NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

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.

I understand that sometimes relevant distinctions can be difficult for people, but at least try to understand them before you accuse me of inconsistency.

Your objection was to the phrasing of my example - my categorization of murder as a moral judgment - and you argued that that supposed flaw made it a bad example.

Even if your objection were accurate, it still doesn't make it a bad example. Murder is still a perfectly legitimate example for use in the argument I was making, even if its prohibition is not in fact based on moral judgments.

If your objection had pointed out an accurate and relevant flaw in my example, then it would have been a bad example, and if it were indeed a bad example it would have invalidated the argument I was making.

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.

This is an obvious logical fallacy. It's the equivalent of saying that because it's possible to melt snow by carrying it into an artificially heated area in a bucket, most snow is in fact melted that way.

The fact that it's possible to create an argument against legalized murder without appealing to moral reasons doesn't mean that the reasoning most of us, among them a good number of the liberals opposed to "imposing morality," use for opposing legalized murder doesn't involve moral reasons.

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.

Repeating yourself does not add to your argument. I responded to exactly this point in the selection you quoted.

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.

Go ahead. Do so.

Again, you show that why your example sucked. Because you don't know what moral means. You confuse morality with giving value to things.

Well, no. There are reasons we give value to things that have nothing to do with morality - for instance, I "value" my computer for reasons that have nothing to do with moral duty. But, if I ignored my moral values, I wouldn't care in the slightest about the computer of some random stranger in, say, London.

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.


My error; for some reason I missed this in one of your earlier posts:

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.

It's true that there's a potential "pragmatic" interpretation of Kyronea's statement, which can mean one of two things:

1. Somehow the laws of nature prevent us from imposing our moral judgments on others. That would be an obvious falsity; I can't make that person accept my judgment to be true, but I certainly can prevent her actions.
2. Our "system" - by which I assume you mean our political system - prevents us from imposing our morals upon others. This, too, is obviously false. You, for instance, have acknowledged that drug laws are morally-based. Perhaps you intend to mean some sort of conception of how our system ought to be, but then you are again making a moral judgment.

Even if Kyronea holds either of those things to be true, most of those who advocate that doctrine do not. This is clear, because typically they are arguing against such impositions, and if they were impossible there would be no need for the effort.

You are talking about absolutism, not morality. Morality is about right and wrong.

And - guess what? - I am talking about right and wrong.

The government needs money so everybody needs to pay a little bit of tax is not a moral judgement.

But the idea that the government should have money, that it is "right" for the government to have money and it is "right" for it to impose its will upon us to attain than money, is indeed a moral judgment.

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>

That definition works.

Hmmm.... where doe it mention anything about the fact that something is applied across the board it must be related to morality.

Nowhere. But the notion that it is right for something to be applied across the board (and wrong for something to be applied in a partial manner) is indeed a moral judgment. That, obviously, is what I was referring to - and what I explicitly said.

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.

Well, I don't think he's arguing for any side right now, except his own; he seems fixed on trying to prove that I "suck at debate" more than anything else. Which may be, when I am arguing over minutiae with someone more intent on trying to attack me than advancing any rational position of his own.

If he were, in fact, arguing the "pro-pedophile" points he has been arguing throughout the thread, I do not think he and I would be arguing, because I don't disagree with much of what he's said on that subject. If anything, for what it's worth, I agree more with Five Castes than he does, not less.

Nowhere. But the notion that it is right for something to be applied across the board (and wrong for something to be applied in a partial manner) is indeed a moral judgment. That, obviously, is what I was referring to - and what I explicitly said.

This sums it up right here. No one said right or wrong except you. Not all valuations are moral and that is where your logic train goes off the track. Absolutism is not necessarily related to moral judgements. If I say "all students should understand evolution before college". It's an opinion and certainly places a value on understanding evolution before college but it doesn't place understanding evolution on a scale of right and wrong. That's the part you don't seem to understand or accept.

You're placing right and wrong into statements and then claiming it proves they are moral judgements. However if the reasoning is not moral reasoning but based on some other valuation like say a linguistic valuation or a scientific valuation or a million other types of valuation that do not depend on a moral valuation.

You keep bastardizing the term morality by inserting morality into an argument and then claiming that your insertion proves it was always there. It's a circular argument and it's a fallacy.

This sums it up right here. No one said right or wrong except you. Not all valuations are moral and that is where your logic train goes off the track. Absolutism is not necessarily related to moral judgements. If I say "all students should understand evolution before college". It's an opinion and certainly places a value on understanding evolution before college but it doesn't place understanding evolution on a scale of right and wrong. That's the part you don't seem to understand or accept.

Let's take that statement - "all students should understand evolution before college."

There are various meanings "should" could have in that sentence. It could mean that the education system should ensure that students understand evolution before college, or it could mean that any student who doesn't understand evolution before college is a flawed student who is not acting as she should act.

In either case, it implies a view as to what is right - namely, that the right kind of society is one where students understand evolution before college, or the right kind of student is one that understands evolution before college.

If you have another basis upon which you could make that statement, please provide it.

However if the reasoning is not moral reasoning but based on some other valuation like say a linguistic valuation or a scientific valuation or a million other types of valuation that do not depend on a moral valuation.

There is no such thing as a "scientific valuation" or a "linguistic valuation," at least if we are talking about intrinsic value, that is, something holding value in itself rather than value in being useful for fulfilling another value. Linguistics and science both provide us with tools for seeing what is useful in order to pursue particular ends (values), but they do not provide us with those ends.

I can say, "If I want this ball to fall, then I should drop it." That's using a very basic scientific judgment, but it doesn't provide value (except maybe in a utility sense, that is, dropping the ball is valuable because it makes the ball fall). Rather, it's tied to a particular pre-existing value - a view that the ball should drop.

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


In response to my objection that murder is not an example of a morally-based law:

Even if your objection were accurate, it still doesn't make it a bad example. Murder is still a perfectly legitimate example for use in the argument I was making, even if its prohibition is not in fact based on moral judgments.

I love this one too. Hilarious.

Teacher: L'il Johnny, give me an example of a noun.
L'il Johnny: Beautiful is a noun.
Teacher: Johnny that's an adjective not a noun. Give an example of a noun.
L'il Johnny: Beautiful is a noun.
Teacher: Johnny, please use it in a sentence.
L'il Johnny: The teacher is beautiful.
Teacher: You just used it as an adjective.
L'il Johnny: Well, even if it's not a noun and I was trying to give an example of a noun it was still a good example.

And that's the point where we hope that Johnny in my example really is "l'il" because otherwise we have to be worried about his basic understanding of the things he's discussing.

Teacher: L'il Johnny, give me an example of a noun.
L'il Johnny: Beautiful is a noun.
Teacher: Johnny that's an adjective not a noun. Give an example of a noun.
L'il Johnny: Beautiful is a noun.
Teacher: Johnny, please use it in a sentence.
L'il Johnny: The teacher is beautiful.
Teacher: You just used it as an adjective.
L'il Johnny: Well, even if it's not a noun and I was trying to give an example of a noun it was still a good example.

And that's the point where we hope that Johnny in my example really is "l'il" because otherwise we have to be worried about his basic understanding of the things he's discussing.

Except the adjective "beautiful" does not properly fit the requirement that the word be a noun, yet the example of murder did indeed fit the argument I was making, as you yourself have admitted.

Let's take that statement - "all students should understand evolution before college."

There are various meanings "should" could have in that sentence. It could mean that the education system should ensure that students understand evolution before college, or it could mean that any student who doesn't understand evolution before college is a flawed student who is not acting as she should act.

In either case, it implies a view as to what is right - namely, that the right kind of society is one where students understand evolution before college, or the right kind of student is one that understands evolution before college.

If you have another basis upon which you could make that statement, please provide it.



There is no such thing as a "scientific valuation" or a "linguistic valuation," at least if we are talking about intrinsic value, that is, something holding value in itself rather than value in being useful for fulfilling another value. Linguistics and science both provide us with tools for seeing what is useful in order to pursue particular ends (values), but they do not provide us with those ends.

I can say, "If I want this ball to fall, then I should drop it." That's using a very basic scientific judgment, but it doesn't provide value (except maybe in a utility sense, that is, dropping the ball is valuable because it makes the ball fall). Rather, it's tied to a particular pre-existing value - a view that the ball should drop.

And you prove that you don't understand what morality is. Because you insert 'should' into the statement doesn't make it moral valuation. You are using a fallacy called equivocation where you use 'right' in a way that is different than what is meant in the idea of morality.

Seriously, you prove you don't know what it is.

I'll give you yet another example that isn't a moral judgement and that you won't understand.

Carl(holding his crotch): "Can I go to the bathroom?"
Teacher: "You should use the word, 'may', in that sentence. You are able to go to bathroom, of course. You are intending to ask if you're allowed."

Making a valuation on words, which is what happens in the above scenario may or may not be an accurate based on the lexical definitions, but the teacher is making a correction to the student based on a lexical understanding, not based on a moral judgement. Now, you can change that to say "it's right to use may instead of can" and it still will not be a moral statement.

Your argument makes the term morality meaningless and it does so because you're making a circular argument. It's a fallacy and more evidence of my original theory of the cause of your inability to make this argument.

Except the adjective "beautiful" does not properly fit the requirement that the word be a noun, yet the example of murder did indeed fit the argument I was making, as you yourself have admitted.

Seriously, it's like arguing with a goldfish. You said assuming I was correct and it was not an example of a morally-based law, it would still be a good example. And what did you use it as an example of? I quoted you. YOu used it as an example of a morally-based law.

See here's how an argument works. For your argument just now you started with the given -

Given: Jocabia was correct that murder is not a morally-based law.
You established this when you said - "Even if your objection were accurate"

The other given is what example sparked my objection -
Given: Your original statement uses murder as an example of 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?

And the conclusion you gave - "it still doesn't make it a bad example. Murder is still a perfectly legitimate example for use in the argument I was making, even if its prohibition is not in fact based on moral judgments."

So we have this argument being made -
Given: Jocabia was correct that murder is not a morally-based law.
Given: Your original statement uses murder as an example of a moral judgement
Conclusion: It is still not a bad example.

Can you not see how ridiculous that argument is? If past performance is any evidence, no, you can't.

And you prove that you don't understand what morality is. Because you insert 'should' into the statement doesn't make it moral valuation.

No. I did not insert "should." You used "should."

You are using a fallacy called equivocation where you use 'right' in a way that is different than what is meant in the idea of morality.

I am using "right" exactly as it is used in morality - good, proper, noble, moral, etc.

And, as I already asked in my last post, if the statement about students and evolution isn't based on a notion of the right kind of society or the right kind of student, what is it based on?

I'll give you yet another example that isn't a moral judgement and that you won't understand.

Carl(holding his crotch): "Can I go to the bathroom?"
Teacher: "You should use the word, 'may', in that sentence. You are able to go to bathroom, of course. You are intending to ask if you're allowed."

Making a valuation on words, which is what happens in the above scenario may or may not be an accurate based on the lexical definitions, but the teacher is making a correction to the student based on a lexical understanding, not based on a moral judgement. Now, you can change that to say "it's right to use may instead of can" and it still will not be a moral statement.

But if we are going to say that Carl should indeed use the word "may," there is some sort of valued end we are pursuing by prescribing that action. If we consider the use of correct grammar to be morally justified (because it eases communication, thus increasing overall happiness, for instance), that valued end is a moral one. If we do not, then why is it taught? Why do we care whether Carl uses correct grammar or not?

Note that I am not engaging in equivocation, because, unlike in your straw man, I am using "right" and "correct" in different senses.

Your argument makes the term morality meaningless and it does so because you're making a circular argument.

How so?

Seriously, it's like arguing with a goldfish. You said assuming I was correct and it was not an example of a morally-based law, it would still be a good example. And what did you use it as an example of? I quoted you. YOu used it as an example of a morally-based law.

But it works just as well as an example of a subjectively-based law, which, incidentally, is what the argument was about.

No. I did not insert "should." You used "should."

You still don't get it. I don't think you ever will.


I am using "right" exactly as it is used in morality - good, proper, noble, moral, etc.

You're equivocating. Because that is not what is meant every time someone uses it. I'm not sure why I bother explaining this stuff to you. It's not like you'll read it and see that you've made a mistake.


And, as I already asked in my last post, if the statement about students and evolution isn't based on a notion of the right kind of society or the right kind of student, what is it based on?

The right kind isn't the 'good, proper, noble, moral, etc.' kind of student. Not in the way it's used in morality. It's about what a student needs to know in order to be prepared for college. Again, you continually prove that you are equivocating. If you were doing it on purpose, it might even be an impressive tactic. Before you say it, while I'm what I'm referring to could be considered a good student, a proper student, it would not be in the moral sense. You'll try to claim I am and that is where you're equivocating. Sadly, you don't know it.

According to your definition any rule would be a moral rule and it's a circular argument. Unfortunately, you don't know you're doing it.


But if we are going to say that Carl should indeed use the word "may," there is some sort of valued end we are pursuing by prescribing that action. If we consider the use of correct grammar to be morally justified (because it eases communication, thus increasing overall happiness, for instance), that valued end is a moral one. If we do not, then why is it taught? Why do we care whether Carl uses correct grammar or not?

See, every time I give an example you say if we consider it a moral issue it becomes a moral issue. It's so poor, I feel bad continuing. Your circular argument is that the only reason to do anything on a broad scale is moral therefore everything we do on a broad scale is moral. It's a fallacy. Again, unfortunately, you'll read this and still be thoroughly convinced there is something sound in your reasoning. You make me feel like a bully.

Meanwhile, we care becuase Carl wants to be able to communicate and we want Carl to be able to communicate because it is useful to both parties. It's a practical valuation. Of course, you won't recognize the practical valuation as useful so your own fallacious application will prove your own fallacious application right. Sad.


Note that I am not engaging in equivocation, because, unlike in your straw man, I am using "right" and "correct" in different senses.

No, you're not. Because every time I mention anything that is correct you suggest it must be a moral sense. When I say someone should do something becuase it's correct, you say it's because it's 'right'. I know you don't realize you're doing it. It doesn't make you correct, however.

And you used strawman incorrectly. I didn't just claim what you argued, I quoted it. It's hard to say I misrepresenting your argument when I'm simply regurgitating it. But since we can't even get you to use moral correctly while showing you the dictionary, getting you to use the logical fallacies correctly is really asking too much.


How so?
Because you argue that any, any broadly applied principle is morally-based. Want proof, you suggest that application of language is based on morality which is of course sadly ridiculous. I'm trying to explain why, but unfortunately, you basically think that if you think something is based on morality then it must be, no matter how fallacious such thinking is.

But it works just as well as an example of a subjectively-based law, which, incidentally, is what the argument was about.

But not what you said you were exampling and thus suck as the type of example you said you were giving. Unfortunately, you've proven the weight of evidence is something you don't even notice.

Let's review-

In a reply to a post where I said I didn't care about your conclusion but only your example, you said that by arguing about the example I am arguing about your conclusion. Then a couple of sentence later you argued that the example didn't matter to your conclusion. When I told you about it, you simply shrugged it off and pretended it didn't happen.

You've claimed that an example you gave of a law based on moral judgements is a good example even if it's not a law based on moral judgments. When I explained it to you, you acted as if it didn't matter.

You've claimed that every broadly applied example I've given you must be based on moral judgement because you don't agree with any other reasoning and then argued that because of your opinion that each of my examples are based on moral judgements. The amusing part is some of the scenarios I made up so you can't actually claim my reasoning for creating the principle is based on moral judgements unless you can actually see inside my head. This fact has not swayed your willingness to argue something ridiculous.

So, let's see. What have we learned here, boys and girls? That Soheran has no ability to analyze evidence and come to a conclusion that makes any sense based on the evidence. That Soheran has no ability to make his own arguments match his conclusions. So much so that he'll even admit that the connection is tenuous and then still defend the argument being made for that particular conclusion. That Soheran doesn't on any level recognize the logical fallacies he employs despite the mountain of evidence provided for them. That Jocabia is a bully that doesn't realize he's being unfair in arguing with someone who's over his head.

So, let's see. What have we learned here, boys and girls? That Soheran has no ability to analyze evidence and come to a conclusion that makes any sense based on the evidence. That Soheran has no ability to make his own arguments match his conclusions. So much so that he'll even admit that the connection is tenuous and then still defend the argument being made for that particular conclusion. That Soheran doesn't on any level recognize the logical fallacies he employs despite the mountain of evidence provided for them. That Jocabia is a bully that doesn't realize he's being unfair in arguing with someone who's over his head.That's not quite what I've learned..
This reeks of ad homina, and that teaches me more about you then about him.

I'd give my two cents on the subject, but honestly the way this discussion is going I wouldn't touch it with a 352415 foot pole (and not just because that's unwieldy)..

