus of less concern. Malfunction will always get more funding and more research than exceptional function.

And, of course, it's really unnecessary to be concerned that people who happen to be developmentally exceptional don't get special rights. We have access to the same rights at the same times as everyone else. There is no reason to unnecessarily endanger other children so that they get these rights earlier than other individuals.

sorry five caste, didn't mean to take up such space. i just got boored and sequencual carried away.
You who have such detailed knowlegde and better dabating power than me who is just provacative?

Is anal sex sexuality? becouse if it isn't then you don't need sexual drive to enjoy it?

sorry five caste, didn't mean to take up such space. i just got boored and sequencual carried away.
You who have such detailed knowlegde and better dabating power than me who is just provacative?

Is anal sex sexuality? becouse if it isn't then you don't need sexual drive to enjoy it?

Actually, I'm not reading your posts. If you don't care enough about them to make an effort at grammar and spelling (a few errors is one thing...), why should I? You'd do well to put a bit more effort in your posts.

Actually, I'm not reading your posts. If you don't care enough about them to make an effort at grammar and spelling (a few errors is one thing...), why should I? You'd do well to put a bit more effort in your posts.
I agree with Jocabia here. I honestly can't decypher your arguements, MetaSatan, or even tell whether you're making an arguement on one side of this issue, or if you're just rambling. That post about mathematics and objectivity really looked like the later.

You have a couple of weeks. Not all things can be defined in a couple of sentences or even a couple of pages. This is a complicated matter that people study for years to understand.

Sure. I've got time.

Yes, I've not explained it. Unless of course you count my explanation.

Without explaining the entire science of developmental psychology and relating it to this subject, the basis of emotional maturity has to do with the fact that young children have an inability to recognize certain types of harm. Their understanding of it is very basic. As they grow they begin to recognize it but they have a difficult time weighing all of the types of harm into their decisions. Some of these same problems may continue into adulthood, as fact has it, but initially they don't even have the capacity for the type of decision-making necessary for many of the tasks we expect of adults every day. The fact that they develop this ability to understand only begins the process of actually understanding and using that abilty. We have no real ability to verify that they begin to use that understanding so we use information we have on general social, emotional and cognitive development of healthy children and we assume. That's the best we can do until we have a better way and, as of yet, no one has proposed on that wasn't heavily stinking of a particular morality.


You're talking about the ability to recognise harm of one type or another here, if I'm not mistaken. You contend that a child cannot recognise some type of harm, and thus cannot take tht type of harm into account. Am I right? Could you give me an example of a type of harm a child cannot recognise?

Again, you oversimplify and try to argue from that position. Again, since you ignored it, they don't have a way of measuring it that is satisfactory so if they allowed it to be used children would be taken advantage of. It's like you don't read what you're replying to, but we both know that's not the problem. The problem is that if you reply to what I say, then you'll have to *gasp* admit that there is such a thing and that you don't know what you're talking about.

I believe I've stated, more than once, that I've been discussing a child's ability to consent in the form of a hypothetical. The fact that you keep forgeting that doesn't change the fact that I've been arguing from that prospective.

Sure. Can we do it? Probably, but given the subject, we can't get an agreement on a way to do it.

All right, you've said there were problems coming up with a method that wasn't heavily tainted by someone's particular bent of morality. What would you say the problem has been? Is it our collective inability to agree on a universal code of moral behavior? Is it the fact that the focus has been moral behavior at all, rather than perceptual and comprehensive ability? You've seen the attempts. What were the problems, and how would you reccomend correcting them?

I don't consider this a victory. If we could make a machine that creates food then it would be possible to feed the world without all that farmland, but it doesn't have any bearing on a discussion of whether or not farmland is necessary now or shouldn't be treated as necessary.

I use hypotheticals all the time. My problem with yours is that this is a practical issue, not a philosophical one and as such hypotheticals should make practical sense.

I guess that's where we're butting heads. I consider this a philosophical question rather than a practical one. I'll admit that from a practical standpoint, my reccomendation has flaws, not the least of which the nature of the testing itself not having been agreed upon. The basic question, however, "What rights should we aford children?" That seems like a philosophical question to me, and I feel we should sort out the right and wrong of the matter before setting about tackling the implementation.

What makes it alright is that ignoring what we know is dangerous. You realize that evolution is a 'best guess'. That gravity is a 'best guess'. We formulate theories on all available knowledge. If you don't like the theories present new information. You haven't. Instead you've argued that your lack of knowledge of how they formulated the theories make them wrong.

I see. You wish to make a comparison between the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, and the theory that children are mentally incapable of rational thought. I seem to recall someone asking me to prove my comparisons were valid a while back.

Then what you wrote was illogical. suggesting that my list was not part of an argument. You didn't say it wasn't a valid argument. You said it wasn't an argument. I pointed out that it was support for an argument and didn't stand alone. If you knew that, then you're just being obtuse.

What you wrote doesn't get to count as even part of an arguement. The part I was responding to was saying, if I may, "Children are denied all sorts of rights. This isn't any different from what we do all the time to them." The fact that someone is denied a lot of rights is not justification for denying them rights, and I should think anyone should be able to see that without me bringing black slavery into this arguement.

Again, you bastardize the argument. The point is that they aren't done maturing which would include both groups. Seriously, do you know the difference between an argument and contradiction?

You said the problem was that they were maturing, not that they weren't yet mature. If that's what you meant, you should have been more careful with your wording.

It seems like grounds for putting them under the care of others. Fortunately, we already do that. And again, you have an issue of praciticality, to grant special rights to individuals who we cannot objectively say will nto be harmed by the very act of granting such special rights.

Let's be fair, we can't objectively say that you will not be harmed by the very act of granting you control over your sex life either. Maybe we should take away that right, since we can't be sure you won't be harmed by having it.

Yes. You admit I made an argument but then separate a part of my argument out and say it doesn't constitute an argument.

The part I said doesn't count as an argument is the part where you said essentially that because we deny them a lot of other rights, we should deny children this right as well. That doesn't count as an arguement, and doesn't even count as support.

You flip things around like suggesting that because I talk about protecting people who are maturing that I don't care about people who aren't maturing and haven't matured, althought it's obvious in my statements what I'm referring to.

Actually, because of your strange stance that sheep are allowed to have sex if they want to, in spite of having less ability to comprehend the consequences than a three year old, it could easily be assumed that your grounds for denying children their sexual rights was on the grounds that they were undergoing a transformative process, especially since you used the term maturing rather than the term not mature.

You have throughout any conversation even remotely close to pedophilia intentionally overgeneralized the argument or separated the parts of the argument to the point of not making any sense and then complained because they don't make sense.

So you're saying that your arguements would make sense if taken as a whole? You're saying that even though the component pieces of your arguement don't hold up, they somehow become compelling when put together? I really find that hard to believe.

You're argument pretty much rests on ignorance or logical fallacies and you act as if the fact you're not convinced is somehow compelling. It's not. It's self-serving.

Well? Which is it? Is it my ignorance, or logical falacies? If it's ignorance, you should be able to educate me and in so doing, completely destroy my arguement. If it's the result of logical falacies, you should be able to point those out readily as well, and demonstrate where my arguement breaks down. Either way, this should be very easy for you.

Again, do you have a few weeks. For the purpose of this argument I explained how it applies.

Again, sure. I've got time.

Come to think of it, while a good argument, the flow wasn't totally clear. The point is that physical maturations that are clear and obvious, according to you, are no more easily measurable than those that aren't clear and obvious, according to you. Now to nearly everyone who is versed in such studies, the physiological, mental and emotional maturation process of children is clear and obvious, and, to be fair, it's also clear and obvious to most parents.

So you're saying that mental and emotional maturation are clear and obvious to people who are well versed in those fields? Why then is it so dificult for them to agree on a standard for when someone is mentally and emotionally mature? Unless this is a subjective science, of course.

Portions of our brain develop giving us the ability to form a moral compass, to weigh the effects of our actions on ourselves and others in greater than the simple understanding of immediate consequences. We're aware of the development of the brain necessary for our ability to form such processes. So we can tell if a brain is developing properly to allow for this type of development.

So in spite of not having a common agreement on the origin or nature of morality, we have neuroscience which tells us the part of the brain responsible and how it develops? These neuroscientists are getting more amazing with every post made about them.

All right, enough of my own frustrations with the source of your evidence. You contend that one of the requirements for maturity is the ability to understand long term consequences. You seem to be falling back to the cognative development approach I suggested earlier. I stated, if you'll recall, that the ability to understand all the consequences would be a requirement under my ideal list of qualifications. You said, "no, cognative development has jack to do with maturity" or something to that effect. Are you now prepared to accept that cognative development is a valid standard? You should, you're using it as one.

We also have some ability to tell when natural development is retarded so as to meet the needs of children who are not developing properly, but as has always been the case it is much easier to tell which children are suffering from retarded development than which children are subject to accelerated development. This has pretty much always been a problem because the needs of those with retarded development are more urgent and more obvious. Just about any abnormally intelligent adult can confirm that their needs were not met in school because of a lack of understanding.

Why is it that we can't determine when a person is developing quickly when it's so easy to determine if they're developing slowly? I should think that it would be a simple matter of comparing their abilities or brain structures to those of their peers, identifying the abnormalities, and then determining if those abnormalities are more in line with those older or younger than they are. What's the problem here?

While our understanding of the brain and development is still growing, this doesn't mean what we do have is a clear understanding that not erring on the side of care is dangerous to children.

Erring on the side of care? What the hell does that even mean? You're talking about denying people civil and human rights, even if it's a mistake to think they can't handle it, and you're trying to put a benign label on it.

Again, we allow them to prove that when it's possible.

In that very section, I made it quite clear that we DON'T allow them to prove it.

And generally in the case of developmental abnormality we err on the side of caution. We're doing that.

You could call it a tendency to err on the side of caution if there were ever a case where a person were granted their full human rights before the date ordained at their birth. What we have here is a system of absolutes, who's only flexability is in being capable of denying people their rights for longer than average. Unless, of course, you know of someone who was granted full adult status, with all the rights and priveleges that implys, before reaching the ordained age?

People are allowed to prove when their development is accellerated, it's just that our understanding of accellerated development is more limited than retarded development.

How sickeningly self-justifying. "They can prove it. Of course we don't have a test they could take, or any real way for them to accomplish that task, but they can prove it."

The reaons for this are obvious, but since being obvious doesn't seem to mean that you accept it, I'll give the reasons.

I appreciate your recognising that I'm not going to accept a claim of "obvious".

People who develop too slowly are incapable of the activities expected at them at a given age. By necessity, we have to find ways to help these individuals function in society. However, for accellerated individuals, they are generally quite capable of normal function and thus of less concern. Malfunction will always get more funding and more research than exceptional function.

Wouldn't a very simple standard be to determine if a person is capable of the activities expected at a given age, and then put people into whatever age group they mentally fit in, with all atendent rights and responsibilities or lack thereof, rather than continuing to try to force them into groupings with their chronological peers? This would seem to be a solution for the deficient and the accelearted both.

And, of course, it's really unnecessary to be concerned that people who happen to be developmentally exceptional don't get special rights. We have access to the same rights at the same times as everyone else. There is no reason to unnecessarily endanger other children so that they get these rights earlier than other individuals.
So you feel that it's okay to deny someone their human rights on the basis of steriotyping, rather than having an actual reason. I'm glad we cleared that up.

Sure. I've got time.

You're talking about the ability to recognise harm of one type or another here, if I'm not mistaken. You contend that a child cannot recognise some type of harm, and thus cannot take tht type of harm into account. Am I right? Could you give me an example of a type of harm a child cannot recognise?

I believe I've stated, more than once, that I've been discussing a child's ability to consent in the form of a hypothetical. The fact that you keep forgeting that doesn't change the fact that I've been arguing from that prospective.

All right, you've said there were problems coming up with a method that wasn't heavily tainted by someone's particular bent of morality. What would you say the problem has been? Is it our collective inability to agree on a universal code of moral behavior? Is it the fact that the focus has been moral behavior at all, rather than perceptual and comprehensive ability? You've seen the attempts. What were the problems, and how would you reccomend correcting them?

I guess that's where we're butting heads. I consider this a philosophical question rather than a practical one. I'll admit that from a practical standpoint, my reccomendation has flaws, not the least of which the nature of the testing itself not having been agreed upon. The basic question, however, "What rights should we aford children?" That seems like a philosophical question to me, and I feel we should sort out the right and wrong of the matter before setting about tackling the implementation.

I see. You wish to make a comparison between the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, and the theory that children are mentally incapable of rational thought. I seem to recall someone asking me to prove my comparisons were valid a while back.

What you wrote doesn't get to count as even part of an arguement. The part I was responding to was saying, if I may, "Children are denied all sorts of rights. This isn't any different from what we do all the time to them." The fact that someone is denied a lot of rights is not justification for denying them rights, and I should think anyone should be able to see that without me bringing black slavery into this arguement.

You said the problem was that they were maturing, not that they weren't yet mature. If that's what you meant, you should have been more careful with your wording.

Let's be fair, we can't objectively say that you will not be harmed by the very act of granting you control over your sex life either. Maybe we should take away that right, since we can't be sure you won't be harmed by having it.

The part I said doesn't count as an argument is the part where you said essentially that because we deny them a lot of other rights, we should deny children this right as well. That doesn't count as an arguement, and doesn't even count as support.

Actually, because of your strange stance that sheep are allowed to have sex if they want to, in spite of having less ability to comprehend the consequences than a three year old, it could easily be assumed that your grounds for denying children their sexual rights was on the grounds that they were undergoing a transformative process, especially since you used the term maturing rather than the term not mature.