That's not quite what I've learned..
This reeks of ad homina, and that teaches me more about you then about him.

I'd give my two cents on the subject, but honestly the way this discussion is going I wouldn't touch it with a 352415 foot pole (and not just because that's unwieldy)..
So are you honestly going to argue that he isn't arguing any of those things? Honestly?

People here don't understand what ad hominem is. That's when I say something about him to dismiss his arguments. I've been addressing his arguments for several pages. That means no matter what I say about him, it's not ad hominem. People here act like if you mention the poster it's ad hominem.

So are you honestly going to argue that he isn't arguing any of those things? Honestly?

People here don't understand what ad hominem is. That's when I say something about him to dismiss his arguments. I've been addressing his arguments for several pages. That means no matter what I say about him, it's not ad hominem. People here act like if you mention the poster it's ad hominem.


I think that your argument is a bunch of Bayesian handwaving.

Sure, if most people aren't pedophiles, and if your kid is molested, from a strict standpoint, one might argue that odds on, because there are far more non-pedos, the molester probably will be a non-pedo (someone experimenting, I suppose).

But.

If I take 10 non-pedos, and 10 pedos, and say, you get to pick a group from which your child will spend the day alone with one of the random people chosen from that group, I would bet that on a per person basis, the pedo is far more likely to have a chance to abuse your child.

Your studies and links do not address that.

So are you honestly going to argue that he isn't arguing any of those things? Honestly?

People here don't understand what ad hominem is. That's when I say something about him to dismiss his arguments. I've been addressing his arguments for several pages. That means no matter what I say about him, it's not ad hominem. People here act like if you mention the poster it's ad hominem.


A real ad hominem is ad followem:

Mr X claims that a dime is 10 cents.
Mr X is a retard.
Therefore, a dime cannot be 10 cents.

Obviously, a logical fallacy which only begets a snigger.

But you're in the 21st century.

Mr X claims that a dime is 10 cents.
Mr Y claims also that a dime is 10 cents.
But mr Y called mr X a faggot - and therefore, therefore, the claim advanced by mr Y may not be taken into consideration.
It follows from there that the claim that a dime is worth 10 cents is morally suspect... even when mr X claims so.

I think that your argument is a bunch of Bayesian handwaving.

Sure, if most people aren't pedophiles, and if your kid is molested, from a strict standpoint, one might argue that odds on, because there are far more non-pedos, the molester probably will be a non-pedo (someone experimenting, I suppose).

But.

If I take 10 non-pedos, and 10 pedos, and say, you get to pick a group from which your child will spend the day alone with one of the random people chosen from that group, I would bet that on a per person basis, the pedo is far more likely to have a chance to abuse your child.

Your studies and links do not address that.

Actually, that wasn't what we were discussing, but since you brought it up, you're wrong. The study does address that. The studies address the percentage of the population that are pedophilic. It varies from 10 to 30% with the majority of studies placing it at around 20% of the male population are pedophiles. So from there we know that you're correct the majority of the population are non-pedos as you put it.

You'd agree so far, no?

So based on that information if what you're saying is true, the number of molesters that are non-pedos should be less than the percentage of the population that are non-pedos? Right? Basic math there.

Still agree?

So basically if we took 10 pedos and 10 non-pedos the likelihood of the pedos committing molestation is higher in the first group, according to you, then we would expect the percentage of molestations by non-pedos to be less than 50% (the population of non-pedos), right? Same math as in the real population as expressed above.

Still agree?

So based on that, what we would expect to see in the actual population is the actual percentage of molestations by non-pedos to be less than 80%. Problem is that the actual number according to many of the sources presented is 10% or less of the number of molestations are by pedophiles and 90% or more are performed by non-pedophiles. Aw, dang, my studies do address that. And they prove you wrong.

Feel free to present counter-studies or anything supports your assertion. No one has done that so far.

That means according to the studies that have been presented throughout this thread that a pedophile is 50% less likely to molest than a non-pedophile. Non-pedophiles are 110% as likely as what would be expected if both groups had equal offense rates, pedophiles only 50% as likely as would be expected. That's exactly counter to your claim. I would call that addressing it.

Again, feel free to present some information that debunks my assertion but thus far it hasn't been done. No support for it. None. Whatsoever.

So based on that information if what you're saying is true, the number of molesters that are non-pedos should be less than the percentage of the population that are non-pedos? Right? Basic math there.

No. Your argument falls apart here. You're saying "the number of molesters". I want to see what percentages.


Still agree?

No.


So basically if we took 10 pedos and 10 non-pedos the likelihood of the pedos committing molestation is higher in the first group, according to you, then we would expect the percentage of molestations by non-pedos to be less than 50% (the population of non-pedos), right? Same math as in the real population as expressed above.


No, I would expect the percentage of molestations in the non-pedo group to be less than the percentage of molestations in the pedo group.

Of course, the mere fact that someone has molested a child makes them a pedo.


So based on that, what we would expect to see in the actual population is the actual percentage of molestations by non-pedos to be less than 80%.

No, that's pulling an arbitrary number out of your ass.

Like I said, Bayesian handwaving. I can use the same logic to prove that you can never find anything by data mining.

No. Your argument falls apart here. You're saying "the number of molesters". I want to see what percentages.

I gave the percentages. We don't know the exact percentage of molestation but we do know what the breakdown is for the molestations we know about through study of victims and through legal action. There is no expert I've seen, not even your expert, that suggests the breakdown of incidents would be different in the unknown population than the known population.

So percentages are presented. And the percentages are at 10% of the molestations that we know about through study or law which, of course, is a significant percentage of the cases, are committed by clinical pedophiles. No getting around that FACT. "I don't understand" is not an argument against statistics.


And for rates of abuse, the incidence appears to be about 17% of boys and 28% of girls are victims of CSA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_molestation

You'll also notice there is not any real agreement on the real rate of abuse that occurs.

The fact that we know about such a high percentage of CSA really hurts your case, because it would mean that basically 90% of molestation by non-pedos is known about and 90% of molestation by pedos isn't in order to make the numbers work. You have no evidence for such a skew in the number of cases we don't know about, so suggesting a skew of that nature would be absurd.



No.

Don't pick and choose. Address the whole post. That's why I worded it that way. So I could see exactly where your logic train derails. You avoided a part of the post and it makes it difficult for me to show what's wrong.


No, I would expect the percentage of molestations in the non-pedo group to be less than the percentage of molestations in the pedo group.

But it isn't. It's actually about 50% more. I know you don't think it makes sense, but it does. Child molesters make excuses as to why the child is injured by their actions but they often know the child is injured. They may justify in a plethora of ways, but they do realize that the issue exists. Again, go back and look at your sources and you'll see the same thing, an understanding of the problem and excuses to make themselves feel better. See the issue is that a part of the condition of clinical pedophilia is an unusual caring for the child. Pedophiles can literally fall in love with children, which is sick, unfortunate and true. Because of this it makes sense that a clinical pedophile would have more of a problem with injuring a child than the average person.

Pedophilia is just attraction. Child molestation is rape. Unless you can show me that the fact that you're attracted to adults makes you want to rape them, then you cannot equate rape and attraction no matter how hard you want to.


Of course, the mere fact that someone has molested a child makes them a pedo.

Ah, see and here is where your problem is. You really want to equate rape and attraction. Why? Does it make you feel better to prevent the problem from being addressed realistically?

They are pedophiles criminally, but not clinically. We are talking about the clinical definition. Most criminal psychologists recognize the distinction and it's an important. Even psychologists you mentioned but refused to cite mention the distinction.



No, that's pulling an arbitrary number out of your ass.

Like I said, Bayesian handwaving. I can use the same logic to prove that you can never find anything by data mining.
No, it's not an arbitrary number. I gave the studies that back it up and if the number is arbitrary then you would be able to offer any counter evidence. You haven't. EVER. The FBI find the incidence of child molestation by clinical pedophiles to be less than is represented by the general population. The studies are linked. Is the FBI datamining too?

Come on, man, this is basic math. There is nothing arbitrary about my numbers nor are they out of my ass. In fact, the only one making things up is you. You desperately want to punish all pedophiles so you make up numbers to support you. Thus far, all we've seen you do is slink away when pressed only to pop back up with the same arguments.

Present evidence. I'm still waiting for you to cite your source. What's the matter? Hard to cite a source when you're making up what it says?

Yes and in actual criminal behavior the pedophile and the molester are equal. However, given that the vast majority of pedophiles have committed no crime and never will, I fail to see how being an expert on criminal behavior makes one an expert on the disorder. In fact, it would seem like, if his focus is criminal behavior, his studies are limited to a small minority of pedophiles of a particular type and marks him as an unlikely expert. The general concensus in the area of psychology is that one cannot learn much at all about the incidence or aspects of pedophilia by analyzing criminals and it's the basis for rejecting several studies that focused on only criminals but made broader conclusions.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/pedophiles/1.html

It is important to understand the differences between pedophiles and molesters. Pedophilia, which is a psychological disorder, is a distinct sexual preference for pre-pubescent children. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM 111-R), which is published by the American Psychological Association, supplies this definition of pedophilia: “recurrent, intense, sexual urges and sexual arousing fantasies of at least six months duration involving sexual activity with a pre-pubescent child” (DSM, V.3, 1987). Generally, this means the target of the fantasy will typically be less than 12 years old. Notice the definition does not require the person to actually engage in a sexual act. Pedophilia is a psychological disorder that does not require, and usually does not involve, a criminal act. The pedophile might keep his desires a secret. He may never go public or share his fantasies with anyone. At times, they will even marry a single mother to gain or continue access to her children. Pedophiles can be very determined and single-minded in their efforts to stay close to children. Maintaining access to children at all costs is one of the defining trademarks of pedophilia, which will be discussed later. Child molesters, however, can have many different motivations for their crimes. And those motives, surprisingly, are often not of a sexual origin.

Note that this link is also linked to many lectures citing Dr. Samenow's work.


Since you slunk away the first time you argued this point when you got called on misquoting Dr. Samenow, how about you address this now? According to the same sources that use Dr. Samenow as an expert, child molester =/= pedophile.

Can you actually cite the book and page where Samenow says the things you claim or are you going to continue making things up?

Or how about we address your dishonesty about Samenow in general -

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.

So you suggest his expertise is not limited to criminals, but that he studied non-criminals as well. Let's see what Dr. Samenow has to say about that (from Dr. Samenow's website)-

Dr. Samenow received his B.A. (cum laude) from Yale University in 1963 and his Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Michigan in 1968. After working as a clinical psychologist on adolescent inpatient psychiatric services in the Ann Arbor (Michigan) area, he joined the Program for the Investigation of Criminal Behavior at St. Elizabeths Hospital in Washington, D.C. From 1970 until June, 1978, he was clinical research psychologist for that program. With the late Dr. Samuel Yochelson, he participated in the longest in-depth clinical research-treatment study of offenders that has been conducted in North America. The findings of that study are contained in the three volume publication The Criminal Personality (Lanham, Md.: Roman and Littlefield) that he co-authored with Dr. Yochelson.

In 1978, Dr. Samenow entered the private practice of clinical psychology in Alexandria, Virginia. His specialty has continued to be the evaluation and treatment of juvenile and adult offenders. Dr. Samenow has delivered lectures, training seminars, and workshops in 48 states, Canada, and England. These presentations have been to a variety of professional groups including mental health, law enforcement, corrections, education, social services, and the judiciary. He has served as a consultant and expert witness for a variety of courts and agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Dade County (Florida) Public Schools, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the U.S. Office of Probation. In 1980, he was appointed by President Reagan to the Law Enforcement Task Force and in 1982 to the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime. In 1987, President Reagan appointed him as a Conferee to the White House Conference on a Drug-Free America.

According to Samenow he focused on criminal behavior, specialized in it, throughout his career. And he was the chief psychiatrist in DC under what? The PROGRAM FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. No suggestion is made by him that he ever made any effort to study the non-criminal mind, EVER. Now, would you care to make your arguments using REAL information instead of stuff you made up?

Since you slunk away the first time you argued this point when you got called on misquoting Dr. Samenow, how about you address this now? According to the same sources that use Dr. Samenow as an expert, child molester =/= pedophile.

Can you actually cite the book and page where Samenow says the things you claim or are you going to continue making things up?

I happen to be at work, and the book happens to be at home.

Are you too lazy to buy the book?

Try:

Inside the Criminal Mind

and

The Criminal Personality

There's enough in his books for you to realize that a clinical diagnosis of pedophilia is enough to warrant continued observation of that person forever.

Are you too lazy to buy the book?

Try:

Inside the Criminal Mind

and

The Criminal Personality

There's enough in his books for you to realize that a clinical diagnosis of pedophilia is enough to warrant continued observation of that person forever.
Not wanting to butt in, DK, but really...I think this is a bit silly of you. I don't know about anybody else, but I don't blow my hard-earned money on books at the say-so of random people I'm arguing with over the internet.

Not wanting to butt in, DK, but really...I think this is a bit silly of you. I don't know about anybody else, but I don't blow my hard-earned money on books at the say-so of random people I'm arguing with over the internet.

Sorry. I guess I have money.

Why don't I go through the books tonight, and make a new thread with the quotes from the book.

Direct quotes.

Sorry. I guess I have money.

I made the tactical error of pursuing a career in academic research. At least I'll never have to worry about what happens if you move to a higher tax bracket! :)


Why don't I go through the books tonight, and make a new thread with the quotes from the book.

Direct quotes.
I think that would be AWESOME, if you have the time. Very few people are prepared to do that sort of thing.

I happen to be at work, and the book happens to be at home.

Are you too lazy to buy the book?

Try:

Inside the Criminal Mind

and

The Criminal Personality

There's enough in his books for you to realize that a clinical diagnosis of pedophilia is enough to warrant continued observation of that person forever.

I'm not to lazy to buy the book. I want you to make an actual citation. You know, page number and all that. You do know what an actual citation looks like no? Or do you expect me to put his entire book up here to prove he didn't say any the BS you claimed. Meanwhile, I added more to that post. You are caught being deceptive. What did Samenow do in DC? He was a criminal psychologist. He studied criminal behavior. You clearly claimed otherwise. Now, who should we believe? You? Or Dr Samenow?

I made the tactical error of pursuing a career in academic research. At least I'll never have to worry about what happens if you move to a higher tax bracket! :)


I think that would be AWESOME, if you have the time. Very few people are prepared to do that sort of thing.

Ah, but you get to write the books...

Sorry. I guess I have money.

Why don't I go through the books tonight, and make a new thread with the quotes from the book.

Direct quotes.

Good. With CITATIONS.

People here don't understand what ad hominem is.I understand it well enough, that's why I didn't say it was one, just that it was close to being one.
I don't really see what point that paragraph could be meant to have other than to belittle Soheran. It didn't address arguments, it addressed him. Aside from that, it also didn't seem like a fair characterization to me.
Oh well.. Nevermind me..

I made the tactical error of pursuing a career in academic research. At least I'll never have to worry about what happens if you move to a higher tax bracket! :)


I think that would be AWESOME, if you have the time. Very few people are prepared to do that sort of thing.

We need citations, not just quotes. I will actually look at these books and the references and context of the citations. I've already caught DK dishonestly representing Samenow's work, including claiming his work in DC wasn't limited to criminal behavior when Samenow says that it was.

I understand it well enough, that's why I didn't say it was one, just that it was close to being one.
I don't really see what point that paragraph could be meant to have other than to belittle Soheran. It didn't address arguments, it addressed him. Aside from that, it also didn't seem like a fair characterization to me.
Oh well.. Nevermind me..

Good thing that paragraph was part of a post, then, huh? See, the problem is that I have presented arguments. Here's what they look like.

Me: How about taxes? The are non-moral reasons for taxes. We need to pay taxes in order for the government to have money to function. Now we could argue whether or not we should have a government, etc., but the purpose of taxes is practical.
Him/Her: But when you say it's right to pay taxes that's moral.
Me: I didn't say that.
Him/her: But you meant that.

And after about ten examples where the poster establishes a pattern of behavior at some point you have to stop presenting more and more examples that will get the same treatment and address the fallacious pattern of behavior.

wouldnt that encourage some or most of the pedophiles to go for children? for some people the more they do it the more they want. like gaming. the more i game the more i want from the game. so what if that pedophile is tired of the virtual stuff and is seriously gonna go on a rampage on children? here's a solution that i thought of. it would work something like an online dating crap. if the chic thinks that pedo' is hot or interested in him. they would go for a few rounds of dating or w/e and if its a good match. they'll get laid. and maybe he'll think twice about going for children afterwards. (stating that she doesnt give bad sex.) however if she does give bad sex. then there's no hope for that pedo.
(note: when i say "him" im referring to any member of mankind.)