So you're saying that your arguements would make sense if taken as a whole? You're saying that even though the component pieces of your arguement don't hold up, they somehow become compelling when put together? I really find that hard to believe.

Well? Which is it? Is it my ignorance, or logical falacies? If it's ignorance, you should be able to educate me and in so doing, completely destroy my arguement. If it's the result of logical falacies, you should be able to point those out readily as well, and demonstrate where my arguement breaks down. Either way, this should be very easy for you.

Again, sure. I've got time.

So you're saying that mental and emotional maturation are clear and obvious to people who are well versed in those fields? Why then is it so dificult for them to agree on a standard for when someone is mentally and emotionally mature? Unless this is a subjective science, of course.

So in spite of not having a common agreement on the origin or nature of morality, we have neuroscience which tells us the part of the brain responsible and how it develops? These neuroscientists are getting more amazing with every post made about them.

All right, enough of my own frustrations with the source of your evidence. You contend that one of the requirements for maturity is the ability to understand long term consequences. You seem to be falling back to the cognative development approach I suggested earlier. I stated, if you'll recall, that the ability to understand all the consequences would be a requirement under my ideal list of qualifications. You said, "no, cognative development has jack to do with maturity" or something to that effect. Are you now prepared to accept that cognative development is a valid standard? You should, you're using it as one.

Why is it that we can't determine when a person is developing quickly when it's so easy to determine if they're developing slowly? I should think that it would be a simple matter of comparing their abilities or brain structures to those of their peers, identifying the abnormalities, and then determining if those abnormalities are more in line with those older or younger than they are. What's the problem here?

Erring on the side of care? What the hell does that even mean? You're talking about denying people civil and human rights, even if it's a mistake to think they can't handle it, and you're trying to put a benign label on it.

In that very section, I made it quite clear that we DON'T allow them to prove it.

You could call it a tendency to err on the side of caution if there were ever a case where a person were granted their full human rights before the date ordained at their birth. What we have here is a system of absolutes, who's only flexability is in being capable of denying people their rights for longer than average. Unless, of course, you know of someone who was granted full adult status, with all the rights and priveleges that implys, before reaching the ordained age?

How sickeningly self-justifying. "They can prove it. Of course we don't have a test they could take, or any real way for them to accomplish that task, but they can prove it."

I appreciate your recognising that I'm not going to accept a claim of "obvious".

Wouldn't a very simple standard be to determine if a person is capable of the activities expected at a given age, and then put people into whatever age group they mentally fit in, with all atendent rights and responsibilities or lack thereof, rather than continuing to try to force them into groupings with their chronological peers? This would seem to be a solution for the deficient and the accelearted both.

So you feel that it's okay to deny someone their human rights on the basis of steriotyping, rather than having an actual reason. I'm glad we cleared that up.

Ok, we're done here. I get tired of re-explaining things over and over. Feigned ignorance is annoying. And if you're not pretending... pick up a book, if you really care. This isn't the 57 part series on child psychology by Jocabia.

You're not listening. You're not reacting to what I actually write. And you're intentionally not taking the argument as a whole.

Given that you don't believe adults can make decisions, I find it hard to believe that you believe that children can, so mostly I'm really not interested in continuing to explain something that hasn't even sunk a little bit since I started to someone who is clearly arguing for self-interest and doesn't appear to be even remotely intellectually honest. You're not making an argument; you're being contradictory.

Meanwhile, you've refused to put the same effort into your own argument. This one-way street just reached a dead end. Peddle your wares elsewhere.

They are evil sick people.

Kill them all, in the most painful way possible.

Here's your reading list:

Haith, M., & Benson (1998). Infant cognition. In D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Volume Eds.), W. Damon (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th Ed.) - I recommend reading all volumes of this.

I also recommend The Cradle of Knowledge by Philip J Kellman, Introducing Child Psychology by H. Rudolph Schaffer and ... well, start there and then we'll see if you're prepared for this conversation.

Contact me when you've read them. I know you will because you wouldn't have been being disingenuous, would you?

They are evil sick people.

Kill them all, in the most painful way possible.

You want to kill people who have never harmed anyone? Or do you mean to refer to child molesters who, by clinical definition, may or may not be pedophiles?

Ok, we're done here.

It's sad to see you go. While I feel we've made some progress toward a mutual understanding, I can't help but think we've left things half done. I still believe there was the potential for us to see eye to eye, and I'm saddened that we aren't going to get the chance.

I don't subscribe to the idea that making the other person give up and go home is a valid way to win an arguement, so I don't consider this a victory by any means. It's a lost oportunity.

I get tired of re-explaining things over and over. Feigned ignorance is annoying. And if you're not pretending... pick up a book, if you really care. This isn't the 57 part series on child psychology by Jocabia.

Before you go, could you reccomend a good starting text?

You're not listening. You're not reacting to what I actually write. And you're intentionally not taking the argument as a whole.

Please, one or the other. Either I'm not reacting to what you wrote, or I am reacting to what you wrote, just breaking it down into its component parts. While obviously the only answer to the first acusation is to go back over our entire conversation, a tedious exersise to say the least, the second of your acusations merrits a response. I've always believed that in order for an arguement to be considered sound, the supporting assertions must be able to stand. Taken on their own, if your larger arguement were sound, the components would have stood.

Given that you don't believe adults can make decisions, I find it hard to believe that you believe that children can, so mostly I'm really not interested in continuing to explain something that hasn't even sunk a little bit since I started to someone who is clearly arguing for self-interest and doesn't appear to be even remotely intellectually honest. You're not making an argument; you're being contradictory.

My my. That's quite a lot of accusations in a single sentence. Let's see, where to begin? Just because you apply a more lenient standard than I do when assessing when a person is subject to manipluation does not mean I discount the ability of adults to make decisions. I believe adults can be just as compotent as children most of the time. As for agruing for self-interest, you've made that accusation before. I've admited bias. Now, the responsibility is on you to demonstrate where that bias has interfeared with my reasoning. You've failed to do so. As for intelectual honesty, even one example of this would really help your case.

Meanwhile, you've refused to put the same effort into your own argument. This one-way street just reached a dead end. Peddle your wares elsewhere.
I can see that you're frustrated over the slow rate of our progress. I'm just sorry you've decided to give up. I had genuinely hoped we would reach a real understanding.

Please, one or the other. Either I'm not reacting to what you wrote, or I am reacting to what you wrote, just breaking it down into its component parts. While obviously the only answer to the first acusation is to go back over our entire conversation, a tedious exersise to say the least, the second of your acusations merrits a response. I've always believed that in order for an arguement to be considered sound, the supporting assertions must be able to stand. Taken on their own, if your larger arguement were sound, the components would have stood.

See, that's what's frustrating. You make me explain even the most basic ideas to you.

Here's an example :

My post: I got in the car. I went to the store. I bought some corn. I went home. I made the corn.

Your reply:
"I went to the car."

Why did you get in the car?

"I went to the store."

How'd you get to the store all of the sudden?

"I bought some corn."

Where'd you buy the corn.

etc.

When you don't look at something in the context it was written then you are not reading what is written. It's not a complicated concept yet you make me explain it to you like you're a child. And personally, I have a lot of patience for children, but not people who are pretending to be children to be difficult.

See, that's what's frustrating. You make me explain even the most basic ideas to you.

Here's an example :

My post: I got in the car. I went to the store. I bought some corn. I went home. I made the corn.

Your reply:
"I went to the car."

Why did you get in the car?

"I went to the store."

How'd you get to the store all of the sudden?

"I bought some corn."

Where'd you buy the corn.

etc.

When you don't look at something in the context it was written then you are not reading what is written. It's not a complicated concept yet you make me explain it to you like you're a child. And personally, I have a lot of patience for children, but not people who are pretending to be children to be difficult.
I've tried to run the separation of my quotes of your post around natural breaks you yourself set up in your post, under the assumption that the paragraph would contain the neccissary context. In those instances I've separated your paragraphs, it was done because I genuinely believed you to be discussing different subjects within the same paragraph boundries.

I've tried to run the separation of my quotes of your post around natural breaks you yourself set up in your post, under the assumption that the paragraph would contain the neccissary context. In those instances I've separated your paragraphs, it was done because I genuinely believed you to be discussing different subjects within the same paragraph boundries.

If you'd done that I might actually still be discussing this with you. But you didn't. You generally find the first thing you can contradict, or ask a leading question about, or pretend not to understand and you ignore everything else. If separating it helps your unsupported argument, well, you do that. Pretty much anything but, you know, supporting your argument. I can actually prove it, but well, who cares? Nothing I've told you has sunk in so far.

Hey, hey, calm down guys. Let's settle down, relax, and look over our arguments again before nitpicking about how each other is interpreting.

Hey, the Greeks encouraged it, and we VERY loosely took our system partly from their model, but as we know Greece didn't fair so well, largely because rampant corruption weakened them for the Romans. So, do morals affect the survival of a nation? If so, where is the line? And I'm hungry...

Hey, the Greeks encouraged it, and we VERY loosely took our system partly from their model, but as we know Greece didn't fair so well, largely because rampant corruption weakened them for the Romans. So, do morals affect the survival of a nation? If so, where is the line? And I'm hungry...
To be honest, I fail to see the comparison between corruption--that is, one being subject easily to bribes and greed--and paedophilism. Perhaps you can illuminate your point.

To be honest, I fail to see the comparison between corruption--that is, one being subject easily to bribes and greed--and paedophilism. Perhaps you can illuminate your point.
Well, a pedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children. The fact that they can't legally act on it ought to be sufficient to show that it is wrong and needs to remain outlawed. Now, you gave a definition of corruption that is missing some other definitions. For instance, corruption can also refer to moral corruption. Check a dictionary, I wouldn't waste our time making up definitions. Greece didn't weaken from bribes and greed, those are just symptoms of the problem. So is pedophilism. That is the connection I see, and the true problem is a loss of moral fiber. That leads to bribery and greed. It also leads to pedophilism and bestiality. And that about sums it up.

Well, a pedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children. The fact that they can't legally act on it ought to be sufficient to show that it is wrong and needs to remain outlawed. Now, you gave a definition of corruption that is missing some other definitions. For instance, corruption can also refer to moral corruption. Check a dictionary, I wouldn't waste our time making up definitions. Greece didn't weaken from bribes and greed, those are just symptoms of the problem. So is pedophilism. That is the connection I see, and the true problem is a loss of moral fiber. That leads to bribery and greed. It also leads to pedophilism and bestiality. And that about sums it up.
While reasonable, there is one flaw in your argument: morals are subjective. As I have repeatedly stated in many threads, one cannot force their own moral judgements upon others, as morals are by definition subjective and applicable only to oneself. Now, me, I still define having sex with children as wrong, due to scientific evidence regarding their ability--or rather, the lack thereof--to make decisions regarding sex.

Quite honestly, though, declaring paedophilism and beastiality as part of the reason Greece was conquered by the Romans is, to be blunt, bullshit. All cultures of the time indulged in such activities, and as such they had nothing to do with political affairs and major events.

While reasonable, there is one flaw in your argument: morals are subjective. As I have repeatedly stated in many threads, one cannot force their own moral judgements upon others, as morals are by definition subjective and applicable only to oneself. Now, me, I still define having sex with children as wrong, due to scientific evidence regarding their ability--or rather, the lack thereof--to make decisions regarding sex.

Quite honestly, though, declaring paedophilism and beastiality as part of the reason Greece was conquered by the Romans is, to be blunt, bullshit. All cultures of the time indulged in such activities, and as such they had nothing to do with political affairs and major events.
Yea, it was bullshit. ;)
Too f-ed right now to think logically, but I am having fun.

You want to kill people who have never harmed anyone? Or do you mean to refer to child molesters who, by clinical definition, may or may not be pedophiles?
A paedophile is a Child molester.

The urges they have, cannot be controlled. They can't be cured as they don't see anything wrong with themselves.

The best option would be a bullet in the head for them, they can never be of any use to society.

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.
1.) Neurosurgery will never advance that far. Adding, subtracting, or changing the physical makeup of the brain can not and will not alter something such sexuality. It just won't.

2.) What makes homosexuality or polyethnic attraction any less wrong than paedophilia? Frankly, I see nothing wrong with any of the three - it's acting on the third that gets most people riled up.

You also claim there is scientific evidence that a child (by the way, what age range is classified as 'child'? birth to 18th birthday?) cannot understand consent. Well, my nephew understood "May I?" and the difference between 'Yes' and 'No' when he was 2. So yes, children can understand consent.

As for understanding sex itself - do you? It doesn't seem like most people do. Sex is something that is largely instinctual after puberty. Before then, children will by nature show an interest in learning about it. For most people, sex means "something that feels very good". Sure, for some it's strictly reproduction, and for others it's almost a sacred thing. But what's the difference between an 8 year old who enjoys the feeling, and an 80 year old who enjoys the feeling?

I see: An understanding of what 'consent' is, and a willingness to engage in sex in this example. What makes it wrong? A violent rape will damage a person (no matter what their age), and yes I'm willing to concede that's probably going to have a much larger effect on a child as s/he grows older and understands what happened to them. But what if it wasn't rape at all? Or violent? What if the kid liked it? Is it still damaging?

There's a reason the age of consent is as low as 12 in some countries, and that the average is, unless I am mistaken, 14. (Not average of all ages of consent, but the most common age of consent that I am aware of) I think it's mainly just U.S. citizens that are afraid of such things.

And no, I am not a paedophile; nor do I support paedophilia. I simply hate to see people calling something 'wrong' because they don't understand it or because there's a social stigma. Haven't you realised by now that the majority is stupid? I present Emperor George II as Exhibit A.

While reasonable, there is one flaw in your argument: morals are subjective. As I have repeatedly stated in many threads, one cannot force their own moral judgements upon others, as morals are by definition subjective and applicable only to oneself. Now, me, I still define having sex with children as wrong, due to scientific evidence regarding their ability--or rather, the lack thereof--to make decisions regarding sex.

"By definition subjective"? If anything, they are by definition objective; even if you can come up with a coherent moral system without objective moral truth (and I think it's possible), it is still a conception of morality that requires a significant break from traditional notions.

As for the notion that "one cannot force their own moral judgements upon others," is that not itself a moral judgement?

What about murder? Should we allow murderers to engage in murder because restraining them would be imposing our moral judgements against murder upon them?

If it can be convincingly shown that in enough cases to merit legal action, children below a certain age cannot exercise real consent, it makes sense to enact age of consent laws to protect them.

"By definition subjective"? If anything, they are by definition objective; even if you can come up with a coherent moral system without objective moral truth (and I think it's possible), it is still a conception of morality that requires a significant break from traditional notions.

As for the notion that "one cannot force their own moral judgements upon others," is that not itself a moral judgement?

What about murder? Should we allow murderers to engage in murder because restraining them would be imposing our moral judgements against murder upon them?

If it can be convincingly shown that in enough cases to merit legal action, children below a certain age cannot exercise real consent, it makes sense to enact age of consent laws to protect them.
I won't disagree with you there. When I speak of forcing moral judgements upon others, I speak mainly of things that are heavily debated, such as the morality of homosexuality. When it comes to things like murder, obviously that's one of the few things that are most certainly not subjective or objective or any other jective that you might like.

Amadari: It is true that children can understand consent. It is true that they can understand what sex IS. It is NOT true, however, that they can understand the long-term ramifications, which is really what is at the heart of the matter. In my own experience, even so far as right NOW, I still find it hard to contemplate and fully understand long-term ramifications. And I'm nineteen. The same is true of any other child. The brain does not fully develop in this manner until approximately 20-21. This has been proven time and again with scientific research. (Also, please do not accuse me of following through on the same social stigma as many others might. Please read the rest of my posts in the thread before claiming I hold a certain position. Not angry. Just tellin' yah. Keeps a person from embarrasing themselves.)

SouthWhitehill: Um, no. The definition of a paedophile is one that is attracted to children. Studies have shown that approximately 20% of the population could be definied clinically as a paedophile. Amusingly and ironically enough, that 20% of the population is only 10% likely to molest children. As weird and crazy as it sounds, a child is often safer with a paedophile than with a non-paedophile. (And if you don't believe me, ask Jocabia. Joc has all the links to the studies that show these remarkable facts.) Most paedophiles recognize that their attraction is wrong. The problem is, society is so stigmatised against them that it is often nigh impossible for them to find treatment. This has been covered throughout the thread, so I won't repeat all of the points here.

I won't disagree with you there. When I speak of forcing moral judgements upon others, I speak mainly of things that are heavily debated, such as the morality of homosexuality.

So because they are heavily debated, there is no objective truth regarding their morality?

It may be that in fact there is not - that is my opinion, for what it's worth - but the mere presence of debate does not prove that that is the case.

When it comes to things like murder, obviously that's one of the few things that are most certainly not subjective or objective or any other jective that you might like.

So the morality of murder is neither objective nor subjective? What is it, then?

How would you respond to someone who said that homosexuality or pedophilia, whatever the status of consent, is just as immoral as murder?

"By definition subjective"? If anything, they are by definition objective; even if you can come up with a coherent moral system without objective moral truth (and I think it's possible), it is still a conception of morality that requires a significant break from traditional notions.
There is no such thing as a 'moral truth'. I think murder is rather unpleasant, but just because I would rather my friends, family, and self not be killed, it's wrong to kill another human? Why is it not wrong to slaughter cattle?
There is truth. If you throw a baseball into the air, it will come back down.
There is falsehood. If you cut off your arm it will always seal before you bleed to death.

The only objective 'moral truth' that I can conceive is Theology, and it becomes subject as soon as one person disbelieves.

As for the notion that "one cannot force their own moral judgements upon others," is that not itself a moral judgement?
No, that isn't a judgement at all. It isn't accurate (it is illegal to rape someone, for instance), but its implied meaning (I have no respect for implications; just come out and say it) is true enough: Your idea of "right" and "wrong" do not apply to me. Judge me if you want, but your judgement is something that YOU must live with - I am free to think of myself as I choose to.

What about murder? Should we allow murderers to engage in murder because restraining them would be imposing our moral judgements against murder upon them?
How about we restrain them for personal interest? I don't want to get killed by some lunatic in my home city - so if a serial killer from my town is apprehended, I'm quite happy.

If it can be convincingly shown that in enough cases to merit legal action, children below a certain age cannot exercise real consent, it makes sense to enact age of consent laws to protect them.
And what is this age? Thus far I have not seen a number. Furthermore, where did the notion that a child cannot understand sex come from? The Dark Ages?

Amadari: It is true that children can understand consent. It is true that they can understand what sex IS. It is NOT true, however, that they can understand the long-term ramifications, which is really what is at the heart of the matter. In my own experience, even so far as right NOW, I still find it hard to contemplate and fully understand long-term ramifications. And I'm nineteen. The same is true of any other child. The brain does not fully develop in this manner until approximately 20-21. This has been proven time and again with scientific research. (Also, please do not accuse me of following through on the same social stigma as many others might. Please read the rest of my posts in the thread before claiming I hold a certain position. Not angry. Just tellin' yah. Keeps a person from embarrasing themselves.)
I apologise for my poor choice of words. I did not intend to imply you had taken a position; there was simply something about that one paragraph that got under my skin and itched a little.

About the above, however - what ramifications? That after menstruation begins, it's possible for a girl to become pregnant? That there is the possibility of sexually transmitted disease? These are simple concepts to understand, though in the case of the latter I will admit I didn't know about it myself until I was 10 years old and was learning about AIDS.

I apologise for my poor choice of words. I did not intend to imply you had taken a position; there was simply something about that one paragraph that got under my skin and itched a little.

About the above, however - what ramifications? That after menstruation begins, it's possible for a girl to become pregnant? That there is the possibility of sexually transmitted disease? These are simple concepts to understand, though in the case of the latter I will admit I didn't know about it myself until I was 10 years old and was learning about AIDS.
Pregnancy is one. The psychological damage is the main thing, however. Problem is, that is mostly due to sociatel pressures telling the child that what was done was wrong, that the person who did it with him or her is a horrible human being(oftentimes said person is either a relative or other well-known and loved person to the child), and such and such, that ends up seriously hurting the child's state of mind. I saw this happen with my own sisters when they were abused by my half-brother. The point is, they cannot fully grasp what will happen down the line. Further, kids always have a sense of immortatlity about them, a sense of "this can't EVER happen to me." As illogical as it is, I still have a sense of that occasionally. It leads to a vast variety of poor choices, which culminate in damaging or destroying the future life of the child. This is why we do not allow children to smoke or drink, for instance.

There is no such thing as a 'moral truth'. I think murder is rather unpleasant, but just because I would rather my friends, family, and self not be killed, it's wrong to kill another human?

No. It's wrong to kill another human because it's wrong to unjustly take human life. Can I ever prove that to you? No. There is no objective moral truth. But there are still moral judgements, and their basis is in our own subjective moralities. These judgements are only illegitimate if that, too, is a principle of our subjective moralities - that the onlyjustifiable source for moral judgement is objective moral truth. I happen to not accept that principle.

To bring this back to the subject of the thread, I would assert that it is wrong to have sex with a human being without meaningful consent. I can't prove it, but there is no objective wrongness in my attempt to impose this moral judgement on those who would seek to have sex with humans who cannot provide meaningful consent.

No, that isn't a judgement at all. It isn't accurate (it is illegal to rape someone, for instance), but its implied meaning (I have no respect for implications; just come out and say it) is true enough: Your idea of "right" and "wrong" do not apply to me. Judge me if you want, but your judgement is something that YOU must live with - I am free to think of myself as I choose to.

Sure. But the idea that it is somehow wrong to impose our moral judgement upon someone else is indeed a moral judgement.

How about we restrain them for personal interest? I don't want to get killed by some lunatic in my home city - so if a serial killer from my town is apprehended, I'm quite happy.

Why should your personal interest outweigh that of the serial killer? You are still imposing a moral judgement - that it's wrong for the serial killer to do something against your personal interest.

And what is this age? Thus far I have not seen a number.

I don't know.

Furthermore, where did the notion that a child cannot understand sex come from? The Dark Ages?

The notion that a child cannot understand sex and the notion that a child cannot offer meaningful consent to sexual activity are two different notions.

A paedophile is a Child molester.

The urges they have, cannot be controlled. They can't be cured as they don't see anything wrong with themselves.

The best option would be a bullet in the head for them, they can never be of any use to society.
You can prove this, no? Because all evidence presented thus far in the thread AND that I've ever seen disagrees with you. Only a very small minority of pedophiles ever commit a crime.

"By definition subjective"? If anything, they are by definition objective; even if you can come up with a coherent moral system without objective moral truth (and I think it's possible), it is still a conception of morality that requires a significant break from traditional notions.

As for the notion that "one cannot force their own moral judgements upon others," is that not itself a moral judgement?

What about murder? Should we allow murderers to engage in murder because restraining them would be imposing our moral judgements against murder upon them?

If it can be convincingly shown that in enough cases to merit legal action, children below a certain age cannot exercise real consent, it makes sense to enact age of consent laws to protect them.

I hate that example. It show a complete lack of understanding of what morality (in the way it was used) means. Murder is outlawed because there is a compelling reason to value individuals in society. It's not about morality it's about the fact that the majority, the vast, vast majority of people wish to feel safe from harm and as there is no violation of rights in not allowing another to kill you, we have no issue with outlawing it. Every valuation doesn't qualify as morality.

I hate that example. It show a complete lack of understanding of what morality (in the way it was used) means. Murder is outlawed because there is a compelling reason to value individuals in society. It's not about morality it's about the fact that the majority, the vast, vast majority of people wish to feel safe from harm and as there is no violation of rights in not allowing another to kill you, we have no issue with outlawing it.

So because "the vast, vast majority of people" think a certain way, that is the right way to think?

If the "vast, vast majority of people" wished to live in a society that stoned gays, would you advocate that, too?

Sure, you can say that the first example doesn't violate anyone's rights, but the second does - but as soon as you bring up rights, you are talking about morality.

So because "the vast, vast majority of people" think a certain way, that is the right way to think?

If the "vast, vast majority of people" wished to live in a society that stoned gays, would you advocate that, too?

Sure, you can say that the first example doesn't violate anyone's rights, but the second does - but as soon as you bring up rights, you are talking about morality.

Not what I said. I said the decision is not about right and wrong. You're the one who said it's the right way to think. I just said it's the way we think. See, you're trying to value this law according to your morality, but I assigned no right or wrong to the law, only that it is and that it's being outlawed isn't based on morality.

And no when you bring up rights you are not talking about morality. You are only talking about rights when you talk about whether it's right or wrong to honor those rights.

Honestly, you really aren't talking about morality. You should probably consult a dictionary before speaking about such things. You're embarassing yourself.

Morality is about right and wrong. Murder - 1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments>

We don't outlaw murder because it's wrong. We outlaw murder because all of us are in danger of being murdered so it effects all of us and because we all decided that we didn't want to be in danger of being murdered. We don't outlaw murder simply because it's not ethical.

Because we place a value on something doesn't make it moral value. Not all reasoning relates to morality.

*snip*

You are missing the point.

As I understand his argument, Kyronea was arguing in the following fashion:

1. We all have different moralities.
2. There is no objective moral truth.
3. Thus, we cannot impose our personal moral judgements on someone else.

So, it would follow that in the example of the murderer, it is wrong for a person to impose an anti-murder moral position on another.

You can argue that we aren't imposing our moral position, merely an opinion based on a different set of values - in this case, our desire for our own safety. But what difference does it make? We are still imposing our values on the murderer. She clearly doesn't share them - if she did, she would not be committing murder. I don't see why the possibility that our values in this case are not based on a conception of moral duty makes any real difference.

Indeed, it seems to me that if anything, it would be more reprehensible to impose non-moral values than to impose moral values; after all, there is a general vague consensus on a great deal of moral values (such as the immorality of murder) that does not exist regarding non-moral values (such as the importance of my safety). While it is at least reasonably likely that the murderer does share the typical moral distaste for murder, and thus it could be reasonably argued that society is justified in restraining her until her better judgement prevails, it is extremely unlikely, unless she is a family member, that she shares my personal evaluation of the importance of my own safety.

No. It's wrong to kill another human because it's wrong to unjustly take human life. Can I ever prove that to you? No. There is no objective moral truth. But there are still moral judgements, and their basis is in our own subjective moralities. These judgements are only illegitimate if that, too, is a principle of our subjective moralities - that the onlyjustifiable source for moral judgement is objective moral truth. I happen to not accept that principle.
So what you're saying is that a moral judgement is only justifiable if there is self-evident moral truth - and yet morals themselves are by their very nature subjective. Some make sense - don't do to others what you don't want done to you - but there is no REASON to adhere to a code of honesty other than the fear of being caught.