We need citations, not just quotes. I will actually look at these books and the references and context of the citations. I've already caught DK dishonestly representing Samenow's work, including claiming his work in DC wasn't limited to criminal behavior when Samenow says that it was.

That's why I told you to buy the books and read them. I actually believe that what will happen is that I will cite directly, and you will either say I didn't cite enough, or you won't be bothered to look it up and you'll say it's irrelevant.

That's why I told you to buy the books and read them. I actually believe that what will happen is that I will cite directly, and you will either say I didn't cite enough, or you won't be bothered to look it up and you'll say it's irrelevant.

So instead you paraphrase his work without the citations? How is that logical?

You don't get it. You're engaged in a fallacy called shifting of the burden of proof. When you loosely reference a book, like you're doing, I can't EVER prove you wrong unless he specifically states the opposite of what you're saying. If he never mentions it I can't prove you wrong without citing the entire book. As such, no amount of "read it and you'll see" is support for your argument because if it turns out I don't see, there is no recourse.

The burden of proof is on you. Cite your sources or admit you can't.

So far you can't even show why Samenow should be considered a trusted source on the non-criminal mind.

think i sort of agree with spazn that feeding the leaning is only going to reinforce the attraction.
who a person is attracted to isn't really their fault but for any one who's attracted to children to then act on it makes them a menance.

if a person cannot be released into society without being a continued threat it does make sense to put them down. money saved can then be spent rehabilitating those that aren't beyond help.
a particularly violent pedo is always going to be a danger if released, no matter how long he's been suffering in prison.

i used to be so much more idealist about the death penalty but i seem to have moved towards just being pragmatic

http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript1121.html

I read this whole transcript. What kills me about Samenow is that he categorically denies that anything contributes a criminal becoming a criminal but suggests we can fix it. He suggests that our ability to affect such behavior exists while simultaneously denying it.

He suggests that people's criminality has nothing to do with external influences, a lack of mentors. However, how does he suggest we correct the criminality? External influences, mentors.

"And the environment in which a person lives can make crime easier or harder to commit; greater or lesser deterrence. But, the criminal mind remains unchanged. Crime resides within the individual. It is the result of the way a person thinks"

He talks as you said about how a lack of access to positive role models and aide is not an issue because they are programmed for violence. Then he suggests deprogramming them. Why can we program them in one direction and not the other? And why is it that we recognize the needs for these services and mentors to deprogram them, but the lack of them cannot be considered a factor in their development into a criminal? It begs the question, no?

http://www.crime-times.org/96d/w96dp5.htm
"Criminals cause crime-not bad neighborhoods, inadequate parents, television, schools, drugs, or unemployment. Crime resides within the minds of human beings and is not caused by social conditions. Once we as a society recognize this simple fact, we shall take measures radically different from the current ones. To be sure, we shall continue to remedy intolerable social conditions for this is worthwhile in and of itself. But we shall not expect criminals to change because of such efforts."

Rehabilitation as it has been practiced cannot possibly be effective because it is based on a total misconception. To rehabilitate is to restore to a former constructive capacity or condition. There is nothing to which to rehabilitate a criminal. There is no earlier condition of being responsible to which to restore him.... Just as rehabilitation is a misconception, so too is the notion of `reintegrating the criminal into the community.' It is absurd to speak of reintegrating him when he was never integrated in the first place."

Okay, so we know, according to Samenow that the environment does not effect them. They are an island. They created themselves. So what is Samenow's solution. Well, going back to PBS -

"SAMENOW: So thinking patterns are critical and I am not suggesting, Ben, that you turn the crime problem over to an army of shrinks - psychologists and psychiatrists. But there are thousands and thousands of correctional counselors and people who are able and can be trained to work with some offenders. The problem is to differentiate between those who need to be locked up indefinitely and those with whom we can work."

So, society can fix them but it can't break them. Why? Because Dr. Samenow says so, duh? Their environment cannot affect them unless we already know they're criminals and then of course their environment suddenly begins to affect them. Interesting how that works, huh?

http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript1121.html

I read this whole transcript. What kills me about Samenow is that he categorically denies that anything contributes a criminal becoming a criminal but suggests we can fix it. He suggests that our ability to affect such behavior exists while simultaneously denying it.

He suggests that people's criminality has nothing to do with external influences, a lack of mentors. However, how does he suggest we correct the criminality? External influences, mentors.

"And the environment in which a person lives can make crime easier or harder to commit; greater or lesser deterrence. But, the criminal mind remains unchanged. Crime resides within the individual. It is the result of the way a person thinks"

He talks as you said about how a lack of access to positive role models and aide is not an issue because they are programmed for violence. Then he suggests deprogramming them. Why can we program them in one direction and not the other? And why is it that we recognize the needs for these services and mentors to deprogram them, but the lack of them cannot be considered a factor in their development into a criminal? It begs the question, no?

If you've read his books, you would realize that the deprogramming is not something addressed in current rehabilitation programs, nor is the reprogramming done at any other location other than St. Elizabeth's.

Additionally, in the end, reprogramming is an internal choice by the criminal. And it must be proven by time and example that the reprogramming has really taken hold.

Takes years, in most cases.

Reprogramming can't work on a rational agent. It's just not possible.

If you've read his books, you would realize that the deprogramming is not something addressed in current rehabilitation programs, nor is the reprogramming done at any other location other than St. Elizabeth's.

Additionally, in the end, reprogramming is an internal choice by the criminal. And it must be proven by time and example that the reprogramming has really taken hold.

Takes years, in most cases.

Yes, kind of like the programming in the first place. What's nonsensical is that Samenow claims that if I want to affect you positively I can, but only if I want to affect you positively. Not only is that explanation self-serving, but nonsensical. He claims a lack of positive role models is not a factor in crime, but then he aims to solve it by *gasp* adding positive role models. No, not psychologists and psychiatrists as he specifically states, but role models, consellors to help them make better choices.

Yes, the criminal is involved in both the behavior and their 'habilitation' (Samenow refuses to call it rehabilitation). They are responsible. However, Samenow in making an effort to make sure we recognize that they are responsible debunks his own statements by going too far. Yes, they're responsible. They have to allow themselves to go down the criminal path when prodded or to be helped when prodded. Surely. However, we must admit that some people receive more prodding one way or another if we are going to honestly address the problem.

He uses people who overcome adversity as examples of why adversity cannot be blamed, but if this is so obvious, and he claims that it is, why do we call it overcoming? We call it that, because we recognize that if I can push you in one direction, however slight my part might be in the process, I can certainly push you in the other.

And Samenow evidences exactly what I claimed earlier and you said he denied. He said that we need to get these people access to counselling. They need to be identified so that we may get them counselling in absense of stigma. I'll quote him -

"But I am saying just as we try to prevent, identify and prevent early learning problems, physical problems and emotional problems. We can see that there are children who are becoming increasingly destructive in the world around them and to try to identify who those children are, not putting some horrible label on them, but trying to work with them either in small classrooms with trained counselors and to try to work with them at that time, I think that is really in the best nature of prevention before we have a one-man walking crime wave. I can’t say that’s a national policy, but I do think that that’s an area that we need to work in."

I'm advocating the same things with adults that have not committed crimes yet. Your response was to claim that according to Dr. Samenow this is thinking like a criminal. Apparently, then Dr. Samenow thinks he thinks like a criminal. Because he suggests exactly the same thing. Access to counselling, not being stigmatized, and a focus on prevention rather than punishment.

You justified your claim that they must be incarcerated rather than counselled by using Dr. Samenow. It appears he does not agree with you. You want to disingenuously cite Samenow some more or can you admit that he doesn't share your view that people who have a leaning toward crime but have not committed it yet should be counselled not incarcerated?

You justified your claim that they must be incarcerated rather than counselled by using Dr. Samenow. It appears he does not agree with you. You want to disingenuously cite Samenow some more or can you admit that he doesn't share your view that people who have a leaning toward crime but have not committed it yet should be counselled not incarcerated?

Read his books. I'm not disingenuously citing anything.

Read his books. I'm not disingenuously citing anything.

Well, his words disagree with your summary of his work. Now should I believe you or him? Or are you saying that he no longer believes what he wrote in those books and thus they would be a waste of my time to read? You tell me what I should think.

Read his books. I'm not disingenuously citing anything.

And to be fair. you haven't actually cited anything. A citation includes a specific reference to which book you are using and where in the book your information comes from. You are more like just pulling crap out of the air and blaming it on Samenow. Would you prefer I term it like that?

Well, his words disagree with your summary of his work. Now should I believe you or him? Or are you saying that he no longer believes what he wrote in those books and thus they would be a waste of my time to read? You tell me what I should think.

He certainly does believe them. Also, I think that this is pertinent to your argument:

Criminals are readily able to discern the difference between right and wrong. Many know the laws and even the finer points of the law better than do many responsible people. They can be harshly critical of another person's behavior or morality. But, as one said, "I can make anything wrong right and anything right wrong. Right is what I want to do at the time." In other words, whatever is being considered, the criminal regards it as "right" for him at the time. It part of the world view in which he is the hub of the wheel around which everything else revolves. If you give a criminal an exercise in which he must identify right and wrong courses of action, he is likely to score 100%. All such considerations are discarded when it comes to what he chooses to do at any given moment.

Stanton E. Samenow, Ph.D.

This only makes sense if you realize that Samenow believes that anyone with "criminal thinking" is essentially a criminal. You don't have to wait until someone is convicted of a crime. They were criminals long before the conviction.

A lot of the criminal's development occurs during this stage - before capture or conviction - perhaps even most of their life. Samenow is pretty solid on the idea that many criminals exist who will never be caught, but you can tell who they are based on their beliefs and thoughts.

I would think that he might think you are one, since you're arguing in favor of pedophilia, and especially since you are arguing that pedophiles are less dangerous than everyone else.

He certainly does believe them. Also, I think that this is pertinent to your argument:



This only makes sense if you realize that Samenow believes that anyone with "criminal thinking" is essentially a criminal. You don't have to wait until someone is convicted of a crime. They were criminals long before the conviction.

A lot of the criminal's development occurs during this stage - before capture or conviction - perhaps even most of their life. Samenow is pretty solid on the idea that many criminals exist who will never be caught, but you can tell who they are based on their beliefs and thoughts.

I would think that he might think you are one, since you're arguing in favor of pedophilia, and especially since you are arguing that pedophiles are less dangerous than everyone else.

Um, you do realize that my quote of him is much more recent and doesn't dispute that quote. Instead, it says your summary is wrong. He clearly states that people can and do rise above the thinking that might have caused criminality and that we can help them rise above it with conselling.

And, please quit lying. I have never argued in favor of pedophilia. And if arguing in favor of something makes you a criminal then you are a murderer. And I'm quite certain which of the two us has openly and widely advocated murder, my friend. Shall I quote you?

Quote me supporting pedophilia or quit lying? The only thing I've supported is that pedophiles not be incarcerated before they have committed crimes and they instead be encouraged to seek counselling. Golly, if you just make the point more general I could be paraphrasing Samenow.

And the accusations of me being a supporter of crime come right before you slink away, so I'm guessing the replies will stop now. Sad, really.

What's the matter? For the third time in this thread I've proven that your 'sources' don't say what you claim and that you're dishonestly representing them so you have to call me a pedophile or a wife-beater again? Arguments fail so it's time for the name-calling, huh, DK? Certainly, you can do better. Why don't you start randomly misreferencing some more experts?

You're saying that he doesn't believe they are criminals.

Yet he says that they are criminals.

He doesn't require capture or conviction to say someone is a criminal.

All he has to do is hear them speak. And then, whether or not they have acted on it, they are in his mind, "criminals" with "criminal thought" and a "criminal mind".

You're saying that he doesn't believe they are criminals.

I'm saying that to be a criminal you have to commit a, you know, crime. And it's not just me saying it. It's pretty much a part of the definition.


Meanwhile, he says they shouldn't have a derogatory label in direct contention with your claims.

A direct quote of Dr. Samenow - "not putting some horrible label on them, but trying to work with them either in small classrooms with trained counselors and to try to work with them at that time"

Yet he says that they are criminals.

No, actually, he doesn't. You claim he says it. He is quoted as saying exactly the opposite.


He doesn't require capture or conviction to say someone is a criminal.

No, but he does require CRIME. He's funny that way.


All he has to do is hear them speak. And then, whether or not they have acted on it, they are in his mind, "criminals" with "criminal thought" and a "criminal mind".
Criminals to him are people who have committed criminal acts or will. According to him, people who may become criminals should not be labelled and instead should get counselling in a direct quote of him. So who do you expect me to believe HIM or your summary of HIM?

A direct quote of Dr. Samenow - "not putting some horrible label on them, but trying to work with them either in small classrooms with trained counselors and to try to work with them at that time"

Hmmmm.... yep, that sure sounds like a guy who wants to call people criminals before they commit a crime and a guy who claims they will certainly commit a crime. Oh, wait, that statement says the opposite. Must suck to be this wrong this often. Tell me, does it?

Now let's see if history holds true you'll make baseless accusations and run off -

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

you're arguing in favor of pedophilia

You talk a good game on the internet, DK, but your arguments are unsupported and thus far I've seen no evidence to suggest everything you say isn't baseless and absurd.

And just so we can see who's accusing me of having a 'criminal mind' -

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

Can't wait to take a life.

In regards to killing people -

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

I might add that my violent urges have a socially acceptable outlet.

Yes, I'm overwhelmed by your accusations that I have criminal thoughts. I think violence is wrong. You relish it and refer to taking lives as fun. I think taking away the liberty or life of innocent people is unequivocably wrong and you long to do it. Yeah, golly, please tell me more about how we should worry about people who have criminal urges toward violence or violating the rights of others.

Come on, DK, quote him or quit lying? Show where he's EVER said that all pedophiles are criminals even before they've ever committed crimes. I want to see a cited source. Not your made up extrapolations that are counter to what he actually said but a cited source.

Come on, DK, quote me or quit lying? Quote me saying that I support or promote pedophilia. Quote me saying I support or promote wife-beating. Not your made-up extrapolations that are counter to what was actually said, but a cited quote of me.

Seriously, put up or shut up.

So, let's see. What have we learned here, boys and girls? That Soheran has no ability to analyze evidence and come to a conclusion that makes any sense based on the evidence. That Soheran has no ability to make his own arguments match his conclusions. So much so that he'll even admit that the connection is tenuous and then still defend the argument being made for that particular conclusion. That Soheran doesn't on any level recognize the logical fallacies he employs despite the mountain of evidence provided for them.

None of those accusations are in fact true. Responding to them again would be pointless; I’ve responded to each one of them already, and all I’ve gotten in return is repetition and more insults.

There are a few things that I do think can be garnered from this argument. I will note a few here, partly in my defense and partly to clarify a few points that have been obscured by the incoherent nature of this discussion.

Firstly, I have not made clear, you have not understood, or you have ignored (for the most part) the distinction I have been trying to make between things a person values as means to achieve valued ends, and things a person values as ends in themselves. References to scientific or linguistic valuations, to the value of education, or to the value of taxation miss the point because they are almost always means to desired ends – in many cases, at least, ends desired because they are seen as moral.

Secondly, I have not made clear, you have not understood, or you have ignored my actual position regarding moral values. I did not say that all valuations are based on morality, or even that all laws with impartial applications are based on morality. What I said was that the only reason (at least generally) that we prefer (and we tend to, or at least we like to pretend that we tend to) laws with impartial affects to those designed to suit our whims is some conception of moral value; a notion of human equality, for instance, or a renunciation of selfishness. Thus, references to “practicality,” by which I assume you mean our rational self-interest, miss the point because while it may indeed be in our rational interest to, say, have people who affect us refrain from murder and be educated, our desires for both the prohibition on murder and for education extend beyond this self-centered perspective; we don’t just want those who affect us to be educated or to refrain from murder, we tend to want that for everyone.

Thirdly, you have refrained from answering the question that really is at the core of this issue. Short of moral notions of justice, equality, etc., why should we prefer an impartial standard against murder to one that suits our personal whims? You have granted that we do, yet nevertheless you maintain (absurdly, in my view) that it is based on some other value of ours.

(I probably should clarify that when I say “prefer” I mean, astonishingly, prefer; I most definitely do not mean that we would necessarily oppose such an impartial standard, merely that it would not be preferable to one specifically designed to suit us and our personal whims. Similarly, it is conceivable that in practice, circumstances, like democracy, would prevent us from adopting a partial standard, and thus cause us to advocate an impartial standard instead, even keeping to non-moral values. Still, however, that does not mean that we, on a non-moral basis, would prefer an impartial standard to a partial one.)

Fourthly, instead (for the most part) of seriously discussing these substantive points – they can definitely be challenged legitimately, and some of your points did constitute such challenges, to which I think I have sufficiently responded – you have preferred to attack me, and, indeed, you have implied that that was your objective from the start. Whether your observations are accurate or not, they are irrelevant, unproductive, and needlessly provocative.