To bring this back to the subject of the thread, I would assert that it is wrong to have sex with a human being without meaningful consent. I can't prove it, but there is no objective wrongness in my attempt to impose this moral judgement on those who would seek to have sex with humans who cannot provide meaningful consent.
But we still haven't covered why a child's consent is not meaningful. Because adults (and possibly other, more knowledgeable children) are going to wreck their mental state by telling them what they did was wrong? That sounds like the fault of the people who came after the paedophile to me.



Sure. But the idea that it is somehow wrong to impose our moral judgement upon someone else is indeed a moral judgement.
I would consider that courtesy or respect for the other's morals, beliefs, etc.



Why should your personal interest outweigh that of the serial killer? You are still imposing a moral judgement - that it's wrong for the serial killer to do something against your personal interest.
Who said my personal interest outweighs the serial killer's? I happen to like living, so acting on my own behalf to stop a potential threat to my life is not a moral judgement.


The notion that a child cannot understand sex and the notion that a child cannot offer meaningful consent to sexual activity are two different notions.
What makes a child's consent less meaningful? That they don't realise that adults and possibly older children (we'll say teenagers as a generalisation for the example) are going to tell them it was wrong? Oh, but that's a moral judgement on the adults'/teenagers' part. From the other side of the table, if not for those saying it was wrong, there would be no reason for the child to be warped from what we consider premature sexual activity.

First off, all this debate about moral relativism is pretty much pointless anyway, and really belongs in another topic.

As I understand it, this thread has two major questions at this point:
1) What should society's response to those adults who are sexually attracted to children be?
2) Can children offer meaningful consent?

The first question can be informed by a couple of studies.

Pedophiles, adults attracted to children, make up a significant percentage of the male population. The following two claims about 33% of the population, and one study linked earlier sugested 20% of the population.

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/97-048_article.html

Further, law enforcement officials have cited that 90% of child molesters are not attracted to children. This particular number was quoted by one Kenith V. Lanning of the FBI.
Kenneth V. Lanning is a Supervisory Special Agent at the Behavioral Science Unit at the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, a division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Lanning, an 'expert in the sexual victimization of children', had been a Special Agent with the FBI for more than 30 years and had "extensive experience consulting on multi-victim, multi-perpetrator child sexual abuse cases."
These statements about Lanning were made on the following page, which contains sources for each statement about Lanning:
http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/MAAs

Here is a link to a page where Lanning makes this statement:

http://old.valleyadvocate.com/articles/pedophile.html

Now, if we accept that science has done its job, and take the most conservative estamates for the percentage of the population avalible, 20% of men being pedophiles, and we further assume that Agent Lanning was compotent at his job and accurately assessed pedophiles to make up only 10% of child molesters, one is left with the conclusion that pedophiles are less likely to molest children than people who are not pedophiles.

As to the concept of a child's ability to consent, at least part of the problem, as has been stated before, is that we haven't agreed on a definition of a "child". I feel that this topic is best served by defining a child as a person who has not yet entered puberty, so that we have a clear understanding of at least the uper limmit.

Can any child who has not gone through puberty offer meaningful consent? Does the act of passing through puberty endow a person with understanding which is neccissary for meaningful consent? What is required for meaningful consent? These are the component questions that need to be answered if we are to understand if a child can or cannot offer meaningful consent.

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.

agree. I must say, that I hardly see how prison is "removing rights from the paedophiles." Any ciminal is sent to prison, so why should chilb-abusers be any differant?

In the US, it is legal to digitally edit pictures of 18 year olds to look like they are far under their age ( I have seen them do it all the way down to age ten, accidentally). This is because the Supreme Court holds that simulated crime like video games or in music does not count as a real crime, so the pictures are legal.

Anyways, this could be a soulution for Michael Jackson I mean pedophiles.

In the US, it is legal to digitally edit pictures of 18 year olds to look like they are far under their age ( I have seen them do it all the way down to age ten, accidentally). This is because the Supreme Court holds that simulated crime like video games or in music does not count as a real crime, so the pictures are legal.

Anyways, this could be a soulution for Michael Jackson I mean pedophiles.
There's an interesting suggestion, albiet one that could potentially be abused significantly.

Gretavass: Must we explain AGAIN that paedophile does not equal child molester?

You are missing the point.

As I understand his argument, Kyronea was arguing in the following fashion:

1. We all have different moralities.
2. There is no objective moral truth.
3. Thus, we cannot impose our personal moral judgements on someone else.

So, it would follow that in the example of the murderer, it is wrong for a person to impose an anti-murder moral position on another.

You can argue that we aren't imposing our moral position, merely an opinion based on a different set of values - in this case, our desire for our own safety. But what difference does it make? We are still imposing our values on the murderer. She clearly doesn't share them - if she did, she would not be committing murder. I don't see why the possibility that our values in this case are not based on a conception of moral duty makes any real difference.

Indeed, it seems to me that if anything, it would be more reprehensible to impose non-moral values than to impose moral values; after all, there is a general vague consensus on a great deal of moral values (such as the immorality of murder) that does not exist regarding non-moral values (such as the importance of my safety). While it is at least reasonably likely that the murderer does share the typical moral distaste for murder, and thus it could be reasonably argued that society is justified in restraining her until her better judgement prevails, it is extremely unlikely, unless she is a family member, that she shares my personal evaluation of the importance of my own safety.

I'm not missing the point. Murder is a bad example. because you suck at debate. Murder is not a law based on morals because an argument can be made for making murder illegal absent of morality. A better example would be drug laws. Some rules are amoral. For example, the distribution of taxes is based on a moral code (thus the debate) but the requirement to pay taxes, in general, is not based on a moral code. Instead it's based on a need for the government to have funding. Your inability to discern between morality and all other reasoning is not my issue. It's yours.

And the non-moral values, like your safety, are equally agreed upon. We agree on a massive scale that one person should be safe from another. Not because it's right or wrong but because we all want to feel safe from other people. The fact that you find it reprehensible that moral reasoning isn't what's used, again, is your issue not mine.

Have your debate with K. Enjoy. Just use better examples, because the example of murder as a morally-imposed law sucks.

agree. I must say, that I hardly see how prison is "removing rights from the paedophiles." Any ciminal is sent to prison, so why should chilb-abusers be any differant?

Pedophiles and child molesters are not the same thing. It's rather sad that we have to repeat this on every page.

Only a very small minority of pedophiles ever commit a crime.

I think what you mean to say is about ever being charged with, and convicted of a crime.

I would suggest that pedophile victims (being children) are as, or less, likely to report the situation to the police as rape victims in certain Middle Eastern nations are. That is to say, statistics do not tell the whole truth... and just because certain pedophiles on this site claimed not to have molested any children is no assurance.

I think what you mean to say is about ever being charged with, and convicted of a crime.

I would suggest that pedophile victims (being children) are as, or less, likely to report the situation to the police as rape victims in certain Middle Eastern nations are. That is to say, statistics do not tell the whole truth... and just because certain pedophiles on this site claimed not to have molested any children is no assurance.

Even if you make this assumption, there is a much higher likelihood of the victimizer being a non-pedophile. Unless you can give a reason why pedophile victims are less likely to report than children victimized in exactly the same way by non-pedophiles, then you've got no argument.

Only 10% of offenders are pedophiles. That means no matter how under-reported it is, the non-pedophile remains the more dangerous and the more likely to offend group. That's the facts, Jack.

Even if you make this assumption, there is a much higher likelihood of the victimizer being a non-pedophile. Unless you can give a reason why pedophile victims are less likely to report than children victimized in exactly the same way by non-pedophiles, then you've got no argument.

Only 10% of offenders are pedophiles. That means no matter how under-reported it is, the non-pedophile remains the more dangerous and the more likely to offend group. That's the facts, Jack.

Are you saying that a child is more likely to be sexually abused by a non-pedophile than by a pedophile?

Even if you make this assumption, there is a much higher likelihood of the victimizer being a non-pedophile. Unless you can give a reason why pedophile victims are less likely to report than children victimized in exactly the same way by non-pedophiles, then you've got no argument.

I've got a reason. See, pedophiles "love" children, hence they don't simply wish to exert power and dominance and make their victims fearful and brutalized. In other words, their "love" will be of a less violent, more 'pleasing' nature. A child will be more likely to complain or report (or be unable to hide) being brutalized than merely being coerced.

Only 10% of offenders are pedophiles.

And that statistic comes from where? It is true why?

That means no matter how under-reported it is, the non-pedophile remains the more dangerous and the more likely to offend group. That's the facts, Jack.

Non-pedophiles are in greater number overall than pedophiles. That's all you seem to be saying here. Doesn't make me want to have The Five Castes babysit my niece however. How about you?

Are you saying that a child is more likely to be sexually abused by a non-pedophile than by a pedophile?
That's exactly what Jocabia is saying. It seems to fly in the face of all sense and logic, but it's true, as shown through repeated studies.

I've got a reason. See, pedophiles "love" children, hence they don't simply wish to exert power and dominance and make their victims fearful and brutalized. In other words, their "love" will be of a less violent, more 'pleasing' nature. A child will be more likely to complain or report (or be unable to hide) being brutalized than merely being coerced.

Source?


And that statistic comes from where? It is true why?

It's posted repeatedly throughout the thread. Do I have to do all your work for you? And it's based on study of those victims we have access to, whether a conviction was made or not, and it's based on studies done randomly to determine pedophilic tendencies. I know it hardly compares to your unsupported claims, but hey we can't all have no evidence.


Non-pedophiles are in greater number overall than pedophiles. That's all you seem to be saying here. Doesn't make me want to have The Five Castes babysit my niece however. How about you?
No, it's not what I'm saying. If studies show that 20% of men are pedophiles clinically and studies show that only 10% of male victimizers are pedophiles clinically, then it's not a numbers game.

X = the percentage of men who are victimizers

~20% of men are pedophiles. Given that, no matter how you do the math, .2X should be the number of pedophiles who are victimizers if the proportions are equal. But it's .1X which means that pedophiles are only half as likely to victimize children. Unless you can prove that these men who have never been convicted of a crime are guilty of one, I'm not willing to assume that they are.

That's called math.

Doesn't make me want to have The Five Castes babysit my niece however. How about you?

I'd assume though,,,,,


That your niece would love to be babysat by him. ;)

Are you saying that a child is more likely to be sexually abused by a non-pedophile than by a pedophile?

Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying.

That's exactly what Jocabia is saying. It seems to fly in the face of all sense and logic, but it's true, as shown through repeated studies.

So, if I have 10 non-pedophiles, and 10 pedophiles, I'm going to get more child sexual abuse out of the 10 non-pedophiles?

Sorry, don't buy it.

I'd assume though,,,,,


That your niece would love to be babysat by him. ;)

Gosh that was funny, pedophile. I guess if you assume that you may as well assume rape victims "love" to get raped by rapists too eh? Tee hee, rape and pedophilia are sooo hilarious wink wink!

So, if I have 10 non-pedophiles, and 10 pedophiles, I'm going to get more child sexual abuse out of the 10 non-pedophiles?

Sorry, don't buy it.

OK. Why bother looking at evidence and drawing a conclusion from it?

I'll help you with this logic train. Are you attracted to tall women? Not only tall women, but are you attracted to tall women?

Now, assume tall women are unwilling to have sex with you? All of them. Even hookers. Would you become a rapist of tall women or would you just have sex with the people you can have sex with and perhaps fantasize about tall women?

sorry to mention this. Psychological tests are hardly ever conclusive and are notoriously unreliable. you can use them as support or byshow, usualy, but a conclusive argument needs more

which is why it is so stupid to declare people mentaly unsuitable for trial based on a test. Yes, sometimes that person is retarded or has obvious symptoms, or some less obvious ones. However, anyone with a few braincells left can fake the answers and get himself declared mentaly unstable

Many pedophiles will know how to answer questions so that it says they arnt pedophilic, because if they are, they are bound to get worse sentences since the chance of a repeat is greater

OK. Why bother looking at evidence and drawing a conclusion from it?

I'll help you with this logic train. Are you attracted to tall women? Not only tall women, but are you attracted to tall women?

Now, assume tall women are unwilling to have sex with you? All of them. Even hookers. Would you become a rapist of tall women or would you just have sex with the people you can have sex with and perhaps fantasize about tall women?

Yes, I would become a rapist of tall women.

Source?

Common. Sense.

Try thinking about it.

It's posted repeatedly throughout the thread. Do I have to do all your work for you?

If you're going to take the trouble to thump this clean 10% figure like its a holy bible, you may as well take that extra step and provide a source for it.

And it's based on study of those victims we have access to, whether a conviction was made or not, and it's based on studies done randomly to determine pedophilic tendencies. I know it hardly compares to your unsupported claims, but hey we can't all have no evidence.


I love it when you sass, Jocabia. You probably think it's highly effective and convincing.


Unless you can prove that these men who have never been convicted of a crime are guilty of one, I'm not willing to assume that they are.

So in other words, you WOULD let The Five Castes babysit your children?

Tell me something, do you think the number of reported rapes is equal to the number of actual rapes? I mean, I'd hate to assume there are more rape victims than are accounted for fully by the judicial system... eh?

because eventually, the fantasy would not be enough.

sorry to mention this. Psychological tests are hardly ever conclusive and are notoriously unreliable. you can use them as support or byshow, usualy, but a conclusive argument needs more

which is why it is so stupid to declare people mentaly unsuitable for trial based on a test. Yes, sometimes that person is retarded or has obvious symptoms, or some less obvious ones. However, anyone with a few braincells left can fake the answers and get himself declared mentaly unstable

Many pedophiles will know how to answer questions so that it says they arnt pedophilic, because if they are, they are bound to get worse sentences since the chance of a repeat is greater

They aren't just questioned. You should read these studies.

Meanwhile, the chance of any sex offender repeating is high. Very high. You'll have to show me that it's higher in child sex offenders in any way. Your argument is unsupported and does not sit with all available evidence.

because eventually, the fantasy would not be enough.

So you would become a rapist?

So you would become a rapist?

Plenty of evidence concerning serial killers and serial rapists show that they initially have fantasies that cannot be resolved through an ordinary, socially acceptable outlet.

Eventually, the fantasies are not enough, and they start to kill or rape. I believe that pedophiles are the same way - for most of them, fantasy is fine, but for some, the fantasy will never be enough. Additionally, once they really act out on it, the fantasy will NEVER do, and they won't be able to find enough opportunities to do it.

I believe this applies to all situations where the conduct is completely forbidden by society, and where the initial lead-in is fantasy.

Common. Sense.

Try thinking about it.

Ah, the argument of someone with no argument. In other words, your claims are unsupported and bs. Good to know. I will keep that in mind in the future.

By the same argument, a pedophile would be less likely to victimize a child. There is no evidence that pedophiles are less aware of the damage that child sex acts cause and given that a natural side effect of their tendencies is that they care about the child, then we have all evidence to suggest they would avoid hurting that child. Also, if one group is willing to hurt children in any way and one isn't, isn't the first one more likely to offend. Your "common sense" argument destroys itself.


If you're going to take the trouble to thump this clean 10% figure like its a holy bible, you may as well take that extra step and provide a source for it.

Already did. Many times. It's unfortunate that I'm required to do the work for you because you can't be arsed to read this thread or do even basic research on the topic you're debating.



I love it when you sass, Jocabia. You probably think it's highly effective and convincing.

Or perhaps I find it entertaining. I mean, perhaps it's part of my Sith mentality.

Meanwhile, you continue to argue from lack of evidence. What a wonderful debater you are.


So in other words, you WOULD let The Five Castes babysit your children?

Where did I say that? In other words, I would not allow someone I didn't know very well look after my children and I wouldn't delude myself into thinking that because I'm not aware of a problem that a problem won't exist.


Tell me something, do you think the number of reported rapes is equal to the number of actual rapes? I mean, I'd hate to assume there are more rape victims than are accounted for fully by the judicial system... eh?

You keep acting like this helps your argument. I've said clearly both that I think it's not equal the actual number and that you have no evidence that the percentages would be different if all rapes, pedophilic acts were reported. You've presented no evidence.

Forgive me if I don't find the fact that you've presented no evidence compelling.

Gosh that was funny, pedophile. I guess if you assume that you may as well assume rape victims "love" to get raped by rapists too eh? Tee hee, rape and pedophilia are sooo hilarious wink wink!

Who suggested she'd want to be raped?

Plenty of evidence concerning serial killers and serial rapists show that they initially have fantasies that cannot be resolved through an ordinary, socially acceptable outlet.

It's not that their fantasies cannot be resolved. It's that their fantasies include a lack of consent. The majority of men have fantasies. I know a large percentage of men have fantasies about movie stars. Why aren't movie stars being raped left and right.


Eventually, the fantasies are not enough, and they start to kill or rape. I believe that pedophiles are the same way - for most of them, fantasy is fine, but for some, the fantasy will never be enough. Additionally, once they really act out on it, the fantasy will NEVER do, and they won't be able to find enough opportunities to do it.

Now, you, I would not allow around my family or friends. All people fantasize. I can't believe you're arguing that fantasy leads to rape.

For some fo the fantasy will never be enough. According to all available evidence, that group is less than the number of people who are not pedophiles who sexually victimize children. We all agree that fantasy is not enough for some of them. All evidence suggests that like the rest of the population that percentage is very low.


I believe this applies to all situations where the conduct is completely forbidden by society, and where the initial lead-in is fantasy.
That's sick. So basically all you think separates you from a rapist is for women to consent once in a while. Scary.

Who suggested she'd want to be raped?

You'd think you'd have learned by now.

Yes, I would become a rapist of tall women.

Like I said, that's sick. Me. I'm not a rapist. I wouldn't rape anyone. Ever. Even if I never have sex again, I'll never be a rapist.

Who suggested she'd want to be raped?

You did. You may not think it'd be rape, because you have the stupid idea that children can consent to sex with adults. But it's rape all the same, because medical science and the law disagree with you on the subject of consent.

And don't even bother trying to deny that you said what you did just to piss me off. :upyours:

It's not that their fantasies cannot be resolved. It's that their fantasies include a lack of consent. The majority of men have fantasies. I know a large percentage of men have fantasies about movie stars. Why aren't movie stars being raped left and right.


Because most people aren't psychopaths.

But a pedophile who has acted once on the fantasy is most certainly a psychopath.

And according to the FBI's research on criminal behavior, a psychopath has no ability to stop what they're doing, once the fantasy isn't enough.

I would believe that a group of pedophiles contains far more psychopaths than the run of the mill group of people.

I'd assume though,,,,,


That your niece would love to be babysat by him. ;)
One-month forum ban. :rolleyes:

Because most people aren't psychopaths.

But a pedophile who has acted once on the fantasy is most certainly a psychopath.

And according to the FBI's research on criminal behavior, a psychopath has no ability to stop what they're doing, once the fantasy isn't enough.

I would believe that a group of pedophiles contains far more psychopaths than the run of the mill group of people.

So now your argument is that psychopaths are the ones who are dangerous. Fine. I agree with that. It doesn't jive with your original argument, but I'll let you change it.

Meanwhile, can you prove or evidence your link between psychopaths and pedophiles because all evidence provided thus far has proven the opposite.

Meanwhile, can you prove or evidence your link between psychopaths and pedophiles because all evidence provided thus far has proven the opposite.
According to Kenneth Lanning, an FBI Supervisory Agent, child molesters can be divided into two groups. The situational molester is not a true pedophile because he doesnít prefer having sex with children but instead turns to them for any number of reasons including stress, boredom, curiosity or because he is sexually or morally indiscriminate. The preferential child molester is considered the true pedophile because he prefers having sex with children and actually seeks them out. He is sexually attracted to children and has the potential to molest large numbers of victims.

The latter, the preferential child molester, the true pedophile, is the uncontrollable one. You'll also notice that the FBI thinks they are committing the crime many times over.

We could add more information from Lanning.

According to Lanning, there are three major patterns of behavior that emerge with true pedophiles - seduction, introverted and sadistic. The seducter uses a process known as "grooming" which leads to the eventual sexual abuse of a child. According to Seth Goldstein in The Sexual Exploitation of Children, once offenders target children they will track them down and methodically approach the child to begin the process of seducing him or her. They may over a long period of time, while gaining their trust and even the trust of the family, shower them with gifts and attention all the while waiting for the right moment to abuse the child. The offender will often wait until the victim is willing to trade sexual acts for attention or other benefits they may have received from the offender.

According to Lanning, the introverted pedophile lacks the inter-personal skills necessary to seduce a child so will usually molest strangers or young children. This type of pedophile may marry a woman and have his own children because he does not have the skills to seduce others. He would most likely molest his children from the time they are infants.

Sadistic Molesters do not appear to be in large numbers according to Lanning. This is the type of pedophile who inflicts pain on child victims. They typically use lures or force to gain access to children.

According to Kenneth Lanning, an FBI Supervisory Agent, child molesters can be divided into two groups. The situational molester is not a true pedophile because he doesnít prefer having sex with children but instead turns to them for any number of reasons including stress, boredom, curiosity or because he is sexually or morally indiscriminate. The preferential child molester is considered the true pedophile because he prefers having sex with children and actually seeks them out. He is sexually attracted to children and has the potential to molest large numbers of victims.

The latter, the preferential child molester, the true pedophile, is the uncontrollable one. You'll also notice that the FBI thinks they are committing the crime many times over.

Yes, and he is referring to offenders, which is all the FBI cares about. They are dividing up child molesters not pedophiles. So your reference is to pedophiles who are child molesters and we're referring to pedophiles who are not, which your reference does not speak to.

The 'true pedophiles' you reference in both your posts are the small percentage of pedophiles who actually offend. You support my point unknowingly.

Your understanding of evidence sucks. You've proven that some pedophiles are psychopaths. So are some men, some women, some posters on NS, some white people, some black people, etc. You claimed that the psychopaths occur in greater frequency among pedophiles than everyone else, and you've not replied to that at all.

Let me know if you need me to further explain how evidence given should actually support the claim.

Yes, and he is referring to offenders, which is all the FBI cares about. They are dividing up child molesters not pedophiles. So your reference is to pedophiles who are child molesters and we're referring to pedophiles who are not, which your reference does not speak to.

The 'true pedophiles' you reference in both your posts are the small percentage of pedophiles who actually offend. You support my point unknowingly.

Your understanding of evidence sucks. You've proven that some pedophiles are psychopaths. So are some men, some women, some posters on NS, some white people, some black people, etc. You claimed that the psychopaths occur in greater frequency among pedophiles than everyone else, and you've not replied to that at all.

Let me know if you need me to further explain how evidence given should actually support the claim.


I haven't seen any of your evidence, including these "studies" you mention.

So IMHO, you have no evidence at all.

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?
I suppose all sexualities, including paedophilism, is a product of how the individual brain works. Altering the brain of a pedophile person would be a violation of his/her personal freedom. However if they have given their consent to this I can't see the problem. This would also give homosexuals an opportunity to be "normal". (No I'm not a homophobe!)

I haven't seen any of your evidence, including these "studies" you mention.

So IMHO, you have no evidence at all.

Yes, I realize you're too lazy to look. The fact you haven't read something doesn't make it not exist.

I'll tell you what. I'll make a deal with you. If I link my evidence, will you admit that you're full of crap?

Meanwhile, you didn't show any evidence. You reference an author but no book nor did you show any links. In fact you quoted someone else's argument without crediting it which is in violation of site rules, if you'd like to know.

Now, I'll help you out. Guess who my source is? You should know. You're very versed in what Lanning believes. So versed that you're prepared to plagierize his work and the work of others. If you'd ready more of Lanning than a summary of his work, you'd have recognized where my statistic was from.

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

Those who have committed sexual crimes against children, but do not meet the normal diagnosis criteria for pedophilia, are referred to as situational, opportunistic, or regressed offenders, whereas offenders primarily attracted toward children are called structured, preferential, or fixated pedophiles, as their orientation is fixed by the structure of their personality. It is estimated that only 2 to 10 percent of child sexual abuse perpetrators meet the regular criteria for pedophilia.

Now the quoted is from Kinsey. Now, guess who agrees with Kinsey? Let's check, shall we?

quoting the FBI's Kenneth Lanning, who estimates that only 10% of child sex offenders are preferential.

In case, you don't follow, this means that while only one source can be found that patterns pedophilia at less than 10%, a vast number that have it more than double that, that 90% of offenders are non-pedophiles while non-pedophiles make up a smaller percentage of the population. In other words, according to your own source pedophiles are less likely to be offenders than others.

And, you know what that's called? That's called PWNed. Let me know next time you feel like getting owned in an argument because that was fun. I laid that trap and you lumbered into with so little effort on my part.

It's repulisive and creepy that this forum topic is still around. Our Lord Christ saved some of His toughest venom to people who harm children. But with European "evolving standards of morality," I'm not surprised.

Is this the next European fad that the Supreme Court will bring to America by evolving world civilization standards?

It's repulisive and creepy that this forum topic is still around. Our Lord Christ saved some of His toughest venom to people who harm children. But with European "evolving standards of morality," I'm not surprised.

Is this the next European fad that the Supreme Court will bring to America by evolving world civilization standards?
Oh god not another fanatic :rolleyes:

It's repulisive and creepy that this forum topic is still around. Our Lord Christ saved some of His toughest venom to people who harm children. But with European "evolving standards of morality," I'm not surprised.

Is this the next European fad that the Supreme Court will bring to America by evolving world civilization standards?

We aren't talking about people who harm children. We're talking about people are attracted to children. You should really recognize the difference.

It's repulisive and creepy that this forum topic is still around. Our Lord Christ saved some of His toughest venom to people who harm children. But with European "evolving standards of morality," I'm not surprised.

Is this the next European fad that the Supreme Court will bring to America by evolving world civilization standards?

Either you hold the strangest collection of opinions ever assembled in one human, or you're trying to encourage debate by actively supporting whatever position you think will raise the most hackles.

According to Kenneth Lanning, an FBI Supervisory Agent, child molesters can be divided into two groups. The situational molester is not a true pedophile because he doesnít prefer having sex with children but instead turns to them for any number of reasons including stress, boredom, curiosity or because he is sexually or morally indiscriminate. The preferential child molester is considered the true pedophile because he prefers having sex with children and actually seeks them out. He is sexually attracted to children and has the potential to molest large numbers of victims.

The latter, the preferential child molester, the true pedophile, is the uncontrollable one. You'll also notice that the FBI thinks they are committing the crime many times over.

We could add more information from Lanning.

According to Lanning, there are three major patterns of behavior that emerge with true pedophiles - seduction, introverted and sadistic. The seducter uses a process known as "grooming" which leads to the eventual sexual abuse of a child. According to Seth Goldstein in The Sexual Exploitation of Children, once offenders target children they will track them down and methodically approach the child to begin the process of seducing him or her. They may over a long period of time, while gaining their trust and even the trust of the family, shower them with gifts and attention all the while waiting for the right moment to abuse the child. The offender will often wait until the victim is willing to trade sexual acts for attention or other benefits they may have received from the offender.