These points lead me to a conclusion I should certainly have reached a long time ago – continuing this particular argument is futile. This will be my last post concerned with it, unless a substantive point is raised by someone who seems interested in actual rational discussion, as opposed to straw men and mudslinging.

None of those accusations are in fact true. Responding to them again would be pointless; I’ve responded to each one of them already, and all I’ve gotten in return is repetition and more insults.

There are a few things that I do think can be garnered from this argument. I will note a few here, partly in my defense and partly to clarify a few points that have been obscured by the incoherent nature of this discussion.

Firstly, I have not made clear, you have not understood, or you have ignored (for the most part) the distinction I have been trying to make between things a person values as means to achieve valued ends, and things a person values as ends in themselves. References to scientific or linguistic valuations, to the value of education, or to the value of taxation miss the point because they are almost always means to desired ends – in many cases, at least, ends desired because they are seen as moral.

You include your conclusion in your assumptions. You are being clear. It's just a fallacious argument because you start with the assumption that the ends desired are moral and every time I show how they aren't you add that assumption back in. Yet you don't realize it's a circular and thus fallacious argument. The fact that I recognize your argument as fallacious is not evidence of poor communication, it's evidence of poor argumentation on your part.

I have exampled means that are not moral. You acknowledged them as selfish and then pretended they didn't exist. Amusing if you were kidding.

Secondly, I have not made clear, you have not understood, or you have ignored my actual position regarding moral values. I did not say that all valuations are based on morality, or even that all laws with impartial applications are based on morality. What I said was that the only reason (at least generally) that we prefer (and we tend to, or at least we like to pretend that we tend to) laws with impartial affects to those designed to suit our whims is some conception of moral value; a notion of human equality, for instance, or a renunciation of selfishness. Thus, references to “practicality,” by which I assume you mean our rational self-interest, miss the point because while it may indeed be in our rational interest to, say, have people who affect us refrain from murder and be educated, our desires for both the prohibition on murder and for education extend beyond this self-centered perspective; we don’t just want those who affect us to be educated or to refrain from murder, we tend to want that for everyone.

Again, you start with your conclusion in hand, that if we believe in equality it must be based on moral rather than the logic that gives no reason for special treatment and the logic that when everyone benefits we benefit. The social contract is not based on morals. It's based on practicality. That you ignore this doesn't make that reasoning not exist. I understand that you think unselfishness is impractical so you have to determine a different reasoning. The problem is that time and again it's proven that unselfishness is practical and the fact that social structures exist and are followed in animal species proves this fact. Again, your ignorance of this doesn't equate to a decent argument.

"I did not say ... that all laws with impartial applications are based on morality." Good. Give me an example of a law with impartial applications not based on morality that doesn't fall to your circular reasoning. I promise you, you cannot give an example I can't apply your same ridiculous reasoning to and pretend it's based on morals. So whether you said it or not, you certainly argued it. Prove me wrong. Give a SINGLE example of a law, since you weren't SAYING that they don't exist.

Thirdly, you have refrained from answering the question that really is at the core of this issue. Short of moral notions of justice, equality, etc., why should we prefer an impartial standard against murder to one that suits our personal whims? You have granted that we do, yet nevertheless you maintain (absurdly, in my view) that it is based on some other value of ours.

I have answered it. You just don't like the answer. I tell you it's practical and why it's practical and your response is that only selfishness is practical and thus it must either be selfishness or moral. Again, circular argument and fallacious, but you don't care.

Obviously, social structures offer practical advantages or they would not have developed so frequently and prospered so widely throughout the animal kinddom. Even if we take it down to the most base application of reproduction, obviously it's not in my interest to reproduce with those close to me so having others prosper increases my choices for a mate, and my children's choice, and so on. Also, there is some species advantage to a commitment to one's species and not just one's genetic line. As evidenced by various species. Thus it is again to one's advantage to create the best circumstances for advancing the species. Now, one may disagree what best advances the species but in the end any argument that is for the purpose of advancing the species for a genetic advantage is based on biological imperative not a moral one.

In deeper applications, my ability to prosper goes in line with the available opportunities in my country and thus it's in my interest to create the best society for that prosperity to be available to everyone and thus be more accessable to myself and all of my progeny. And going back to the advancement of the species, not just my progeny but all humans. That is a biological imperative found in nature. Or are you going to claim that bees and ants are motivated by morals as well?


(I probably should clarify that when I say “prefer” I mean, astonishingly, prefer; I most definitely do not mean that we would necessarily oppose such an impartial standard, merely that it would not be preferable to one specifically designed to suit us and our personal whims. Similarly, it is conceivable that in practice, circumstances, like democracy, would prevent us from adopting a partial standard, and thus cause us to advocate an impartial standard instead, even keeping to non-moral values. Still, however, that does not mean that we, on a non-moral basis, would prefer an impartial standard to a partial one.)

Again, yes, I understand that because there are practical reasons for something doesn't mean you'll recognize them. That doesn't make your argument sound. It just makes you unable to recognize the practical reasons.


Fourthly, instead (for the most part) of seriously discussing these substantive points – they can definitely be challenged legitimately, and some of your points did constitute such challenges, to which I think I have sufficiently responded – you have preferred to attack me, and, indeed, you have implied that that was your objective from the start. Whether your observations are accurate or not, they are irrelevant, unproductive, and needlessly provocative.

Provably false. I have addressed every point you've ever made and I've attacked your method of argument at the same time. Why? Because your method of argument is as much the problem as your argument.

These 'substantive' points would be valid ones if your support was circular. You start with conclusion in hand.


These points lead me to a conclusion I should certainly have reached a long time ago – continuing this particular argument is futile. This will be my last post concerned with it, unless a substantive point is raised by someone who seems interested in actual rational discussion, as opposed to straw men and mudslinging.
Yes, it's futile for you to think I would ever accept your circular argument that because you won't accept any reasoning other than moral arguments that these things must be based on morals. I get that. Unfortunately, you don't. Again, you prove you don't know what a strawman is. I have quoted you making the arguments I have claimed you made. A strawman is an argument you DID NOT make. You made EVERY argument that I say you made and I challenge you to prove otherwise instead of making baseless accusations. Amusingly, you claim I haven't addressed your points adequately and the only one of us who has used quotes to prove our claims is I.

This is the most elaborate "lalala I can't hear you" argument I've seen in a while.

Looks like I was right again, DK. Your accusations of my being a criminal are the metaphorical tucking of the tail. I guess if that's what passes for an argument for you...

I probably shouldn't be responding to this, but I'm going to anyway, for two reasons. Firstly, I think it is unfair for me to make accusations without supporting them, and thus I will proceed to support exactly what I said about your refusal to provide a response to my question. Secondly, you finally do offer a decent response in your post, and thus meet the "substantive point" criterion, if not the "refrain from mudslinging" one.

I have answered it. You just don't like the answer. I tell you it's practical and why it's practical and your response is that only selfishness is practical and thus it must either be selfishness or moral. Again, circular argument and fallacious, but you don't care.

You wrote:

Yes, I think it's completely different. We support universal laws, not special laws for people.

I pointed out in response:

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 answered in the following fashion:

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.

So, no, you didn't provide any basis for non-moral impartiality.

But maybe later? No. You only repeat your earlier argument with yet another example:

This sums it up right here. No one said right or wrong except you. Not all valuations are moral and that is where your logic train goes off the track. Absolutism is not necessarily related to moral judgements. If I say "all students should understand evolution before college". It's an opinion and certainly places a value on understanding evolution before college but it doesn't place understanding evolution on a scale of right and wrong. That's the part you don't seem to understand or accept.

Now, this example, of course, proves absolutely nothing since it still doesn't explain how a preference of impartiality can be derived from non-moral values. It just provides yet another example of our preference for impartiality .

I challenged you directly on essentially the same point:

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.Go ahead. Do so.

You did not respond.

Eventually, you tried to bring up practicality:

Meanwhile, we care becuase Carl wants to be able to communicate and we want Carl to be able to communicate because it is useful to both parties. It's a practical valuation. Of course, you won't recognize the practical valuation as useful so your own fallacious application will prove your own fallacious application right. Sad.

Yet, unfortunately for this line of argument (which I have, in fact, responded to several times already), what's "useful to both parties" isn't useful to us if we aren't one of those two parties. Now, we might be concerned for the welfare of one of those parties - but then we are in the realm of morality (except perhaps in the case of family and friends, but since you are trying to justify universal principles, that exception is hardly useful to you.)

Now, to be fair you finally do attempt a real answer in this last post:

Obviously, social structures offer practical advantages or they would not have developed so frequently and prospered so widely throughout the animal kinddom. Even if we take it down to the most base application of reproduction, obviously it's not in my interest to reproduce with those close to me so having others prosper increases my choices for a mate, and my children's choice, and so on.

This is an interesting argument, but ultimately I think it's a fallacious one. It still doesn't explain why I should care about the lives of people on the either side of the world or about the lives of those who will decrease my chance for a mate (through competition, both for mates and, in the long term, for resources).

Furthermore, the fact that some system of mutual respect and universality is beneficial for a species doesn't mean that it's beneficial for an individual within said species.

Also, there is some species advantage to a commitment to one's species and not just one's genetic line. As evidenced by various species. Thus it is again to one's advantage to create the best circumstances for advancing the species. Now, one may disagree what best advances the species but in the end any argument that is for the purpose of advancing the species for a genetic advantage is based on biological imperative not a moral one.

This distinction between "biological imperatives" and "moral imperatives" is untenable. Since we are, after all, biological organisms, it could easily be argued that all of our "imperatives" are biological.

In deeper applications, my ability to prosper goes in line with the available opportunities in my country and thus it's in my interest to create the best society for that prosperity to be available to everyone and thus be more accessable to myself and all of my progeny. And going back to the advancement of the species, not just my progeny but all humans.

Still doesn't justify impartiality. In fact, if you want to bring up wealth in this discussion, it would make more sense for you to permanently slant things in your and your family's favor - at the expense of everyone else. You might still offer them "opportunities," but only to the degree that you and your family could exploit them.

That is a biological imperative found in nature. Or are you going to claim that bees and ants are motivated by morals as well?

I think bees and ants possess instincts that parallel the moral values possessed by organisms with more complex minds, yes.

Incidentally, if you want to call all of this a "biological imperative" you're going to have to call all the moralities people complain about being imposed "biological imperatives," too; human social instincts, after all, can be expressed in homophobia and religious fundamentalism just as they can be expressed in altruism and mutual aid.

I probably shouldn't be responding to this, but I'm going to anyway, for two reasons. Firstly, I think it is unfair for me to make accusations without supporting them, and thus I will proceed to support exactly what I said about your refusal to provide a response to my question. Secondly, you finally do offer a decent response in your post, and thus meet the "substantive point" criterion, if not the "refrain from mudslinging" one.

You wrote:

I pointed out in response:

You answered in the following fashion:

So, no, you didn't provide any basis for non-moral impartiality.

No, you didn't establish that it was moral. In fact, you weren't even talking about morality. You were talking about absolutism. Am I require to debunk something you haven't established? Nope. You are shifting the burden of proof. You stated it as a truism with no support. You didn't provide any basis for it being moral in the first place. I pointed out what moral means and there is no basis for considering something moral simply because it is broadly applied, which was your argument.


But maybe later? No. You only repeat your earlier argument with yet another example:

You still don't follow along. Let's see what you said - "The notion of universality is a moral notion" So by showing that universality is not a moral notion I do show that you're incorrect. Again, the problem here is that you believe what you say MUST be correct so any effort to address your truisms must be wrong. You've not connected absolutism in any way. Even human equality isn't a moral notion.

There is no rational basis for thinking human beings aren't equal in value, in fact. You stated it as a truism. It's not until one puts some particular trait of humans as having a greater value that one can establish rank one human above another. But hey, since you stated it as a truism, unless I prove it wrong in your eyes, apparently it stands. You failed to show how treated people as equals is a moral principle and blamed me for not proving you wrong. Again, it's circular argumentation and shifting the burden of proof.


Now, this example, of course, proves absolutely nothing since it still doesn't explain how a preference of impartiality can be derived from non-moral values. It just provides yet another example of our preference for impartiality .

No, it doesn't. It shows that universality and morality are not connected except by a connection you made up. I asked you to support your claim and you didn't. You shifted the burden of proof.


I challenged you directly on essentially the same point:

Yes, you know what challenging someone to disprove you is, when you have supported your claim? Shifting the burden of proof.


You did not respond.

No, I'd already showed you several examples. You ignored them. Repeatedly or restated your truisms.


Eventually, you tried to bring up practicality:

Yet, unfortunately for this line of argument (which I have, in fact, responded to several times already), what's "useful to both parties" isn't useful to us if we aren't one of those two parties. Now, we might be concerned for the welfare of one of those parties - but then we are in the realm of morality (except perhaps in the case of family and friends, but since you are trying to justify universal principles, that exception is hardly useful to you.)

See, amusingly, you continue to shift the burden of proof. You haven't established that it's a moral notion. You simply stated it. And no matter what I say, you claim that your claim stands because I haven't debunked the proof you haven't supplied.


Now, to be fair you finally do attempt a real answer in this last post:

A real answer to an unsupported claim.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#shifting
Shifting the burden of proof
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

This is what I've been explaining all along. You asserting your conclusion as an assumption without proving it. When I point out the circular argumentation of such an act, you ask me to disprove your assumption. You made the assertion. You have the burden of proof. And in absense of proof, you are debunked.

Your claim: Murder is a morally-based law.
Status: Supported only by other unsupported claims.
Your argument: I haven't accepted your arguments as proving me wrong.

Your claim: The idea of human equality is based on morals.
Status: Unsupported
Your argument for it. I haven't accepted your arguments as proving me wrong.

Your claim: The only reason to care about education is based on morals.
Status Unsupported.

And so on. Quit shifting the burden of proof and establish your claims. Amusingly, even here, you haven't presented an ounce of proof for your claims, but instead only presented that you don't think I've proven you wrong. I couldn't prove you're shifting the burden of proof any better. Thanks for your help.



This is an interesting argument, but ultimately I think it's a fallacious one. It still doesn't explain why I should care about the lives of people on the either side of the world or about the lives of those who will decrease my chance for a mate (through competition, both for mates and, in the long term, for resources).

Again, shifting the burden of proof. I don't have to prove it. I explained it, but the assertion is yours, that caring about anybody else is based solely or primarily on morality. The burden of proof is yours.

Also, your half-argument denies the fact that the principle of competition in biology is not so simple. If it were there would be no drones in bee colonies. The most important biological demand is that the species prosper. In some species this is done by individual competition which makes the genetic pool stronger. In some species, this is done through group competition to make the species do better in competition with other species. Biology isn't selfish in such a limited despite your simplistic understanding of it.


Furthermore, the fact that some system of mutual respect and universality is beneficial for a species doesn't mean that it's beneficial for an individual within said species.

Again, you oversimplify our biological urges in your argument. The success of the individual is not assumed. Pack and herd animals are known to defend offspring that are not their own. Biology is not as selfish as you would pretend it is.


This distinction between "biological imperatives" and "moral imperatives" is untenable. Since we are, after all, biological organisms, it could easily be argued that all of our "imperatives" are biological.

Ridiculous. You perform another failure of logic. Even if all moral imperatives were biological wouldn't mean that all biological imperatives were moral. The ones I exampled have naught to do with morality. Because all x is y does not mean all y is x.


Still doesn't justify impartiality. In fact, if you want to bring up wealth in this discussion, it would make more sense for you to permanently slant things in your and your family's favor - at the expense of everyone else. You might still offer them "opportunities," but only to the degree that you and your family could exploit them.

I don't have to justify it. You have to prove that the impartiality is justified by morality rather than other justifications. You've not done so. Stating it doesn't amount to proof. Again, you simply claim we must be selfish and anything that is not selfish must be motivated by morality, but you've not established that. It's circular and you continue to argue it. Support your argument and stop stating it as a basic assumption.


I think bees and ants possess instincts that parallel the moral values possessed by organisms with more complex minds, yes.

That's a bastardization of the term moral. And also a positive assertion. I will accept this argument when you support it. I'll wait.

The meaning of the word moral does not include the basic biological functions of lesser organisms. It's about right or wrong in an ethical sense. It's the same sense of right and wrong that we require for someone to be considered able to stand trial. Bees and ants don't have it.


Incidentally, if you want to call all of this a "biological imperative" you're going to have to call all the moralities people complain about being imposed "biological imperatives," too; human social instincts, after all, can be expressed in homophobia and religious fundamentalism just as they can be expressed in altruism and mutual aid.

You again fail to pay attention to what I'm arguing. I never argued that human laws can't be based on subjective claims, morality or the like. You keep arguing as if I did.

I'm not justifying it by giving biological imperatives. You said the only explanation was a moral one and you were wrong.

Now, do you have any support for your arguments that isn't "if you don't prove me wrong, then I'm right"? None of the 'evidence' you presented here is you presenting evidence for your assertions. The only thing you've presented is that you don't like my support for why I don't agree with your UNSUPPORTED notions. So have fun providing evidence or continue falling to the fallacious circular argumentation and shifting of burden.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Life sentence in prison if they do anything paedophiliaic (sp?) more than 1 time. Long prison sentence and psychological treatment for the 1st offense.
Suggesting that paedophilism is like another sexuality is unacceptable and makes sense as much as calling murder another method of anger management...

No, you didn't establish that it was moral. In fact, you weren't even talking about morality. You were talking about absolutism. Am I require to debunk something you haven't established? Nope. You are shifting the burden of proof. You stated it as a truism with no support. You didn't provide any basis for it being moral in the first place. I pointed out what moral means and there is no basis for considering something moral simply because it is broadly applied, which was your argument.

You still don't follow along. Let's see what you said - "The notion of universality is a moral notion" So by showing that universality is not a moral notion I do show that you're incorrect. Again, the problem here is that you believe what you say MUST be correct so any effort to address your truisms must be wrong. You've not connected absolutism in any way. Even human equality isn't a moral notion.

Yes, I did establish that it was moral. I pointed out quite clearly that the notion of universality is derived from moral principles - moral equality, justice, etc. It is quite obvious that they can be derived in this manner, and should not even require an argument. If I assert that all human beings have equal moral value, it quite blatantly follows that I should treat them according to the same standards. If you want to argue that the notion of universality is not in fact solely based on said moral principles, you have to provide a non-moral basis for it. I cannot prove a negative.

There is no rational basis for thinking human beings aren't equal in value, in fact. You stated it as a truism.

There is no "rational basis" for thinking that human beings have any value at all. Assignations of value are not rational. If I say, "I intrinsically have more moral value than everyone else, just by being me," there's no rational argument you can present to demonstrate that I'm wrong.

It's not until one puts some particular trait of humans as having a greater value that one can establish rank one human above another.

Why? I can just as well assign it arbitrarily. Why should I care if you don't like my moral standards? There's nothing irrational about them because rationality can't demonstrate value.

Again, shifting the burden of proof. I don't have to prove it. I explained it, but the assertion is yours, that caring about anybody else is based solely or primarily on morality. The burden of proof is yours.

We both agree that we do in fact care for others. I have already explained how caring for others is based on morality. If you want to claim that there is another, non-moral basis for it, you have to demonstrate that.

Also, your half-argument denies the fact that the principle of competition in biology is not so simple. If it were there would be no drones in bee colonies. The most important biological demand is that the species prosper. In some species this is done by individual competition which makes the genetic pool stronger. In some species, this is done through group competition to make the species do better in competition with other species. Biology isn't selfish in such a limited despite your simplistic understanding of it.

Again, you oversimplify our biological urges in your argument. The success of the individual is not assumed. Pack and herd animals are known to defend offspring that are not their own. Biology is not as selfish as you would pretend it is.

When did I say that biology was selfish? If anything, I claimed the opposite - that our moral, non-selfish tendencies could be seen as biological in origin. Stop making things up.

Ridiculous. You perform another failure of logic. Even if all moral imperatives were biological wouldn't mean that all biological imperatives were moral.

All I claimed was that they are not mutually exclusive.

The ones I exampled have naught to do with morality.

What values, then, are relevant to morality?

I don't have to justify it. You have to prove that the impartiality is justified by morality rather than other justifications.

No, I don't have to rebut every single conceivable justification. That would take an eternity.

And it was, after all, you who made the claim that the prohibition of murder is not moral, and then proceeded to try (and fail) to demonstrate it.

That's a bastardization of the term moral. And also a positive assertion. I will accept this argument when you support it. I'll wait.

That's hilarious. First you try to show that it's a logical conclusion of rejecting your argument. Then, when I reject your argument and accept it in a modified form, you demand that I demonstrate it. Take your pick; either it is a logical conclusion of the argument I have advanced, or it's not, and you should never even have brought it up.

The meaning of the word moral does not include the basic biological functions of lesser organisms.

Good, because I didn't say it did. In fact, I explicitly excluded them. as I said, those instincts parallel those called moral in human beings.

It's about right or wrong in an ethical sense. It's the same sense of right and wrong that we require for someone to be considered able to stand trial. Bees and ants don't have it.

And where do you think we get our conviction that it is ethically right to help others? Aliens implanting it in our brains? No, it is indeed a biological imperative.

You again fail to pay attention to what I'm arguing. I never argued that human laws can't be based on subjective claims, morality or the like. You keep arguing as if I did.

No, I'm pointing out that you're equivocating. Read what I actually say; don't read things into it that aren't there.

I'm not justifying it by giving biological imperatives. You said the only explanation was a moral one and you were wrong.

What other explanation have you provided? You provided a biological explanation for human beings having certain values, but you have not shown that these are not moral values. I would, in fact, maintain that they are, at least according to most conventional notions of morality. Our moralities tend to be composed of values like helping others, moral equality, etc. Unless we are talking about ethical egoists, I don't see how these values, when seen as intrinsic goods, would not be considered "moral." Now, if they're means to a non-moral end, that's another story entirely - but it's also something you've utterly failed at demonstrating.

Yes, I did establish that it was moral. I pointed out quite clearly that the notion of universality is derived from moral principles - moral equality, justice, etc.

You mean your proof for your original unsupported statement is another baseless unsupported statement. Wow, that's a compelling argument.

Making another declaration doesn't offer anything in the way of support unless you support the new assertion. Prove that the notion of universality is derived from moral principles. It's not in the nature of morality or universality.


It is quite obvious that they can be derived in this manner, and should not even require an argument. If I assert that all human beings have equal moral value, it quite blatantly follows that I should treat them according to the same standards. If you want to argue that the notion of universality is not in fact solely based on said moral principles, you have to provide a non-moral basis for it. I cannot prove a negative.

Yours is the postive assertion. You can't prove a negative, but you can support your positive assertion. As of yet, you've just made more positive assertoins. You can't prove your assertion by another unsupported assertion.

I can say that I should treat people by the same standards because they all have no value whatsoever and that would not imply morals at all. And guess what, I've supplied the same level of proof you have.

In a debate, when someone makes a positive assertion it takes an equal opposite weight of evidence to debunk it. Given that you've offered no support other than your assertions, your statement is debunked simply by me saying the opposite.

I can't believe you can't see that your argument is circular. Why is equality based on morality, Soheran? Well, because you assume that if we give them equal moral value, we would treat them equally. You mean if declare them equal we would treat them equally. What if we don't give them equal moral value, does it follow we would NECESSARILY treat them unequally? Nope. It doesn't. I could just easily justify treating them equally because I have no reason to treat one better than the other. You assume equality is not the default, with support, assume morality is the reason to treat them equally, and then argue that because you assume morality is the reason to treat them equally and because you assume equality is not the default (both just assumptions) then your are correct that equality is caused by morality. Guess what if I with equal support assert that morality is the reason we believe that people are unequal, and that is when we ignore morality that people become equal, then I've proven you wrong. How? Because I've used the exact same weight of evidence in my assertions. NONE.



There is no "rational basis" for thinking that human beings have any value at all. Assignations of value are not rational.

And if all things have no particular value, would that not make them equal? Yep. If I ask you what Person X's value is, you can't answer. If I ask you what Person Y's value is, you can't answer. If I ask you who is more valuable, you can't answer. Why? Because until you have more information you have no reason to value one more than the other. You assert that one starts out more valuable than the other and that morality makes causes the equalization. I say prove it.

If I say, "I intrinsically have more moral value than everyone else, just by being me," there's no rational argument you can present to demonstrate that I'm wrong.

I don't have to demonstrate your wrong. You have to prove you're right. In a debate, that you're wrong is the default. You start out wrong and you have to prove you aren't.


Why? I can just as well assign it arbitrarily. Why should I care if you don't like my moral standards? There's nothing irrational about them because rationality can't demonstrate value.

And lack of value makes things equal. Things have to have a value in order to become unequal. Since you say the only reason to assign values is arbitrary reasons, then it follows that all people are equal until some arbitrary assignment makes them unequal. You made my argument for me. Now trying supporting your argument.

Amusingly, your argument is that people aren't equal unless morality forces them to be and your support is that you can assign them any moral value you like and you don't see how that's circular. You can't argue that because you declared that morality makes them unequal that I must use morality to make them equal. Prove they are unequal in absense of morality.

I'm skipping the rest, because until you demonstrate support for even one of your declarations, I'm not letting you lead away from it as if you've supported it when you haven't.

Come on, tell me why things that you claim have no value until we assign it are naturally not equal? Does person x somehow worth less or more to you than person y BEFORE you assign them value? It's impossible. Not only is your position unsupported, it's untenable.

No, I'm pointing out that you're equivocating. Read what I actually say; don't read things into it that aren't there.

Dude, seriously, don't use another logical fallacy without looking it up. You're embarrassing yourself.

Or show how I'm equivocating. You haven't used a logical fallacy properly in the entire debate.

Equivocating - The logical fallacy of equivocation is committed when someone uses the same word in different meanings in an argument, implying that the word means the same each time.

I haven't used biological imperative or morality to mean anything other than one meaning. I have continually and only used morality in terms of right and wrong and I have only used biological imperative to refer to basic drive we have as animals.

I can say that I should treat people by the same standards because they all have no value whatsoever and that would not imply morals at all. And guess what, I've supplied the same level of proof you have.

How many people do you know who value nothing?

I can't believe you can't see that your argument is circular. Why is equality based on morality, Soheran? Well, because you assume that if we give them equal moral value, we would treat them equally. You mean if declare them equal we would treat them equally.

Essentially, yes, except we aren't "declaring" it precisely; we just value them morally in that manner, and our actions don't necessarily correspond to our moral beliefs. But the argument is indeed for the most part as obvious and simplistic as you make it out to be. Why you failed to see this point before, I don't know.

What if we don't give them equal moral value, does it follow we would NECESSARILY treat them unequally? Nope. It doesn't. I could just easily justify treating them equally because I have no reason to treat one better than the other.

But we pretty much all value ourselves, our immediate family, and our friends. If we don't value anyone else, it makes sense that we will act according to those values.

You assume equality is not the default,

If I value nothing, I don't act at all; I certainly don't care in the slightest whether someone on the other side of the planet is murdered. The notion of "equal moral value" presupposes already existing value.

with support, assume morality is the reason to treat them equally,

I explained my reasoning already.

and then argue that because you assume morality is the reason to treat them equally and because you assume equality is not the default (both just assumptions) then your are correct that equality is caused by morality.

As I said, I don't think there is any basis for preferring equal treatment to partial treatment short of a moral value of equality. I explained why a moral value of equality justified it already. If you have another reason why we prefer equal treatment to partial treatment, provide it.

Guess what if I with equal support assert that morality is the reason we believe that people are unequal, and that is when we ignore morality that people become equal, then I've proven you wrong. How? Because I've used the exact same weight of evidence in my assertions. NONE.

Except I can easily provide a non-moral basis for unequal treatment: I value myself, and thus I pursue my own ends, irrelevantly of anyone else's welfare.

And if all things have no particular value, would that not make them equal? Yep.

You're missing the point. The fact that no system of values is more rational than any other does not mean that the "default" position is no values. Pretty much everyone values themselves, as I have repeated several times already.

I don't have to demonstrate your wrong. You have to prove you're right. In a debate, that you're wrong is the default. You start out wrong and you have to prove you aren't.

Values cannot be subjects of rational debate when there is no common ground; that was the point.

And lack of value makes things equal. Things have to have a value in order to become unequal. Since you say the only reason to assign values is arbitrary reasons, then it follows that all people are equal until some arbitrary assignment makes them unequal. You made my argument for me. Now trying supporting your argument.

I've responded to this several times already.

Amusingly, your argument is that people aren't equal unless morality forces them to be and your support is that you can assign them any moral value you like and you don't see how that's circular. You can't argue that because you declared that morality makes them unequal

No, I didn't. Sorry, you just made that up.

that I must use morality to make them equal. Prove they are unequal in absense of morality.

They are unequal because the distribution of non-moral values is self-oriented.

Thinking it over, I do think I have been making an error in this argument, an error mostly caused by oversimplification and not thinking my responses fully through.

Essentially, I have been assuming conventional norms for morality in my categorization of moral values. Thus, valuing human equality is a moral value; valuing oneself is not a moral value. Such a position is illegitimate, because it assumes the universality of moral standards. Someone who believed that only she had moral value would not see a value of human equality as a moral value.

In that sense, yes, you are correct - I have been assuming morality where it does not necessarily exist. An ethical egoist could conceivably prefer an impartial arrangement for what to her would be non-moral reasons - say, a natural instinct for altruism.

Yet it still does not save your argument, since most human beings are not ethical egoists, and those who prefer an impartial arrangement for prohibitions like those against murder overwhelmingly tend to do so for what to them are moral values - things like treating other people fairly, caring about other people's welfare, and so on. My example did not have to apply to anyone to be legitimate.

What this also demonstrates, for what it's worth, is the arbitrariness of dividing values into "moral" and "non-moral" categories.

Thinking it over, I do think I have been making an error in this argument, an error mostly caused by oversimplification and not thinking my responses fully through.

Essentially, I have been assuming conventional norms for morality in my categorization of moral values. Thus, valuing human equality is a moral value; valuing oneself is not a moral value. Such a position is illegitimate, because it assumes the universality of moral standards. Someone who believed that only she had moral value would not see a value of human equality as a moral value.

In that sense, yes, you are correct - I have been assuming morality where it does not necessarily exist. An ethical egoist could conceivably prefer an impartial arrangement for what to her would be non-moral reasons - say, a natural instinct for altruism.

Yet it still does not save your argument, since most human beings are not ethical egoists, and those who prefer an impartial arrangement for prohibitions like those against murder overwhelmingly tend to do so for what to them are moral values - things like treating other people fairly, caring about other people's welfare, and so on. My example did not have to apply to anyone to be legitimate.

What this also demonstrates is the arbitrariness of dividing values into "moral" and "non-moral" categories.


It doesn't matter how many people believe something is or isn't moral. The question is morality an essential part and if it's not then it's not legitimate to claim the idea is based on moral judgement since it can just as capably exist absent morals. As I said, you were assuming your conclusion in your assumptions the whole time. I'm glad you finally see it. It was frustrating that you couldn't see your circular argumentation.

It doesn't matter how many people believe something is or isn't moral. The question is morality an essential part and if it's not then it's not legitimate to claim the idea is based on moral judgement since it can just as capably exist absent morals.

Morality is not an "essential part" of any value. It is not an "essential part," for instance, of the sort of sexual puritanism that leads people to restrict the freedom of gays to marry. Yet that can still be justifiably labeled an imposition of moral judgment, since in the vast majority of cases those advocating such restrictions hold such values as part of their morality.

I would apply the same reasoning to an impartial prohibition on murder.

Morality is not an "essential part" of any value. It is not an "essential part," for instance, of the sort of sexual puritanism that leads people to restrict the freedom of gays to marry. Yet that can still be justifiably labeled an imposition of moral judgment, since in the vast majority of cases those advocating such restrictions hold such values as part of their morality.

I would apply the same reasoning to an impartial prohibition on murder.

Again, it's a circular argument because you chose your example of an argument that most advocates admit is a moral issue. However, most advocates of a murder law will acknowledge a benefit and a need absent of solely a moral requirement. It's not the same thing at all.

Meanwhile, even in your admission, you oversimplify. You still assume that the only valuation is a moral one. There are other means of valuing things. I just used a lack of value as an example. You still haven't proven that the greater practical advantage is to advocate only for oneself in terms of treatment by the government. I've listed several arguments for one that cannot be assumed. Again, you haven't supported this assertion, yet you continue onward as if you have.

Again, it's a circular argument because you chose your example of an argument that most advocates admit is a moral issue.

Right. That was the idea. If I can show that the same reasons it is considered to be a "moral issue" can be applied to an impartial prohibition of murder, then it follows that an impartial prohibition on murder is a "moral issue."

However, most advocates of a murder law will acknowledge a benefit and a need absent of solely a moral requirement. It's not the same thing at all.

At least if we accept conventional notions of what "moral values" are, it would seem to me that an impartial prohibition on murder cannot be preferred without reference to moral values. It might exist because it is the most convenient way of doing things in certain circumstances - say, in a democracy of egoists - but it wouldn't be preferred. Quite simply, the reasons we care about people who don't affect us are tied to values we tend to regard as "moral." I don't see how this is deniable.