According to Lanning, the introverted pedophile lacks the inter-personal skills necessary to seduce a child so will usually molest strangers or young children. This type of pedophile may marry a woman and have his own children because he does not have the skills to seduce others. He would most likely molest his children from the time they are infants.

Sadistic Molesters do not appear to be in large numbers according to Lanning. This is the type of pedophile who inflicts pain on child victims. They typically use lures or force to gain access to children.


Mind actually citing your source rather than cutting and pasting from another website? It's dishonest.

Either you hold the strangest collection of opinions ever assembled in one human, or you're trying to encourage debate by actively supporting whatever position you think will raise the most hackles.

Sorry Lloyd, but if you honestly think that mainstream Democrats like me support pedaphila, you are wrong. Although, I realize that sex is a fundamental right protected by the 4th amendment, but I still feel that pedophilia is wrong.

Are you saying that this just another example of internalized oppression that the republicans have maanged to put on me that I don't even notice?

Sorry Lloyd, but if you honestly think that mainstream Democrats like me support pedaphila, you are wrong. Although, I realize that sex is a fundamental right protected by the 4th amendment, but I still feel that pedophilia is wrong.

Are you saying that this just another example of internalized oppression that the republicans have maanged to put on me that I don't even notice?

You argue extreme positions in most threads in which you post. You appear to oppose both social freedom (this thread) and fiscal freedom (any thread discussing provate property).

Your repeated calls to nationalise industry make you far from a mainstream democrat.

Sorry Lloyd, but if you honestly think that mainstream Democrats like me support pedaphila, you are wrong. Although, I realize that sex is a fundamental right protected by the 4th amendment, but I still feel that pedophilia is wrong.

Are you saying that this just another example of internalized oppression that the republicans have maanged to put on me that I don't even notice?
While most democrats wouldn't support pedophilia (in fact, almost no one support pedophilia) the majority of democrats wouldn't advocate taking legal action against people for having the wrong opinion.

As Llewdor points out you seem to just throw out extreme opinions that are most of the time cannot be reconciled.

I wish the forum moderators would close down this illegal and repulsive pedophile forums, irregardless of what the Netherlands is doing nowadays.

And the 105 people who agree to legalize it should be reported to the police in their native countries.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11385380&postcount=875

So what you're saying is that a moral judgement is only justifiable if there is self-evident moral truth

No, I'm saying quite the opposite.

and yet morals themselves are by their very nature subjective. Some make sense - don't do to others what you don't want done to you - but there is no REASON to adhere to a code of honesty other than the fear of being caught.

No. "Fear of being caught" is only a reason if we wish to avoid being caught. Like all reasons, it is not universal; it merely applies if we choose to accept the objectives it fulfills. Any reason depends on a value judgement. If we accept that no judgement of intrinsic value is more rational than any other, then it follows that there is no solely rational basis for doing anything.

But we still haven't covered why a child's consent is not meaningful. Because adults (and possibly other, more knowledgeable children) are going to wreck their mental state by telling them what they did was wrong? That sounds like the fault of the people who came after the paedophile to me.

No. Because they are less capable of resisting adult pressure (and that, I will grant, is in part the result of our society) and because they are not necessarily capable of realizing the implications of their actions.

I would consider that courtesy or respect for the other's morals, beliefs, etc.

Sure, but there is no reason for such courtesy to be absolute.

Who said my personal interest outweighs the serial killer's? I happen to like living, so acting on my own behalf to stop a potential threat to my life is not a moral judgement.

Well, only if you consider the action to be immoral (even though you'd do it anyway) or if you deny morality outright, because if neither of those are true you are indeed making the moral judgement that the action is acceptable. But even if they are, it's still a value judgement. If "courtesy or respect for the other's morals, beliefs, etc." mandates that we cannot impose our moral judgements upon them, wouldn't such a prohibition similarly apply to all value judgements?

I'm not missing the point. Murder is a bad example. because you suck at debate.

No, it's a perfectly fine example.

Murder is not a law based on morals because an argument can be made for making murder illegal absent of morality.

But not absent of value judgements. And, as I already pointed out, if anything non-moral value judgements tend to be even more subjective than moral ones.

And the non-moral values, like your safety, are equally agreed upon. We agree on a massive scale that one person should be safe from another. Not because it's right or wrong but because we all want to feel safe from other people.

The value is not my safety, it is their safety. They might rationally conclude from the value they put on their own safety that they should support a society that punishes murderers, but that doesn't imply that they care in the slightest about my safety.

The fact that you find it reprehensible that moral reasoning isn't what's used, again, is your issue not mine.

That isn't what I said. What I said was, operating on the assumption that the subjectivity of value judgements indicates that we should not impose them on others, the more subjective and divisive value judgements - like selfish ones - should be less acceptable to impose, not more.

That isn't what I said. What I said was, operating on the assumption that the subjectivity of value judgements indicates that we should not impose them on others, the more subjective and divisive value judgements - like selfish ones - should be less acceptable to impose, not more.

So you think that we should impose value judgements only if they DON'T affect us. Making it illegal for any person to take any other person's life without their consent (I'm limiting it, because I don't believe killing someone who wants you to do it is murder and whether it should be permitted or not is debateable) is hardly selfish. I am respecting the other person absolutely as much as I am respecting myself. Given that other person doesn't want to allow murder just as much as I do even further evidences that point. Admit it, murder sucks as an example because an argument for it being illegal can be made completely devoid of moral valuation.

So you think that we should impose value judgements only if they DON'T affect us. Making it illegal for any person to take any other person's life without their consent (I'm limiting it, because I don't believe killing someone who wants you to do it is murder and whether it should be permitted or not is debateable) is hardly selfish. I am respecting the other person absolutely as much as I am respecting myself. Given that other person doesn't want to allow murder just as much as I do even further evidences that point. Admit it, murder sucks as an example because an argument for it being illegal can be made completely devoid of moral valuation.

Well, firstly, you should read my entire reply to you, which I finally managed to post; my browser is causing me a number of difficulties in posting, and the original version was cut in the process of copying and pasting it.

Secondly, no, I don't believe that "we should impose value judgements only if they DON'T effect us"; I believe that we should only impose value judgements when their subjects are actions with unconsenting victims, but that is another topic. The only point I am making here is that the notion that we should not impose value judgements because of their subjectivity is, firstly, a subjective moral judgement in itself, and secondly, a moral judgement that leads to conclusions that most would deem unacceptable.

As for the notion that opposition to murder is not selfish, that indeed may be, but if we remove moral valuation from consideration, our primary motives for opposing a society that tolerates murder are indeed selfish. The rational expressions for our selfish desires may indeed coincide, but the desires themselves do not. This is highly relevant in the example of the murderer; while she may oppose the legalization of murder because it would endanger her, she still does not value my safety, assuming away morality. Her murder, because it has no chance of endangering her, is not a violation of her non-moral values.

Well, firstly, you should read my entire reply to you, which I finally managed to post; my browser is causing me a number of difficulties in posting, and the original version was cut in the process of copying and pasting it.

Secondly, no, I don't believe that "we should impose value judgements only if they DON'T effect us"; I believe that we should only impose value judgements when their subjects are actions with unconsenting victims, but that is another topic. The only point I am making here is that the notion that we should not impose value judgements because of their subjectivity is, firstly, a subjective moral judgement in itself, and secondly, a moral judgement that leads to conclusions that most would deem unacceptable.

As for the notion that opposition to murder is not selfish, that indeed may be, but if we remove moral valuation from consideration, our primary motives for opposing a society that tolerates murder are indeed selfish. The rational expressions for our selfish desires may indeed coincide, but the desires themselves do not. This is highly relevant in the example of the murderer; while she may oppose the legalization of murder because it would endanger her, she still does not value my safety, assuming away morality. Her murder, because it has no chance of endangering her, is not a violation of her non-moral values.

Ha. I'm not arguing the subjectivity part and it is also not a moral judgement. RIGHT AND WRONG. That is morality. Becuase one has a valuation doesn't make it a moral valuation. Seriously, you suck at this.

No, our primary motives for opposing a society that tolerates murder aren't selfish. Sometimes I wonder if you know what the words you use mean. It's not selfish to wish for the same exact level of safety for every single person. Your argument would only work if I said I want that level of safety for myself regardless of what everyone else's level of safety is. I never made that argument and that is clearly not even related to the argument being made. Considering it's an equally applied law nearly universally supported, it's really difficult to make an argument for the non-moral arguments for it being selfish. Selfish implies that one is out for themselves for no consideration for others. You've not remotely shown this to be the case. Your only argument assumes a person to be a murderer. Only the would-be murderer has a selfish reason for supporting the law, PERHAPS. Even then one would have to say that unless their reasoning amounts to only worrying about themselves, it is still not selfish. Unless that is a significant portion of the population, you have no argument.

So you think that we should impose value judgements only if they DON'T affect us. Making it illegal for any person to take any other person's life without their consent (I'm limiting it, because I don't believe killing someone who wants you to do it is murder and whether it should be permitted or not is debateable) is hardly selfish. I am respecting the other person absolutely as much as I am respecting myself. Given that other person doesn't want to allow murder just as much as I do even further evidences that point. Admit it, murder sucks as an example because an argument for it being illegal can be made completely devoid of moral valuation.


Now see, many people on these forums must believe the world is relative, as in things are as you see them. I, on the other hand, am firmly convinced we live in a world of absolutes, and therefore I don't consider "morals" to be an issue of debate. You may think "my" morals are wrong for you, but no one agrees with every law in their state either. That doesn't make the law wrong. Just because you disagree with a moral doesn't make it non-applicable. It just means tough shit, life's like that, same as anything else.

Ha. I'm not arguing the subjectivity part

But I am arguing against it. So if you're going to object to my argument, you should understand the point I'm trying to demonstrate.

and it is also not a moral judgement. RIGHT AND WRONG. That is morality. Becuase one has a valuation doesn't make it a moral valuation.

The notion that we cannot impose a moral judgement on another isn't a moral judgement? Nonsense. It is claiming that it is wrong to do a certain thing. That is a moral judgement.

No, our primary motives for opposing a society that tolerates murder aren't selfish.

Please try to actually read what I say next time:

As for the notion that opposition to murder is not selfish, that indeed may be, but if we remove moral valuation from consideration, our primary motives for opposing a society that tolerates murder are indeed selfish.

Sometimes I wonder if you know what the words you use mean.

And sometimes I wonder whether you actually read what I say, or understand it.

It's not selfish to wish for the same exact level of safety for every single person.

No, it's not. What is selfish (and thus subjective, which is the whole point) is to say that, for the sake of my own safety, we should have a society that prohibits murder. The "same exact level of safety" in such a circumstance is the rational expression of a selfish desire in particular circumstances.

You argued:

It's not about morality it's about the fact that the majority, the vast, vast majority of people wish to feel safe from harm and as there is no violation of rights in not allowing another to kill you, we have no issue with outlawing it.

Their "wish to feel safe from harm" is a selfish (not necessarily unjustified, but selfish) and subjective desire. There are indeed other reasons that we oppose murder - but those tend to be moral reasons, and, in case you forgot, you have been trying to justify a prohibition of murder based on non-moral reasons.

Your argument would only work if I said I want that level of safety for myself regardless of what everyone else's level of safety is.

Which is precisely what your argument from "feeling safe from harm" implies, at least if we assume that that is the only reason we prohibit murder. (Clearly, it is not - but the other reasons, possibly excepting concern for family and friends, are moral reasons.)

I never made that argument and that is clearly not even related to the argument being made. Considering it's an equally applied law nearly universally supported, it's really difficult to make an argument for the non-moral arguments for it being selfish. Selfish implies that one is out for themselves for no consideration for others. You've not remotely shown this to be the case.

You appear to be conflating motive and application. I have never argued that the application of the law against murder in our society is somehow partial. What I have argued is that the argument you have presented for that law is indeed based on selfishness. I have explained why several times.

Your only argument assumes a person to be a murderer.

No. I used the example of a murderer because the murderer is the person about whom we are talking.

Unless that is a significant portion of the population, you have no argument.

No, actually. Even if everyone but the murderer agrees on a particular value judgement, to impose it upon the murderer is still to impose a subjective value judgement on someone who rejects it.

Jocabia: We have gotten rather side-tracked.

My original point nevertheless remains - the distinction between moral and non-moral value judgements is irrelevant to the discussion, because they are both subjective. If indeed it is true that we should not impose subjective judgements on others, that applies just as much to non-moral value judgements as it does to moral judgements.

Thus, whatever the motives for prohibiting murder, it is still the imposition of a subjective value judgement upon someone who, for whatever reason, has chosen to reject it in actions.

Now see, many people on these forums must believe the world is relative, as in things are as you see them.

The subjectivity of morality is not the same thing as the subjectivity of reality.

I, on the other hand, am firmly convinced we live in a world of absolutes, and therefore I don't consider "morals" to be an issue of debate.

So you have direct, demonstrable access to absolute moral truth?

I, on the other hand, am firmly convinced we live in a world of absolutes, and therefore I don't consider "morals" to be an issue of debate.So you have direct, demonstrable access to absolute moral truth?

That's not really fair. Firm opinions on metaphysical issues are never based on reason. Beliefs simply aren't defensible.

That's not really fair. Firm opinions on metaphysical issues are never based on reason. Beliefs simply aren't defensible.