If I ask a supporter of a prohibition on murder why I should agree with her independent of some moral valuation of human life (again going with the conventional notion of moral values), the response will likely be something along the lines of, "Do you want to be killed?" Naturally, I don't, and thus it makes sense for me to support a prohibition on murder. But it still doesn't make sense for me to prefer a policy that treats victims of genocide in Darfur equally to myself, my family, and my friends.

Meanwhile, even in your admission, you oversimplify. You still assume that the only valuation is a moral one. There are other means of valuing things. I just used a lack of value as an example.

I don't think I made that assumption. Care to point to where I did?

You still haven't proven that the greater practical advantage is to advocate only for oneself in terms of treatment by the government.

What do you mean by "practical advantage"? I've been interpeting it as "rational self-interest," but you seem to be objecting when I do so.

I've listed several arguments for one that cannot be assumed.

You did. But, and I've already explained why in my replies to them, I don't think they effectively provide a basis for the sort of impartial role people - pro-"moral imposition" or not - tend to believe the state should have.

In what sense is this debate on the origin of murder laws the least bit on topic?

In what sense is this debate on the origin of murder laws the least bit on topic?

The original point I made was relevant; I was pointing out that since subjective moral values are behind several of the policy decisions that underly our society (and have a pretty solid consensus in support) it can hardly be argued that they can't be applied to the issue of pedophilia.

As for the rest, well, Jocabia objected to my example of murder, and I responded.

So I suppose the answer to your question is, basically, "none."

The original point I made was relevant; I was pointing out that since subjective moral values are behind several of the policy decisions that underly our society (and have a pretty solid consensus in support) it can hardly be argued that they can't be applied to the issue of pedophilia.

As for the rest, well, Jocabia objected to my example of murder, and I responded.

So I suppose the answer to your question is, basically, "none."
Well, your back and forth justifying your example aside, it seems to me that most laws are in place, not out of some presumed abstract moral consensus, but out of a belief that they prevent (or punish) harmful actions and support the public good.

Well, your back and forth justifying your example aside, it seems to me that most laws are in place, not out of some presumed abstract moral consensus, but out of a belief that they prevent (or punish) harmful actions and support the public good.

And the fact that we each benefit and thus all benefit is what drives the passing of such laws, not some moral justification, which is what spawned the argument. He was trying to justify morality law with really poor examples. And we know why he used murder as an example. Because we all agree that murder should be illegal. The problem is that the reason we all agree is because there is a practical benefit to each of us to have such a law.

It doesn't mean I don't advocate laws based on subjective principles or that I am necessarily for them, but simply that many of the laws that make a good example because they are not generally objected to are such because of their practical value, not their moral value.

Right. That was the idea. If I can show that the same reasons it is considered to be a "moral issue" can be applied to an impartial prohibition of murder, then it follows that an impartial prohibition on murder is a "moral issue."

Again, you start with conclusion in hand. You have to support your claim, not just make it.

At least if we accept conventional notions of what "moral values" are, it would seem to me that an impartial prohibition on murder cannot be preferred without reference to moral values. It might exist because it is the most convenient way of doing things in certain circumstances - say, in a democracy of egoists - but it wouldn't be preferred. Quite simply, the reasons we care about people who don't affect us are tied to values we tend to regard as "moral." I don't see how this is deniable.

And yet I've not only denied it but I've shown why there is a practical value to a universal application and I've shown that your claim that since it is universal it must be moral is not a valid one. You've since admitted that your claim is of universality being because of moral valuation was not valid. So you can either demonstrate something that is established through evidence or admit you can't. Saying "I don't see how this is deniable" is not an argument.

You claim that morality is the only reason to care about humans in general. Prove it.


If I ask a supporter of a prohibition on murder why I should agree with her independent of some moral valuation of human life (again going with the conventional notion of moral values), the response will likely be something along the lines of, "Do you want to be killed?" Naturally, I don't, and thus it makes sense for me to support a prohibition on murder. But it still doesn't make sense for me to prefer a policy that treats victims of genocide in Darfur equally to myself, my family, and my friends.

Yes, it would. Because practically, we have a reason to promote equality lest we become the group that is not in the majority and thus not protected by the majority. Again, support your assumptions or you cannot use them as the basis for an argument with any weight. Just making assumptions because they make sense to you don't make them valid.

I don't protect homosexuals because I'm homosexual or worried I'll become one. It's because everyone I will ever care about gains by equality. It's because I gain by equality. And it's because humanity gains by equality. And you might say the only reason to value humanity is a moral reasoning, but you have to establish why rationally I shouldn't natural value my species general success. And you're going to have to fight with biology on that one.


I don't think I made that assumption. Care to point to where I did?

Sorry, I should have said that the only broad valuation is a moral one.


What do you mean by "practical advantage"? I've been interpeting it as "rational self-interest," but you seem to be objecting when I do so.

Because not all practical advantages are rational self-interest. I gave examples of biological imperatives that are not as self-interest, and they are still rational. You've placed a value on personal survival, but biology makes no such distinction.

You did. But, and I've already explained why in my replies to them, I don't think they effectively provide a basis for the sort of impartial role people - pro-"moral imposition" or not - tend to believe the state should have.
Yes, and you based that on an assumption the only reason to care about such a function is a moral valuation. Like I said, you start with conclusion in hand. And you justify it with yet another unsupported assumption, that the only practical advantage is rational self-interest. Prove it.

And the fact that we each benefit and thus all benefit is what drives the passing of such laws, not some moral justification, which is what spawned the argument. He was trying to justify morality law with really poor examples. And we know why he used murder as an example. Because we all agree that murder should be illegal. The problem is that the reason we all agree is because there is a practical benefit to each of us to have such a law.

It doesn't mean I don't advocate laws based on subjective principles or that I am necessarily for them, but simply that many of the laws that make a good example because they are not generally objected to are such because of their practical value, not their moral value.
That, in fact, is the only reason we should ever make a law: for its practical value. It's why laws against homosexual marriage piss me off, because they HAVE no practical value, only moral value, and only to some people at that.

That, in fact, is the only reason we should ever make a law: for its practical value. It's why laws against homosexual marriage piss me off, because they HAVE no practical value, only moral value, and only to some people at that.

What is "practical value"?

First Jocabia and now you are tossing this term around; I want to know what it means.

Yes, it would. Because practically, we have a reason to promote equality lest we become the group that is not in the majority and thus not protected by the majority.

But you're already protected - by the law designed to suit your whims.

Again, support your assumptions or you cannot use them as the basis for an argument with any weight. Just making assumptions because they make sense to you don't make them valid.

The notion that human beings deserve to be treated according to the same standards is generally considered to be a moral value.

I don't protect homosexuals because I'm homosexual or worried I'll become one.

Never said you did.

It's because everyone I will ever care about gains by equality. It's because I gain by equality.

How?

And it's because humanity gains by equality. And you might say the only reason to value humanity is a moral reasoning, but you have to establish why rationally I shouldn't natural value my species general success.

Rationally I can't establish any value. As I've pointed out already.

And you're going to have to fight with biology on that one.

The natural processes of evolution tend towards the maximization of the survival of a species as a whole, yes. But since all values are imbedded in us by biology, it's hardly an argument against the point I've been making.

What is "practical value"?

First Jocabia and now you are tossing this term around; I want to know what it means.
Practical value, from what I understand, generally means that which is useful to society. For instance, laws against murder state that killing a person, which would remove them from society and thus remove any positive imput or use they might have brought to society. A law allowing gay marriage would make gays happier, and, as happiness is shown to improve performance in just about anything, they would bring more to society from an economic standpoint, and thus a law for gay marriage would have practical value. That was merely an example, of course. Thusly, a law that does not benifit society in this sense is not worth existing at all, methinks.

Peoples, yes. Just keep them away from the little kiddies.

Practical value, from what I understand, generally means that which is useful to society.

"Useful" depends on some other kind of value. What's useful to me may not be useful to you.

For instance, laws against murder state that killing a person, which would remove them from society and thus remove any positive imput or use they might have brought to society.

True, but don't you think there are other reasons we prohibit murder beyond the elimination of "positive input" the victims might bring to society? And isn't "positive input" a subjective criterion?

A law allowing gay marriage would make gays happier, and, as happiness is shown to improve performance in just about anything, they would bring more to society from an economic standpoint, and thus a law for gay marriage would have practical value.

Except someone who valued, say, "traditional values" more than productivity would disagree strongly with that assessment of "practical value." To her, it would be "practical" to restrict gay marriage because it would protect something that matters more to her than productivity does.

You're assuming that economic productivity is some kind of objective value, but its importance to us is subjective.

"Useful" depends on some other kind of value. What's useful to me may not be useful to you.
That is beside the point. We could debate and argue over this on just about every single word in the entire dictionary. Setting a specific standard for useful is not necessary.



True, but don't you think there are other reasons we prohibit murder beyond the elimination of "positive input" the victims might bring to society? And isn't "positive input" a subjective criterion?
When I speak of positive input, I speak of work one could do in a factory, or on a farm, or something else that brings benifit to others. Once again, you are nitpicking. Whether we have other reasons is also not the point. The law has practical value and thus whether it has moral value or not means nothing.


Except someone who valued, say, "traditional values" more than productivity would disagree strongly with that assessment of "practical value." To her, it would be "practical" to restrict gay marriage because it would protect something that matters more to her than productivity does.

You're assuming that economic productivity is some kind of objective value, but its importance to us is subjective.
Whether its importance is subjective or not should not form the basis of how we make laws. Productivity and survival are essential if a society is to exist. Thusly, one should look at it from that point of view. We then branch out to encompass that which can influence productivity and survival, such as what brings a person happiness. Of course, on that standpoint, we must look to the majority rather than a minority. While a few people in a society might enjoy going on murderous rampages because they like to kill, this is clearly not useful to society and would not make the majority of society happy, and thus we do not allow such rampages. Thing is, the further we go into such branching, the more complicated it becomes. How do we prevent tyranny by majority? How do we prevent the subjugation of certain minorities, such as, to continue with the example, homosexuals, without affecting the majority? The key would be education, I think. Everyone should be looking at it from a scientific basis first and foremost, rather than allowing their religious or other beliefs affect their judgement.

I, however, am rambling and going off the subject with that tirade. Point is, practical value is that which is useful to society, in order for it to live, to function, to survive both healthily and happily.

That is beside the point. We could debate and argue over this on just about every single word in the entire dictionary. Setting a specific standard for useful is not necessary.

If you want to make policy on the basis of what is "useful," yes, it is. "Useful" is like "practical"; it's useless (no pun intended) in this context. They are characteristics of means that serve a given end. If I want to have a society with the greatest maximum happiness, it is useful to have gay marriage. If I want to have a society conforming to puritanical fundamentalist Christian standards, it is not useful to have gay marriage.

When I speak of positive input, I speak of work one could do in a factory, or on a farm, or something else that brings benifit to others.

You're referring to economic benefit, then? Do you think it would be legitimate to murder anybody who is not economically productive?

Once again, you are nitpicking. Whether we have other reasons is also not the point. The law has practical value and thus whether it has moral value or not means nothing.

I don't think we have laws against murder to maximize economic benefit, and I think the nature of our laws against murder demonstrates this. Anyone who proposed killing off the economically unproductive would be viewed as a cold-hearted lunatic.

I think we have laws against murder for other reasons - like the fact that we tend to hold it is immoral to take life.

But even if I am wrong, it is still a subjective judgment that elevates society's economic benefit over the desire of the murderer to kill her victim.

Whether its importance is subjective or not should not form the basis of how we make laws. Productivity and survival are essential if a society is to exist.

But gay marriage is not.

Thusly, one should look at it from that point of view. We then branch out to encompass that which can influence productivity and survival, such as what brings a person happiness. Of course, on that standpoint, we must look to the majority rather than a minority. While a few people in a society might enjoy going on murderous rampages because they like to kill, this is clearly not useful to society and would not make the majority of society happy, and thus we do not allow such rampages. Thing is, the further we go into such branching, the more complicated it becomes. How do we prevent tyranny by majority? How do we prevent the subjugation of certain minorities, such as, to continue with the example, homosexuals, without affecting the majority? The key would be education, I think. Everyone should be looking at it from a scientific basis first and foremost, rather than allowing their religious or other beliefs affect their judgement.

You're still promoting your own particular values - namely, that the majority of society should be happy, that what is harmful to people should not be permitted. Mostly, you sound like a utilitarian, and my guess is that your response to my point regarding economic productivity and murder will be along those lines.

Those are beliefs, and not scientifically based.

If you want to make policy on the basis of what is "useful," yes, it is. "Useful" is like "practical"; it's useless (no pun intended) in this context. They are characteristics of means that serve a given end. If I want to have a society with the greatest maximum happiness, it is useful to have gay marriage. If I want to have a society conforming to puritanical fundamentalist Christian standards, it is not useful to have gay marriage.



You're referring to economic benefit, then? Do you think it would be legitimate to murder anybody who is not economically productive?



I don't think we have laws against murder to maximize economic benefit, and I think the nature of our laws against murder demonstrates this. Anyone who proposed killing off the economically unproductive would be viewed as a cold-hearted lunatic.

I think we have laws against murder for other reasons - like the fact that we tend to hold it is immoral to take life.

But even if I am wrong, it is still a subjective judgment that elevates society's economic benefit over the desire of the murderer to kill her victim.



But gay marriage is not.



You're still promoting your own particular values - namely, that the majority of society should be happy, that what is harmful to people should not be permitted. Mostly, you sound like a utilitarian, and my guess is that your response to my point regarding economic productivity and murder will be along those lines.

Those are beliefs, and not scientifically based.
Right. You caught me. Clearly, I cannot seem to separate my argument from my own beliefs. I thusly concede the argument.

(By the way, I think it any killing of another human being is wrong, regardless of the reason. This is mainly due to my own personal view that, as an athiest, I recognize--from my standpoint--that there is no afterlife or what have you, and thus when you die, that's it. It's all over. Thusly, life, to me, is precious and should never be thrown away or wasted in any way at ALL, simply BECAUSE if you die, it's all gone.)

Right. You caught me. Clearly, I cannot seem to separate my argument from my own beliefs. I thusly concede the argument.

I am of the view that it's impossible to advocate any course of action independently of an assumed end (which must somehow be valuable, and thus subjective), so as far as advocating a certain government policy goes, I don't think anyone can separate their argument from their own beliefs. Nor do I think anyone should have to.

I think it would be a lot more effective for social liberals, instead of complaining about the imposition of morality, to argue for their point of view with moral reasoning. Most people agree that people should be treated fairly, that liberty is a good thing, and that causing unnecessary suffering is wrong; all these things are perfectly good reasons for legalizing gay marriage independent of any assumption that it's wrong to impose morality.

(By the way, I think it any killing of another human being is wrong, regardless of the reason. This is mainly due to my own personal view that, as an athiest, I recognize--from my standpoint--that there is no afterlife or what have you, and thus when you die, that's it. It's all over. Thusly, life, to me, is precious and should never be thrown away or wasted in any way at ALL, simply BECAUSE if you die, it's all gone.)

I completely agree. It is strange to me sometimes how some Christians believe that a secular culture inherently undermines views like the value of protecting life, when the lack of belief in an afterlife would seem to have the opposite effect.

What is "practical value"?

First Jocabia and now you are tossing this term around; I want to know what it means.



But you're already protected - by the law designed to suit your whims.



The notion that human beings deserve to be treated according to the same standards is generally considered to be a moral value.



Never said you did.



How?



Rationally I can't establish any value. As I've pointed out already.



The natural processes of evolution tend towards the maximization of the survival of a species as a whole, yes. But since all values are imbedded in us by biology, it's hardly an argument against the point I've been making.

Yes, more unsupported assumptions. This is what passes for debate for you? You make declarations without any support logical or otherwise and unless someone PROVES you wrong, you're right. Until you demonstrate your assertions, your points have no value.

Practical value, from what I understand, generally means that which is useful to society. For instance, laws against murder state that killing a person, which would remove them from society and thus remove any positive imput or use they might have brought to society. A law allowing gay marriage would make gays happier, and, as happiness is shown to improve performance in just about anything, they would bring more to society from an economic standpoint, and thus a law for gay marriage would have practical value. That was merely an example, of course. Thusly, a law that does not benifit society in this sense is not worth existing at all, methinks.

Well, I'd point out that it goes the other way. Laws cost money and effort to enforce. Limiting marriage to heterosexuals only is an expensive practice that has no practical value. And Soheran knows what practical value. He's continuing to shift the burden. Now, he's pretending it's your problem that he can't actually defend his points.

Yes, more unsupported assumptions. This is what passes for debate for you? You make declarations without any support logical or otherwise and unless someone PROVES you wrong, you're right. Until you demonstrate your assertions, your points have no value.

As I recall, it was you who said initially that the prohibition of murder was not a moral judgment.

A statement you have yet to justify.

As I recall, it was you who said initially that the prohibition of murder was not a moral judgment.

A statement you have yet to justify.

Again, shifting the burden of proof. You made the positive assertion that the prohibition of murder IS a moral judgment. I asked you to prove it. I was replying to your assertion without proof.

EDIT: For our local support of the logical fallacy

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?
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.

Again, shifting the burden of proof. You made the positive assertion that the prohibition of murder IS a moral judgment.

Yes, I did. And I justified it numerous times. It's true that I haven't rebutted every possible non-moral justification for it - that's impossible. But I have explained how traditional moral notions end up justifying a prohibition on murder, and furthermore, I have pointed out what you and I both know to be true - that the reasoning most people use for their opposition to legalized murder is most definitely moral.

I asked you to prove it. I was replying to your assertion without proof.

No, you didn't.

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.

How any one can stand up for the rights of these monsters is beyond me. They are vile scum and should be treated accordingly

They may be vile scum to you, but they're still humans and should be treated like human beings.

Tell that to my 2 year old daughter. If I could get away with murder her ex babysitter (a woman) would be dead

Killing the babysitter would not solve her problem. It would probably make it worse.

They are people who in Lorranien, are executed by beheading after being convicted of a rape or other heinous child sex crime. We view them as fundamentaly less than human and the only way to deal with them is to execute them. No questions. Do not accuse us of being evil to the mentally handicapped because that is obviously a separate case. These beings pose a serious threat to society just by being alive. And, we feel that their crime is so serious and they have offended God so egregiously, that they must die for their crime. May God have mercy on their souls.

They are people who in Lorranien, are executed by beheading after being convicted of a rape or other heinous child sex crime. We view them as fundamentaly less than human and the only way to deal with them is to execute them. No questions. Do not accuse us of being evil to the mentally handicapped because that is obviously a separate case. These beings pose a serious threat to society just by being alive. And, we feel that their crime is so serious and they have offended God so egregiously, that they must die for their crime. May God have mercy on their souls.

Dude, this is a ooc debate forum.

How any one can stand up for the rights of these monsters is beyond me. They are vile scum and should be treated accordingly
...oh for the love of...

Paedophile DOES NOT EQUAL child molester. A paedophile is just a person attracted to children. That is it, that is all. Just because someone is attracted to a specific group does not make that person likely to abuse said group. That's like saying all heterosexual males are eager to rape females and vice versa. It is a logically fallacy. Understand?

Killing the babysitter would not solve her problem. It would probably make it worse.

Exactly my daughter would suffer more becaused I'd be in jail for murder!

As it stands because of my daughters age this bitch has gotten off scott free and has since hurt other children.I'd warned one women about leaving her daughter with her she didn't believe me 2 weeks later she came crying to me that her daughter had been interfered with.
I was put throught the third degree by DOC's and the police. Due to my daughters age anything she tells them they say could be coached so its ignored.
Her internal injuries were horrific cause by an implement and or fingernails, our Dr has been a great support and as time passes more comes out about what this scum did to her. We don't push we listen to her and hopfuly as time passes her memory will fade right now I can't even drive in the general direction of the babysitters home with out my daughter screaming that she doesn't want to go there, not that I would take her there again.
This bitch should be locked up and the key thrown away she's a repeat offender getting away with hurting small defenceless babies

Exactly my daughter would suffer more becaused I'd be in jail for murder!

As it stands because of my daughters age this bitch has gotten off scott free and has since hurt other children.I'd warned one women about leaving her daughter with her she didn't believe me 2 weeks later she came crying to me that her daughter had been interfered with.
I was put throught the third degree by DOC's and the police. Due to my daughters age anything she tells them they say could be coached so its ignored.
Her internal injuries were horrific cause by an implement and or fingernails, our Dr has been a great support and as time passes more comes out about what this scum did to her. We don't push we listen to her and hopfuly as time passes her memory will fade right now I can't even drive in the general direction of the babysitters home with out my daughter screaming that she doesn't want to go there, not that I would take her there again.
This bitch should be locked up and the key thrown away she's a repeat offender getting away with hurting small defenceless babies
Someone who commited such crimes? Absolutely. The key is to remember that just because one abused does not make all paedophiles criminals just because they are attracted to children. Do not punish the innocent for the crimes of the criminal.

Yes, I did. And I justified it numerous times. It's true that I haven't rebutted every possible non-moral justification for it - that's impossible. But I have explained how traditional moral notions end up justifying a prohibition on murder, and furthermore, I have pointed out what you and I both know to be true - that the reasoning most people use for their opposition to legalized murder is most definitely moral.

No, it is not. It's practical. If I took away the practical reasons most people wouldn't oppose murder. If I took away the moral reasons most people would still oppose it for practical reasons. That they may have moral reasons for opposing murder does not mean it's the reason they oppose murder. I just ate a pizza place. Now was my hunger included in the reason for eating there. Yes, I suppose. But I ate there because the waitress is really fun and I love the pizza. If you take away the hunger I still would have gone. Honestly. However, if you take away the waitress and how good the pizza is, I'm not going. Suggesting a tangential reason is the primary reason is fallacious.

You haven't rebutted my basic denial of your positve assertion. That it is unsupported. You also have rebutted that a prohibition of murder is practical. You keep claiming the the universal application is moral, but you've since admitted that universality and morality are not tied. You admitted individual benefit to the outlawing of murder, you've admitted that this individual benefit made universal is not required to moral and you haven't justified why it would be. Now, you've just rested at saying "well I say everyone is supporting it for moral reasons, thus I must be right". Support your statements or admit you can't.


Meanwhile, let's see if even you think proved that prohibition of murder is moral.

"Even if your objection were accurate, it still doesn't make it a bad example."

Hmmm... why would you entertain a concept you've 'proved' is inaccurate? Oh, wait, I know, because you never have.



No, you didn't.
I quoted it. I told you it was a bad example because you're incorrect. There is no proof that the support for murder is moral and there is a much better explanation. Your only protests to this is to shift the burden of proof or make even more absurd assertions without any support. I have repeated asked you stop shifting the burden of proof. Thus far you've offered no support for your assertions. The dictionary does not support you. Practice doesn't support you. Nothing supports you other than your unsupported assertions.

No, it is not. It's practical. If I took away the practical reasons most people wouldn't oppose murder. If I took away the moral reasons most people would still oppose it for practical reasons.

What do you mean by "practical"?

What do you mean by "practical"?

Hmmm... a dictionary and context doesn't work for you? I'll tell you what... when you're done supporting your positive assertion, I'll defend my disdain for your assertions. You've not done it for 20 pages, but, hey, maybe today's the day you start debating using something other than logical fallacies.

Hmmm... a dictionary and context doesn't work for you?


1. Of, relating to, governed by, or acquired through practice or action, rather than theory, speculation, or ideals: gained practical experience of sailing as a deck hand.
2. Manifested in or involving practice: practical applications of calculus.
3. Actually engaged in a specified occupation or a certain kind of work; practicing.
4. Capable of being used or put into effect; useful: practical knowledge of Japanese. See Usage Note at practicable.
5. Intended to serve a purpose without elaboration: practical low-heeled shoes.
6. Concerned with the production or operation of something useful: Woodworking is a practical art.
7. Level-headed, efficient, and unspeculative.
8. Being actually so in almost every respect; virtual: a practical disaster.

I know what "practical" means. All the relevant uses reference means, not ends; I don't have a practical reason for doing something, I have a practical way of doing something. Something "impractical," on the other hand, would be something that aims at a given end but can't effectively fulfill it, because it won't work with the prevailing circumstances.

"Practical" and "moral" are not mutually exclusive. A legal prohibition on murder can be a practical way to achieve the moral value of a minimization of harm.

As long as you're talking about "practical" reasons as opposed to "moral" reasons, I have no idea what you're talking about - unless you mean "rational self-interest," an interpretation you've already rejected.

I'll tell you what... when you're done supporting your positive assertion,

I already have, and I'll do it again. The people in our society oppose murder, even if it has nothing to do with us, because most of us accept the moral precept that the destruction of innocent life is immoral. If you don't believe that that precept is in fact a major moral tenet in our society, you don't know what you're talking about.

It follows from our acceptance of that precept that we tend to support a prohibition on murder, and ideally at least, would like to see it applied universally. This is quite obvious; generally, if people think something is evil, they want to suppress it.

A moral justification for the legal prohibition. Note that no non-moral reasoning is required.

What more do you want? Absolute proof that it's impossible for anyone on the planet to possibly come up with any justification for a universal prohibition on murder that doesn't involve moral reasoning?

Pedophilia is a psychological disorder. If you act out on pedophilia, you should be arrested and, if the evidence is there, executed.

Kyronea, if you know what is good for you, stay away from children!

Pedophilia is a psychological disorder. If you act out on pedophilia, you should be arrested and, if the evidence is there, executed.

Kyronea, if you know what is good for you, stay away from children!
Because I'm clearly a horrible menace and will abuse every child I see, forgetting the fact that I've been a babysitter for my little brother for his entire life. :rolleyes:

I will not repeat the following statement again: paedophile =/= child molester.

Pedophilia is a psychological disorder. If you act out on pedophilia, you should be arrested and, if the evidence is there, executed.

Kyronea, if you know what is good for you, stay away from children!

Execution is much too harsh for any crime. If anything, they should just go to jail, or be taught not to act out on those desires in some way.

...oh for the love of...
A paedophile is just a person attracted to children.

Ahem. You say "just" as if it is a small thing.

People with sexual feelings towards children should be kept away from children. Period.

I'm quite aware that there are people who are very nice and kind people except for the fact that they like getting it on with pre-teens. I'm also sure that there are some convicted rapists who are very nice except for the fact that they like forced entry.

Tell me, have you had to grow up with a little secret that you couldn't tell anyone else? If you had, you may not feel so sympathetic. Trust me, it's not nice to have to deal with that. Don't give me the one about it being "love" either. Anyone who claims to love a child would not do that to them.

Because I'm clearly a horrible menace and will abuse every child I see, forgetting the fact that I've been a babysitter for my little brother for his entire life. :rolleyes:

I will not repeat the following statement again: paedophile =/= child molester.

Instead of trying to get recognition of pedophilia as "normal," why don't you try to get some help before you do something bad?

Execution is much too harsh for any crime. If anything, they should just go to jail, or be taught not to act out on those desires in some way.

Execution is acceptable for this level of crime. You forfeit your rights to life, liberty and property when you commit a crime, and society is entitled to deprive you of those rights, including the right-to-life, with due process of law. It is even validated in the 5th and 14th Amendments!

Well, I don't know how long I'll be on, since Jolt's been acting up horribly with my account.

Jocabia, two things:
1) Did you manage to see the post I made in the "does child porn lead to child rape" thread before it was locked? If not, I suggest you take a look. I found some fastenating evidence supporting my assertions. I'd track down provide the link here, but I'm concerned at the moment with getting this post written before jolt logs me off again.
2) This thing about morality and whatnot has gotten out of hand. You've been arguing it, as you said, for 20 pages. You both need to let it go.
They are people who in Lorranien, are executed by beheading after being convicted of a rape or other heinous child sex crime. We view them as fundamentaly less than human and the only way to deal with them is to execute them. No questions. Do not accuse us of being evil to the mentally handicapped because that is obviously a separate case. These beings pose a serious threat to society just by being alive. And, we feel that their crime is so serious and they have offended God so egregiously, that they must die for their crime. May God have mercy on their souls.
Interesting that you mention offending God. Can you point out in the Bible where sex with kids is condemned? I'll wait.
Exactly my daughter would suffer more becaused I'd be in jail for murder!

Even if you got away with it, your status as a murderer wouldn't exactly lead to your daughter having a normal life.

As it stands because of my daughters age this bitch has gotten off scott free and has since hurt other children.I'd warned one women about leaving her daughter with her she didn't believe me 2 weeks later she came crying to me that her daughter had been interfered with.
I was put throught the third degree by DOC's and the police. Due to my daughters age anything she tells them they say could be coached so its ignored.
Her internal injuries were horrific cause by an implement and or fingernails, our Dr has been a great support and as time passes more comes out about what this scum did to her. We don't push we listen to her and hopfuly as time passes her memory will fade right now I can't even drive in the general direction of the babysitters home with out my daughter screaming that she doesn't want to go there, not that I would take her there again.
This bitch should be locked up and the key thrown away she's a repeat offender getting away with hurting small defenceless babies
Are you honestly telling me that the medical reports held no weight with the police at all? Are you telling me that with medical evidence of a rape and the circumstantial evidence of the babysitter's presence at the time, no weight was assigned to your daughter's testimony? They're sending people to jail on life sentences for posession of CP and they won't prosecute something like THIS?!
Pedophilia is a psychological disorder. If you act out on pedophilia, you should be arrested and, if the evidence is there, executed.

Presumably you mean if a child is molested? I agree that this is a most serious crime. The merrits of execution aside, rape is a henous crime that does deserve a strong punishment, regardless of the age of the victum.

Kyronea, if you know what is good for you, stay away from children!
I take it that you aren't attracted to kids? In that case, statistics presented in this thread indicate that you're more likely to molest a child than he is.

Well, I don't know how long I'll be on, since Jolt's been acting up horribly with my account.

Jocabia, two things:
1) Did you manage to see the post I made in the "does child porn lead to child rape" thread before it was locked? If not, I suggest you take a look. I found some fastenating evidence supporting my assertions. I'd track down provide the link here, but I'm concerned at the moment with getting this post written before jolt logs me off again.

I did see it. It did support what you think it supports. It is not an experiment. It was evidence of a general treatment of sexuality as not being something to hide in the dark corners. A healthy idea of sexuality is bound to reduce sex crimes. It would also result the ending of pornography laws. The fact that the two things coincide is better explained by a common source than causation.

Ahem. You say "just" as if it is a small thing.

Well, it's a thought, being compared with a rape. Personally, I find thoughts to be of lesser significance than rapes. That's just me though.

People with sexual feelings towards children should be kept away from children. Period.

You should really read through the thread. The conservative estimate is that pedophiles make up about 20% of the population. Among child molesters, however, pedophiles make up only 10%. That's right, 90% of child molesters aren't pedophiles. In fact, given those numbers, pedophiles are less likely to molest children than non-pedophiles.

Care to ammend your statements? I'll wait for the apology.

I'm quite aware that there are people who are very nice and kind people except for the fact that they like getting it on with pre-teens. I'm also sure that there are some convicted rapists who are very nice except for the fact that they like forced entry.

You're assuming all pedophiles are child molesters. I believe I've addressed this false assumption of yours already.

Tell me, have you had to grow up with a little secret that you couldn't tell anyone else? If you had, you may not feel so sympathetic. Trust me, it's not nice to have to deal with that.

You mean like not being able to tell anyone I was attracted to kids from basicly the point in early puberty I realised it? Trust me, I have the deepest sympathies for people who feel they have to keep secrets like that.

Don't give me the one about it being "love" either. Anyone who claims to love a child would not do that to them.
Oh. You were molested.

I agree with you that people who truly cared about a child wouldn't expose them to the horrible things this society would do to them. This would be the main reason I don't act on my pedophilic inclinations.

Also, I suspect that what you're talking about, what happened to you, would have been classified as rape without the need for an age of consent to clarify the matter.
Instead of trying to get recognition of pedophilia as "normal," why don't you try to get some help before you do something bad?
What help is there? I'll wait while you look it up. I can tell you though, it ain't pretty.

I take it that you aren't attracted to kids? In that case, statistics presented in this thread indicate that you're more likely to molest a child than he is.

Statistics from NAMBLA?

Is this is what the elites in Great Britain are big on nowadays? debating the merits of pedophilia in a Postchristian Society?

I'll stand with the average folk from Middle America, and support prosecution child rapists, child molestors and possession of child pornography to the fullest extent of the law, including the death penalty if appropriate.

The thought of someone who would rather kill a man than help him makes me sick.

I did see it. It did support what you think it supports. It is not an experiment. It was evidence of a general treatment of sexuality as not being something to hide in the dark corners. A healthy idea of sexuality is bound to reduce sex crimes. It would also result the ending of pornography laws. The fact that the two things coincide is better explained by a common source than causation.
So, I take it that removing the legal barriers to child pornography and the subsequent decrease in the rates of child molestation doesn't count as evidence that child pornography isn't causing child rape? I'll never understand you, Jocabia.
Statistics from NAMBLA?

Is this is what the elites in Great Britain are big on nowadays? debating the merits of pedophilia in a Postchristian Society?

I'll stand with the average folk from Middle America, and support prosecution child rapists, child molestors and possession of child pornography to the fullest extent of the law, including the death penalty if appropriate.
Too lazy to read the thread? Too lazy to run an automated search for those numbers in this thread? Fine, the figure that states 90% of molesters are not attracted to children came from FBI agent Lanning, who's specialty is sex offenders. Not exactly NAMBLA material.