Surf Shack made the claim that morals aren't an issue for debate; that means that they must be clearly evident, not merely objective. It's easy to have debates about what is true, even in the objective sphere; we have them all the time on NS. Unless a particular truth is obvious, it is an issue for debate.

But I am arguing against it. So if you're going to object to my argument, you should understand the point I'm trying to demonstrate.

I understand the point. I didn't like your example. That has nothing to do with agreeing with or not agreeing with the point. I've tried to explain that to you for several pages. I was hoping you would read that I keep telling you that, but I was wrong. Again, you suck at this. Don't worry, I offer proof below.


The notion that we cannot impose a moral judgement on another isn't a moral judgement? Nonsense. It is claiming that it is wrong to do a certain thing. That is a moral judgement.

The notion that it's wrong is a moral judgement. The notion that within our system we can't make decisions based on morals is not necessarily a moral judgement. You make an invalid assumption. Unless they specifically say it's wrong, then you cannot assume it. You keep assuming it, because, well, as I've pointed out, you suck at this. Don't worry I offer proof that you suck at this below.

Please try to actually read what I say next time:

And sometimes I wonder whether you actually read what I say, or understand it.

Since I'm arguing about things that are not morally-based and gave you how murder can be argued using non-selfish means that are not morally-based, your statement simply proves you suck at this. You suggest that I don't realize that you said the non-morally-based arguments are selfish, yet that's exactly what I addressed.

Meanwhile, your admission that there ARE non-morally-based arguments for murder, proves it isn't a morality law and proves your example sucked. Like I said, you suck at this. I'm certian you don't realize you just proved my original point correct.

It's amusing when you accuse me of being unable to understand you while I annihilate your arguments and get you to agree with the very point your arguing against.


No, it's not. What is selfish (and thus subjective, which is the whole point) is to say that, for the sake of my own safety, we should have a society that prohibits murder. The "same exact level of safety" in such a circumstance is the rational expression of a selfish desire in particular circumstances.

No, it's not. Unless you can claim it's selfish to say everyone should have a loaf of bread at night. You can't. It has nothing to do with selfishness.


You argued:

Their "wish to feel safe from harm" is a selfish (not necessarily unjustified, but selfish) and subjective desire. There are indeed other reasons that we oppose murder - but those tend to be moral reasons, and, in case you forgot, you have been trying to justify a prohibition of murder based on non-moral reasons.

And then I showed you how it's not selfish and you ignored it. The fact that I worded it in a way that you could perceive as selfish doesn't mean I never said another thing. More proof you're not paying attention.


Which is precisely what your argument from "feeling safe from harm" implies, at least if we assume that that is the only reason we prohibit murder. (Clearly, it is not - but the other reasons, possibly excepting concern for family and friends, are moral reasons.)

No, it doesn't, because we outlawed murder universally, not just for me. I didn't imply, you inferred. And you inferred wrong, but what can we expect from someone who still isn't sure how I can make an argument about your example without supporting or denying your point. See, you suck at this.


You appear to be conflating motive and application. I have never argued that the application of the law against murder in our society is somehow partial. What I have argued is that the argument you have presented for that law is indeed based on selfishness. I have explained why several times.

And you've failed each time. Because if the law that is argued for is not selfish and there are non-selfish reasons, which I listed, then it's on you to show the non-selfish reason doesn't apply. You haven't. Instead your argument is that since you didn't think of it and I didn't say it right away, it doesn't count. Again, more evidence you suck at this.


No. I used the example of a murderer because the murderer is the person about whom we are talking.

Yes, but we're not arguing about murderers. We're arguing about the law against murdered which one would assume is mostly supported by people who are not murderers. Again, you suck at this.


No, actually. Even if everyone but the murderer agrees on a particular value judgement, to impose it upon the murderer is still to impose a subjective value judgement on someone who rejects it.

Again, with the subjective. Subjective not equal moral. And I pointed out, you gave an exampel of a 'moral' law and I pointed out it's not. I said I am not speaking to the subjective part. Yet you complain I miss the point. Oh, the irony. Still not a morally-based law, something you admitted is possible and thus makes it bad example. Why continue an argument for pages when the whole time you're admitting unintentionally I'm right? My conclusion, because you suck at this.


Ok, here's why not just your argument but your argumentations sucks.

A. You used in your argument an example of a morally-based law that isn't morally-based. Something I've since proven.

"What about murder? Should we allow murderers to engage in murder because restraining them would be imposing our moral judgements against murder upon them?"


B. When I replied to your argument, you changed my argument in effort to deny that you were wrong. That's called a strawman.

Me:"I hate that example. It show a complete lack of understanding of what morality (in the way it was used) means. Murder is outlawed because there is a compelling reason to value individuals in society. It's not about morality it's about the fact that the majority, the vast, vast majority of people wish to feel safe from harm and as there is no violation of rights in not allowing another to kill you, we have no issue with outlawing it. Every valuation doesn't qualify as morality."

You: "So because "the vast, vast majority of people" think a certain way, that is the right way to think?"

So I mention that murder is a bad example because not every valuation amounts to morality. Your response is that just because this is true doesn't make it right, basically arguing that it's subjective (which is true as is everything else) while ignoring my point altogether and changing my argument.

C. You make the assertion that rights are about morality which is alaso wrong.

D. I tell you that you made this error - "Not what I said. I said the decision is not about right and wrong. " You claim I'm missing the point while continuing to miss that I proved murder was a bad example and continuing to change my argument (which was never that your argument was wrong but just that your example was fallacious). You continue your to argue your point with K with me though I never brought it up and just said I didn't like your example. More evidence you suck at debate.

Me: "I'm not missing the point. Murder is a bad example. because you suck at debate. Murder is not a law based on morals because an argument can be made for making murder illegal absent of morality. A better example would be drug laws. Some rules are amoral. For example, the distribution of taxes is based on a moral code (thus the debate) but the requirement to pay taxes, in general, is not based on a moral code. Instead it's based on a need for the government to have funding. Your inability to discern between morality and all other reasoning is not my issue. It's yours.
....
Have your debate with K. Enjoy. Just use better examples, because the example of murder as a morally-imposed law sucks."

E. Since you fail to prove that murder is a morally-based law, you complain that any other reasoning is also subjective, even though I haven't argued that laws are not subject just that it's a bad example. More evidence that you suck at debate. Yes, knowing what point someone makes is very necessary debate.

And, you should note, I didn't miss your point, I just wasn't talking about. I didn't argue against your point. I argued that you suck at debate because the example was terrible. It's a side point and I made that clear. So, who missed the point? Apparently, you.

F. Even though I repeated several times I wasn't talking about the subjectivity part of your initial argument - "I'm not arguing the subjectivity part " "I'm not missing the point. Murder is a bad example." "Not what I said. I said the decision is not about right and wrong." "I hate that example."

I repeatedly tell you that my point is about murder not being a good example of a morally-based law and you continue to argue about something else.

The obvious conclusion. So, let's see bad examples, inability to recognize the point = you suck at this.

Ah, the magic of proving you suck at this.

This has been annoying me for a while, so I'll say right now, Jocabia, your sig link is broken.
It should be:

[URL="Jocabia.blogspot.com"]My newly birthed blog[URL]

It is:

[URL="http://My newly birthed blog"]Jocabia.blogspot.com[URL]

Add slashes to the end tags.

This has been annoying me for a while, so I'll say right now, Jocabia, your sig link is broken.
It should be:

[URL="Jocabia.blogspot.com"]My newly birthed blog[URL]

It is:

[URL="http://My newly birthed blog"]Jocabia.blogspot.com[URL]

Add slashes to the end tags.

Someone told me that before and I forgot. Thanks.

A. You used in your argument an example of a morally-based law that isn't morally-based. Something I've since proven.

"What about murder? Should we allow murderers to engage in murder because restraining them would be imposing our moral judgements against murder upon them?"

Since you seem so obsessed with this point (even though I've demonstrated that it is irrelevant to my point) let me ask you this: if you could adjust the law against murder so that murderers would only be restrained if their crimes dealt some sort of harm to you, your family, or your friends, and you had a guarantee that the law would be enforced before any such harm was dealt to you, your family, or your friends, would you do it?

Do you think other people would do it?

Do you think that law and the current law are indistinguishable in terms of value according to the views of most people?

B. When I replied to your argument, you changed my argument in effort to deny that you were wrong. That's called a strawman.

Me:"I hate that example. It show a complete lack of understanding of what morality (in the way it was used) means. Murder is outlawed because there is a compelling reason to value individuals in society. It's not about morality it's about the fact that the majority, the vast, vast majority of people wish to feel safe from harm and as there is no violation of rights in not allowing another to kill you, we have no issue with outlawing it. Every valuation doesn't qualify as morality."

You: "So because "the vast, vast majority of people" think a certain way, that is the right way to think?"

I discontinued that line of argument once I understood what you were saying; initially I thought you were arguing that because support for the prohibition was nearly unanimous, it somehow had a sort of natural legitimacy.

So I mention that murder is a bad example because not every valuation amounts to morality. Your response is that just because this is true doesn't make it right, basically arguing that it's subjective (which is true as is everything else) while ignoring my point altogether and changing my argument.

Doesn't make what right? What I have been trying to explain to you repeatedly is that even if you are right that the prohibition of murder is based on non-moral values, such values are still subjective, and thus the point I made in my reply to Kyronea - that if we accept that moral values (with the relevance of "moral values" not being the fact that they are moral values, but that they are subjective) cannot be imposed, prohibitions on murder (because they are similarly based on subjective values) cannot be imposed - still stands in essence, even if alterations in phrasing are necessary.

C. You make the assertion that rights are about morality which is alsso wrong.

Legal rights are not about morality; moral rights, obviously, are. Since, incidentally, we are talking about morality, I made the apparently false assumption that you were talking about moral rights and not legal rights.

D. I tell you that you made this error - "Not what I said. I said the decision is not about right and wrong. " You claim I'm missing the point while continuing to miss that I proved murder was a bad example and continuing to change my argument (which was never that your argument was wrong but just that your example was fallacious). You continue your to argue your point with K with me though I never brought it up and just said I didn't like your example.

Since it was an argument by example, if you can invalidate the example, you can invalidate the argument. Incidentally, you have done neither, for reasons I have explained again and again.

E. Since you fail to prove that murder is a morally-based law,

Because it isn't necessary for my argument.

you complain that any other reasoning is also subjective, even though I haven't argued that laws are not subject just that it's a bad example.

And if your objection to my example is irrelevant to my argument, your objection is not a legitimate objection.

More evidence that you suck at debate. Yes, knowing what point someone makes is very necessary debate.

I understand the point you've been making; what you fail to understand, apparently, is my response to it.

I did not argue "prohibitions on murder are the result of moral judgements" after you objected to my statement to that effect because that argument is unnecessary to the point I have been trying to demonstrate. Instead, I explained why it is unnecessary. For some reason, you refuse to accept this explanation, remaining obsessed with your original point.

F. Even though I repeated several times I wasn't talking about the subjectivity part of your initial argument - "I'm not arguing the subjectivity part " "I'm not missing the point. Murder is a bad example." "Not what I said. I said the decision is not about right and wrong." "I hate that example."

I repeatedly tell you that my point is about murder not being a good example of a morally-based law and you continue to argue about something else.

No. I continue to argue that even if you are right that it is not a morally-based law, that point is irrelevant to my argument. As such, your objection is pointless.

More evidence you suck at debate.

I argued that you suck at debate

The obvious conclusion. So, let's see bad examples, inability to recognize the point = you suck at this.

Ah, the magic of proving you suck at this.

Do you think any of this actually serves any productive purpose?

Since you seem so obsessed with this point (even though I've demonstrated that it is irrelevant to my point) let me ask you this: if you could adjust the law against murder so that murderers would only be restrained if their crimes dealt some sort of harm to you, your family, or your friends, and you had a guarantee that the law would be enforced before any such harm was dealt to you, your family, or your friends, would you do it?

Nope. That would be selfish.

Do you think other people would do it?

Nope. I don't think they would. That's why the reasoning isn't selfish.

Do you think that law and the current law are indistinguishable in terms of value according to the views of most people?

Yes, I think it's completely different. We support universal laws, not special laws for people. What I think some people would support and I would agree with them is a law regarding killing someone without consent. But again, that's because the reasoning is unselfish and not based on a morality. Now the laws against euthanasia or suicide would be a great example of a morality-based law, but because you suck at this you used a poor example.



I discontinued that line of argument once I understood what you were saying; initially I thought you were arguing that because support for the prohibition was nearly unanimous, it somehow had a sort of natural legitimacy.

Yes, I know it was hard to read it in the very first post I made. It's complicated, but you should probably reply to what I actually post.


Doesn't make what right? What I have been trying to explain to you repeatedly is that even if you are right that the prohibition of murder is based on non-moral values, such values are still subjective, and thus the point I made in my reply to Kyronea - that if we accept that moral values (with the relevance of "moral values" not being the fact that they are moral values, but that they are subjective) cannot be imposed, prohibitions on murder (because they are similarly based on subjective values) cannot be imposed - still stands in essence, even if alterations in phrasing are necessary.

I don't care if it's right. I'm not arguing the morality of murder or of using subjective means to make laws. I'm arguing that you used a poor example, something I've proven repeatedly and you admit.


Legal rights are not about morality; moral rights, obviously, are. Since, incidentally, we are talking about morality, I made the apparently false assumption that you were talking about moral rights and not legal rights.

Great. Glad you agree. Glad to see it that you recognize that it was you that missed the point. Perhaps from now before you accuse people of missing the point, you'll analyze your argument so that I don't have to correct you and your false assumptions. I won't always be around to show you the error of your ways so you're going to have to learn to figure this stuff out on your own.


Since it was an argument by example, if you can invalidate the example, you can invalidate the argument. Incidentally, you have done neither, for reasons I have explained again and again.

Actually, that's a logical fallacy. I didn't invalidate the example since you admitted there are non-moral reasons for a murder law. I believe you actually called those reasons selfish.


Because it isn't necessary for my argument.

You just claimed it was a minute ago when you said when you invalidate an example you invalidate the argument. I guess even you don't find what you write compelling.


And if your objection to my example is irrelevant to my argument, your objection is not a legitimate objection.

Again, didn't I say that? And your reply was to tell me it invalidates your argument because it's an argument by example. Now do you see why you suck at this?


I understand the point you've been making; what you fail to understand, apparently, is my response to it.

No, I understood your response to it. Since you admit you were making false assumptions about my points, it appears you didn't understand the point I was making. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm the only one reading your posts, including you.


I did not argue "prohibitions on murder are the result of moral judgements" after you objected to my statement to that effect because that argument is unnecessary to the point I have been trying to demonstrate. Instead, I explained why it is unnecessary. For some reason, you refuse to accept this explanation, remaining obsessed with your original point.

Ha, you claimed just a minute ago it was necessary. Let's see what did you say... oh, I believe it was - "Since it was an argument by example, if you can invalidate the example, you can invalidate the argument." And you did say that murder was a morally-based law and you assumed it was true. I proved you wrong.


No. I continue to argue that even if you are right that it is not a morally-based law, that point is irrelevant to my argument. As such, your objection is pointless.

Not if. You actually called the reasoning for a law against murder that is not based on morality selfish. That's an admission they exist.


Do you think any of this actually serves any productive purpose?
Yes, my amusement and your edification. Maybe next time you'll recognize the difference between missing your point and simply objecting to an example you use. It is my hope by making you aware of this and helping you to better pay attention to the posts you're replying to and the posters you're replying to that in the future you'll suck less at this. Like I said, I won't always be around to show you your false assumptions and poor arguments. Hopefully, this has been a learning experience for you.

Yes, I think it's completely different. We support universal laws, not special laws for people.

That's why the reasoning is moral. The notion of universality is a moral notion, based on the moral principle of human equality. It is wrong to be selfish, it is unjust to have laws that favor some people over others, and so on. Those are moral judgments.

What I think some people would support and I would agree with them is a law regarding killing someone without consent. But again, that's because the reasoning is unselfish and not based on a morality. Now the laws against euthanasia or suicide would be a great example of a morality-based law, but because you suck at this you used a poor example.

You do not seem to understand what morality is.

I don't care if it's right. I'm not arguing the morality of murder or of using subjective means to make laws. I'm arguing that you used a poor example, something I've proven repeatedly and you admit.

No, I don't actually admit it, but I didn't want to argue about it; that's why I explained how your objection was irrelevant to my point. If your only problem was with my example, you should have stopped there.

Great. Glad you agree. Glad to see it that you recognize that it was you that missed the point. Perhaps from now before you accuse people of missing the point, you'll analyze your argument so that I don't have to correct you and your false assumptions. I won't always be around to show you the error of your ways so you're going to have to learn to figure this stuff out on your own.

Your use of "rights" in that case was ambiguous.

Actually, that's a logical fallacy. I didn't invalidate the example since you admitted there are non-moral reasons for a murder law. I believe you actually called those reasons selfish.

Yes, I did call those "non-moral reasons" selfish. I have explained why I made that categorization numerous times.

You just claimed it was a minute ago when you said when you invalidate an example you invalidate the argument. I guess even you don't find what you write compelling.

Don't give me this nonsense. Your objection to my example applied to an aspect of the example that was irrelevant to the example's relevance. That's why it didn't invalidate the example.

Again, didn't I say that?

If your objection was illegitimate, you made it anyway because...?

And your reply was to tell me it invalidates your argument because it's an argument by example. Now do you see why you suck at this?

No. You claimed that your problem was with my example, not with my argument. I replied that if my example was indeed flawed, my argument would similarly be flawed. My example is not flawed, however, even if your point about murder is accurate, because that point is irrelevant to my usage of the example.

No, I understood your response to it. Since you admit you were making false assumptions about my points, it appears you didn't understand the point I was making.

In my first reply to you, yes. I replied to your objection very clearly in my second reply, however, at which point, if your point is solely aimed at my categorization of the prohibition of murder as morally-based, you should have stopped this pointless line of argument.

Ha, you claimed just a minute ago it was necessary. Let's see what did you say... oh, I believe it was - "Since it was an argument by example, if you can invalidate the example, you can invalidate the argument."

Yes. But claiming that the prohibition on murder isn't morally based is not invalidating it as an example in this context.

And you did say that murder was a morally-based law

Yes, I did.

and you assumed it was true. I proved you wrong.

No, you did not. You demonstrated that there was a rational way for a person to support laws against murder without morality. The fact remains, however, that most people - including, almost certainly, most of those who complain about "imposing morality" - support laws against murder for reasons that include moral reasons, and would not consider the imposition of that moral judgment on a murderer to be illegitimate. Thus, even in the terms in which I described it, my example stands.

Not if. You actually called the reasoning for a law against murder that is not based on morality selfish. That's an admission they exist.

Yes. They exist. But:

1. The fact that they exist isn't relevant to the point I was making.
2. The fact that they exist doesn't mean that they are the only reasons for prohibitions against murder.
3. The fact that they exist doesn't mean that most of those who claim to be against the imposition of morality would be opposed to the prohibition on murder if there were a circumstance in which those non-moral reasons didn't apply. How many of the liberals complaining about the Christian Right imposing morality on the issues of abortion and gay marriage would also complain about an attempt to restrain people who commit genocide in places like Darfur (assuming it could be done competently, inexpensively, and without collateral damage)? Such an "imposition" would have nothing to do with our desire to be safe from harm. It would be motivated by moral reasons - namely, altruism, concern for the lives of others.

And, by the way, I still would like to hear an explanation as to why the notion that we cannot impose our subjective moral judgments upon others is not in itself a moral judgment.

That's why the reasoning is moral. The notion of universality is a moral notion, based on the moral principle of human equality. It is wrong to be selfish, it is unjust to have laws that favor some people over others, and so on. Those are moral judgments.

You are talking about absolutism, not morality. Morality is about right and wrong. The government needs money so everybody needs to pay a little bit of tax is not a moral judgement.

Since you don't appear to know the meaning of the word though I've already posted it.

Moral - 1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments>

Hmmm.... where doe it mention anything about the fact that something is applied across the board it must be related to morality. I thought the qualifications were about right and wrong. Silly me. I must have been just using the definition. But, hey, why don't you tell me how I don't know what it means and then use it incorrectly again. That won't be embarrassing for you.

Yes. They exist. But:

1. The fact that they exist isn't relevant to the point I was making.

Again, I said this. I simply pointed out your example was erroneous. The only one who claimed it was relevant was you and then you backpedaled because you suck at this.

2. The fact that they exist doesn't mean that they are the only reasons for prohibitions against murder.

Doesn't matter if they are the only reasons. If a non-moral argument can be made then the law is not based on morality. That's how these things work. You'd know that, but then, you don't even know what morality means.


3. The fact that they exist doesn't mean that most of those who claim to be against the imposition of morality would be opposed to the prohibition on murder if there were a circumstance in which those non-moral reasons didn't apply. How many of the liberals complaining about the Christian Right imposing morality on the issues of abortion and gay marriage would also complain about an attempt to restrain people who commit genocide in places like Darfur (assuming it could be done competently, inexpensively, and without collateral damage)? Such an "imposition" would have nothing to do with our desire to be safe from harm. It would be motivated by moral reasons - namely, altruism, concern for the lives of others.

That's not an argument. The non-moral reasons do apply and that's why the example sucked. There are plenty of laws that are based solely on morality, but because you suck at this you didn't use one of those examples. That's the original point I made, you've since agreed (with the fact that it has non-moral reasons, not the part about you sucking which has been adequately proven). You keep arguing which just makes you look silly.

Again, you misuse the word moral. You really should look it up. Giving a value to the lives of others which MAY be motivated by morality or may not be is amoral. I can give reasons for valuing the lives of others that are not based on the belief in right and wrong. Again, you show that why your example sucked. Because you don't know what moral means. You confuse morality with giving value to things.


And, by the way, I still would like to hear an explanation as to why the notion that we cannot impose our subjective moral judgments upon others is not in itself a moral judgment.

I didn't say we could or couldn't, so you're asking the wrong person. So by the way, you really should start reading the posts you reply to.

By the way, I ignored the rest of your post because I've you contradicting yourself so badly that I'm starting to feel bad, so I'll let you off the hook and let the people who are capable notice your errors on their own. I know you must be frustrated that you can't remain consistent even for a single post.

Do you think any of this actually serves any productive purpose?


I think generally it serves to illustrate Jocabia's firm belief that he's winning according to some obscure scoring system he thinks is in operation, and that by pointing out repeatedly how much you and everyone else sucks, he is making convincing argumentation in favor of the pro-pedophilia side.

I think generally it serves to illustrate Jocabia's firm belief that he's winning according to some obscure scoring system he thinks is in operation, and that by pointing out repeatedly how much you and everyone else sucks, he is making convincing argumentation in favor of the pro-pedophilia side.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

I think generally it serves to illustrate Jocabia's firm belief that he's winning according to some obscure scoring system he thinks is in operation, and that by pointing out repeatedly how much you and everyone else sucks, he is making convincing argumentation in favor of the pro-pedophilia side.

There is no pro-pedophilia side and if there is, I'm not on it. He and I are discussing a poor example that gets trotted out time and again as a morally-based law that isn't. I proved it. He's admitted that there are reasons for that law that are not morally-based (though since he uses the word moral wrong, he doesn't realize he's lost the argument).

Meanwhile, don't get upset because some of us can distinguish between reality and some made-up world where pedophilia and child molestation are exactly equal.

I'm still waiting for Nazi. Now I'm a gang member, a Sith and a 'pro-pedophile'. How can Nazi be far behind, huh?

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Aw, sour grapes, you're here. What's the matter? Nothing to say since your plagiarized source betrayed you and turned out to be the source for my statistics? Come on, you said my argument that only 10% of child molesters are pedophiles must be wrong and used MY source to prove me right. Are you just giving up now and just relying on calling me names?

I think generally it serves to illustrate Jocabia's firm belief that he's winning according to some obscure scoring system he thinks is in operation, and that by pointing out repeatedly how much you and everyone else sucks, he is making convincing argumentation in favor of the pro-pedophilia side.
While I've had the same thoughts about Jocabia's arguement style, I find it hard to believe you would accuse him of arguing the "pro-pedophilia" side. You must have missed the extrordinarily long exchange between him and I earlier in this thread.

While I've had the same thoughts about Jocabia's arguement style, I find it hard to believe you would accuse him of arguing the "pro-pedophilia" side. You must have missed the extrordinarily long exchange between him and I earlier in this thread.

No, that's just what Trostia does. If you look at other threads you'll see he's also suggested I'm wrong because I think like the Sith and because the old-timers here behave like gang members. He likes to compare people to universally reviled group in order to pretend like they don't have an argument and then when called on it, he acts like he didn't actually say what he can be quoted as saying. If necessary, I can quote you about a half dozen examples. Some of them from the pedophilia threads.

And, come on, TFC, you have to have enjoyed how I lured our new friend above into posting Lanning in support of his position that all pedophiles are child molesters and to prove my statistics have no basis and then showed him how Lanning was the source of the 10% statistic. It's a debate forum. You have to enjoy the debate part of it a little bit, because the actual discussions have been worn out for about two years.

No, that's just what Trostia does. If you look at other threads you'll see he's also suggested I'm wrong because I think like the Sith and because the old-timers here behave like gang members. He likes to compare people to universally reviled group in order to pretend like they don't have an argument and then when called on it, he acts like he didn't actually say what he can be quoted as saying. If necessary, I can quote you about a half dozen examples. Some of them from the pedophilia threads.

No need. I've read those posts myself. My surprise was mock. Still, it continues to baffle me how he expected to get away with it with such abundant evidence in the same thread he made his libelous claims.

And, come on, TFC, you have to have enjoyed how I lured our new friend above into posting Lanning in support of his position that all pedophiles are child molesters and to prove my statistics have no basis and then showed him how Lanning was the source of the 10% statistic. It's a debate forum. You have to enjoy the debate part of it a little bit, because the actual discussions have been worn out for about two years.
Of course I've enjoyed it.

My comment about your debate style was reffering to the repeated "you suck at this" stuff you posted, which I found tedious, unneccisary and immature. Since that was what Trostia was replying to in the first place, it made sense to mention it.

No need. I've read those posts myself. My surprise was mock. Still, it continues to baffle me how he expected to get away with it with such abundant evidence in the same thread he made his libelous claims.

Of course I've enjoyed it.

My comment about your debate style was reffering to the repeated "you suck at this" stuff you posted, which I found tedious, unneccisary and immature. Since that was what Trostia was replying to in the first place, it made sense to mention it.

Of course it was all three of those things. I was amusing myself. I didn't think that 'you suck at this' was going to be a respected debate tactic, but hey, I can't be serious all the time. Particularly when the person I'm debating with is actually supporting me unknowingly.