The figures suggesting that pedophiles make up 20% of the population, is from a documented scientific study done on males, using a device for measuring errections. I don't have the study onhand which gives the conservative 20% figure, but I can point you toward one which puts the figure at over 30%.
http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/97-048_article.html

In case you can't do the math, with pedophiles making up, on the conservative side 20% of the population, and making up 10% of child molesters, that means people who aren't pedophiles are more likely to molest children. Jocabia did a walk through of the math a few pages back in case you still don't get it.

Well, it's a thought, being compared with a rape. Personally, I find thoughts to be of lesser significance than rapes. That's just me though.

It's not a "thought." It's a sexual *desire.*

Acting on that *desire* would be rape.

Personally, I find a desire to commit rape a little more significant than "just a thought."

You should really read through the thread. The conservative estimate is that pedophiles make up about 20% of the population. Among child molesters, however, pedophiles make up only 10%. That's right, 90% of child molesters aren't pedophiles. In fact, given those numbers, pedophiles are less likely to molest children than non-pedophiles.

Still hammering ye olde statistics?

What you've shown - assuming your statistics are a hardcore representation of reality (which is an assumption I don't make but then again, I'm not a pedophile) - is that pedophiles are less likely to get caught. But here's my theory:

Because they've had more time to think about it. Planning makes perfect, you see. All that time to ruminate about their "thought" means they have a greater chance of getting away with it.


You're assuming all pedophiles are child molesters. I believe I've addressed this false assumption of yours already.

of course, being a pedophile doesn't mean you've already molested children. It just means you have a sexual desire to do so. ;)

How muuuuch better! Pedophiles are happy happy fun playground mates!

Statistics from NAMBLA?

Is this is what the elites in Great Britain are big on nowadays? debating the merits of pedophilia in a Postchristian Society?

I'll stand with the average folk from Middle America, and support prosecution child rapists, child molestors and possession of child pornography to the fullest extent of the law, including the death penalty if appropriate.

Well, good to know that you've decided to fully come out. I was so tired of the trolling.

Meanwhile, how confident are you in your ability to discern who deserves to die and who doesn't? Because if you're wrong, it's murder. You know that little 'thou shalt not kill' commandment. I'm pretty sure it isn't lifted when you kill innocent people because you decided they were bad people.

So, I take it that removing the legal barriers to child pornography and the subsequent decrease in the rates of child molestation doesn't count as evidence that child pornography isn't causing child rape? I'll never understand you, Jocabia.

Again, you have to analyze these things in context. If I press the gas on my car and my car slows down does that mean pressing the gas slows the car down? Maybe, but if I add in that the car was being driven into a lake, then it might just be the water slowing down the car. You can't take a study like that out of context. The evidence isn't even remotely compelling. Again, that they coincide proves coincidence, but not causation. There are more compelling explanations of such a decrease. I gave one.

It's not a "thought." It's a sexual *desire.*

Acting on that *desire* would be rape.

Personally, I find a desire to commit rape a little more significant than "just a thought."

But would you agree that this is less significant than an actual rape? In case you missed it, that's what I was saying. The two are not the same, though it's an inequality you've proven you can't comprehend. Your deterministic additudes toward sexual desires really make me worry about your future actions. That you believe rape is the only result when a person can't get the kind of consentual sex he wants is really not healthy.

Still hammering ye olde statistics?

What you've shown - assuming your statistics are a hardcore representation of reality (which is an assumption I don't make but then again, I'm not a pedophile) - is that pedophiles are less likely to get caught. But here's my theory:

Because they've had more time to think about it. Planning makes perfect, you see. All that time to ruminate about their "thought" means they have a greater chance of getting away with it.

Interesting theory. Do you have any evidence to support your viewpoint? You're blowing smoke and you know it.

of course, being a pedophile doesn't mean you've already molested children. It just means you have a sexual desire to do so. ;)

How muuuuch better! Pedophiles are happy happy fun playground mates!
I'm glad you've finally come around. ;)

Again, you have to analyze these things in context. If I press the gas on my car and my car slows down does that mean pressing the gas slows the car down? Maybe, but if I add in that the car was being driven into a lake, then it might just be the water slowing down the car. You can't take a study like that out of context. The evidence isn't even remotely compelling. Again, that they coincide proves coincidence, but not causation. There are more compelling explanations of such a decrease. I gave one.
Is there another country which has legalised child pornography which has seen an increase in molestations? That would seem like it would give cause to doubt the reasons behind the Dutch experience.

Honestly, I can't believe you aren't even going to consider the implications of this result because you've made up your mind that child porn causes rape, and anything which suggests otherwise must've been caused by something else. I haven't seen any evidence debunking the Dutch experience as evidence.

Edit:
I really can't see a real difference between your explaination for the Dutch child porn experience, and Trosia's explaination for the numbers of pedophiles versus molesters. You both seem to be making up theories to justify the fact that the evidence is against your viewpoints.

But would you agree that this is less significant than an actual rape? In case you missed it, that's what I was saying. The two are not the same, though it's an inequality you've proven you can't comprehend.

*sigh*

Of course they're not the same. One is a crime. The other is a desire to commit that crime.

Both are more significant than, for example, neither a crime nor the desire to commit said crime.

Your deterministic additudes toward sexual desires really make me worry about your future actions. That you believe rape is the only result when a person can't get the kind of consentual sex he wants is really not healthy.

That's not what I believe. Since pedophiles are not normal and healthy people, what applies to them is not what applies to any person.

Besides, there is a consentual way for normals to act on their desire. There isn't one for pedophiles. You seem to like to ignore this difference.

Oh, and the DSM-IV seems to think your pedophilia is unhealthy. Unlike my "beliefs" even if you described them accurately.

Interesting theory. Do you have any evidence to support your viewpoint?

Statistics on unreported crimes are hard to come by. I was using something called reasoning though, not just citing statistics to satisfy an apparent need for percentages-wank.

The problem is, C&T, is that there IS no real help for paedophiles. That was, in fact, the whole point to this thread. We went through a huge discussion on this very subject several pages ago(using maximum post count per page forum setting). Of course I'd love to seek help. I want help. I want my fellow paedophiles to get the help they need. But it's NOT THERE! What do we have instead? We have ridiculous amounts of social stigma, fear from every single person we see, authorities who would be quick to arrest us instantly for just about anything, outright "No" from just about any possible job interview, and so on and so forth. Do I have sexual desires towards children? Yes. Will I EVER act upon them? No. I will never do that and you can have my solid word on that. I want help. But it's not there. Not at all.

*sigh*

Of course they're not the same. One is a crime. The other is a desire to commit that crime.

Both are more significant than, for example, neither a crime nor the desire to commit said crime.

You seemed to be having trouble diferentiating. I'm glad to see you've finally learned the difference between a pedophile and a child molester. It took over 120 pages in two threads, but we managed it. You should feel very proud of yourself.

That's not what I believe. Since pedophiles are not normal and healthy people, what applies to them is not what applies to any person.

I see. What do you base the idea that my sexual desires are deterministic and yours aren't? I know they would've mentioned that on the DSM-IV if that had been an observed difference...

Besides, there is a consentual way for normals to act on their desire. There isn't one for pedophiles. You seem to like to ignore this difference.

So, denied access to women who would consent to you, you'd resort to rape? The only difference is that you can get some from time to time? That's what's keeping you from raping someone? Like I said, I worry about you.

Oh, and the DSM-IV seems to think your pedophilia is unhealthy. Unlike my "beliefs" even if you described them accurately.

They also make a firm distinction between pedophiles and child molesters, clearly indicating that pedophiles aren't neccissarily child molesters. I may not agree with the inclusion of pedophilia in the document, but credit where it's due and all that.

Statistics on unreported crimes are hard to come by. I was using something called reasoning though, not just citing statistics to satisfy an apparent need for percentages-wank.
I'm sorry? wank? I sincerely hope you haven't resorted to name calling, and since I'm unfamiliar with the expression I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to explain yourself.

Statistics on unreported crimes are hard to come by. I was using something called reasoning though, not just citing statistics to satisfy an apparent need for percentages-wank.

This is the argument from Ignorance fallacy. If you have a reason why the unreported crimes would skew the statistics support it. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke because you don't like where the evidence leads.

You seemed to be having trouble diferentiating. I'm glad to see you've finally learned the difference between a pedophile and a child molester. It took over 120 pages in two threads, but we managed it. You should feel very proud of yourself.

I see. What do you base the idea that my sexual desires are deterministic and yours aren't? I know they would've mentioned that on the DSM-IV if that had been an observed difference...

So, denied access to women who would consent to you, you'd resort to rape? The only difference is that you can get some from time to time? That's what's keeping you from raping someone? Like I said, I worry about you.

They also make a firm distinction between pedophiles and child molesters, clearly indicating that pedophiles aren't neccissarily child molesters. I may not agree with the inclusion of pedophilia in the document, but credit where it's due and all that.

I'm sorry? wank? I sincerely hope you haven't resorted to name calling, and since I'm unfamiliar with the expression I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to explain yourself.

Percentage-wank means to maneuver the numbers to support your claim. However, it's him doing it. He's trying to numbers-wank with a suggestion of absent evidence. You are using the actual evidence we actually have. It's the pot calling the polar bear black.

This is the argument from Ignorance fallacy. If you have a reason why the unreported crimes would skew the statistics support it. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke because you don't like where the evidence leads.
He has the exact same level of evidence you have for your supposition that other factors caused the decrease in child molesting correlated with the liberalization of Dutch child pornography laws. Namely none. Neither one of you has presented anything other than a vague idea about how the results could be wrong with no evidence supporting your theories.

Percentage-wank means to maneuver the numbers to support your claim. However, it's him doing it. He's trying to numbers-wank with a suggestion of absent evidence. You are using the actual evidence we actually have. It's the pot calling the polar bear black.
Thanks for the definition. I was sincerely confused.

Is there another country which has legalised child pornography which has seen an increase in molestations? That would seem like it would give cause to doubt the reasons behind the Dutch experience.

Honestly, I can't believe you aren't even going to consider the implications of this result because you've made up your mind that child porn causes rape, and anything which suggests otherwise must've been caused by something else. I haven't seen any evidence debunking the Dutch experience as evidence.

Edit:
I really can't see a real difference between your explaination for the Dutch child porn experience, and Trosia's explaination for the numbers of pedophiles versus molesters. You both seem to be making up theories to justify the fact that the evidence is against your viewpoints.

I'm not arguing from ignorance. I'm arguing that we can't link numbers to a cause without actual evidence of causation. That evidence doesn't exist and your link said so. I'm not skewing the statistics. I'm arguing that the legalization of all pornography was caused by a change in the society. It's not a guess. It's a fact. There was a change in the views of sex that led to the legalization. You haven't shown any causal link to the decrease. At all. There isn't even a suggestion of one that's not equally or more explainable by looking at the change in attitudes.

Would you say that there is causation with the statistics saying pedophiles are less likely to be molesters?

After all, Trosia's provided a couple of possible explainations as to why the numbers could be skewed.

Paedophiles are people too.
No, they are not.

As the father of 3 beautiful children, I would happily execute every last one of them. Put them out of their misery and ours.

This is the argument from Ignorance fallacy. If you have a reason why the unreported crimes would skew the statistics support it.

I gave reasons. I guess you missed that.

Child molesters who are not pedophiles are going to be thinking about how much they'd like to have sex with children, less. This is because pedophiles primarily think sexually of children. Non-pedophiles would presumably be primarily thinking sexually of non-children. Makes sense?

Pedophiles, on the other hand, will be thinking about it a lot more, since for them it's not going to be some impulse or opportunism, but rather a sexual desire since puberty.

Thinking about something beforehand gives you opportunity to plan ahead. Planning increases chance of getting away with it, if said pedophile does molest.

Therefore pedophile child molesters have more of an opportunity to plan and get away with child molestation, compared to non-pedophile child molesters.

Therefore pedophile child molesters would more likely be unconvicted.

Also, given their "loving" nature, they are less likely to outright brutalize and take a child by force - instead, being coercive and possibly 'gentle.' (Again this has been argued by pedophiles on this forum.) More violence would mean greater difficulty in evading capture, due to increased evidence (i.e blood) and increased outright trauma (i.e greater chance of being reported by the victim).

Therefore again pedophiles would be more likely to be unconvicted (or uncharged) and their victims unreporting.

But I'm sure none of this is good enough for you, certainly not TFC.

He has the exact same level of evidence you have for your supposition that other factors caused the decrease in child molesting correlated with the liberalization of Dutch child pornography laws. Namely none. Neither one of you has presented anything other than a vague idea about how the results could be wrong with no evidence supporting your theories.

The problem is that you don't have any evidence for causation. That's the point. There is a difference between looking at the statistics for what they are and making them up. He's making them up. You are making up a cause. I am saying there are better causes if we're going to make one up.

The analysis you're talking about is not isolated and there are more reasonable causal connections than the one you propose. What evidence do you have that the cause of the decline is the legalization of the pornography other than the fact that they happen to coincide? None. And correllation is not causation. The burden of proof is on you.

In the case of the statistics being discussed between you and he, he's guessing there are other statistics without any evidence for them. I'm not guessing. I'm saying I'm not compelled by your lack of evidence. It's about opposite as it comes.

Meanwhile, you are actualy bastardizing the numbers. I've explained this before. The fact is that the statistic you keep citing does not examine the non-pedophiles to explain why there might be a higher incidence. It's reasonable to suggest that a person who has a proclivity for rape but not pedophilia is more likely to rape ANYONE than either a pedophile or a someone with neither proclivity. However, it's pretty much unsupportable that someone with no urge for pedophilia or rape suddenly does something they think is wrong and have no urge to do. You're not really analyzing the statistics in a meaningful way when you give your analysis. It's true that the numbers indicate that locking up pedophiles will not significantly impede child molestation, but it does not prove that someone with no proclivity for pedophilia nor rape is more likely to offend than someone attracted to children. You are making a conclusion that can't be found in the data. It means that non-pedophiles are generally more dangerous than pedophiles, but not that the the majority of people you are talking to who aren't pedophiles are statistically more likely to be dangerous than you. It's a conclusion that is wholly unlikely even looking at the same data you're looking at.

I gave reasons. I guess you missed that.

Child molesters who are not pedophiles are going to be thinking about how much they'd like to have sex with children, less. This is because pedophiles primarily think sexually of children. Non-pedophiles would presumably be primarily thinking sexually of non-children. Makes sense?

Pedophiles, on the other hand, will be thinking about it a lot more, since for them it's not going to be some impulse or opportunism, but rather a sexual desire since puberty.

Thinking about something beforehand gives you opportunity to plan ahead. Planning increases chance of getting away with it, if said pedophile does molest.

Therefore pedophile child molesters have more of an opportunity to plan and get away with child molestation, compared to non-pedophile child molesters.

Therefore pedophile child molesters would more likely be unconvicted.

Also, given their "loving" nature, they are less likely to outright brutalize and take a child by force - instead, being coercive and possibly 'gentle.' (Again this has been argued by pedophiles on this forum.) More violence would mean greater difficulty in evading capture, due to increased evidence (i.e blood) and increased outright trauma (i.e greater chance of being reported by the victim).

Therefore again pedophiles would be more likely to be unconvicted (or uncharged) and their victims unreporting.

But I'm sure none of this is good enough for you, certainly not TFC.

You gave reasons. You didn't support those reasons. When asked for support you said that you can't because we don't know about unreported crime. We do have the ability to support why the statistics in unreported crime would be skewed one way or another. You haven't.

No, they are not.

As the father of 3 beautiful children, I would happily execute every last one of them. Put them out of their misery and ours.
And you people wonder why we work so hard to remain hidden?

And you people wonder why we work so hard to remain hidden?
Haven't read the whole 1000+ thread, but ...
what is this we, and if you are one of them, you should remain hidden.

You gave reasons. You didn't support those reasons. When asked for support you said that you can't because we don't know about unreported crime. We do have the ability to support why the statistics in unreported crime would be skewed one way or another. You haven't.

Sounds like you keep shifting the goal posts. Be clear about what you mean by "support," since I guess cognition and argument are not good enough.

Would you say that there is causation with the statistics saying pedophiles are less likely to be molesters?

After all, Trosia's provided a couple of possible explainations as to why the numbers could be skewed.

I have shown evidence that all convicted child molesters fantasized about either molestation (10%) or rape as supported by Lanning whose date you're using and by Samenow, whose data also supports the 10% figure. The fantasy and justification is common. The majority of the population does not justify rape or pedophilia nor fantasize about it, according to statistics. So, no, you analysis does not stand. It relies on the study you're using existing in a vacuum. It makes you statistically more likely than the general population, but it also makes you statistically less likely than non-pedophiles. Given that, we can't justify locking up pedophiles to prevent child molestation, but you can't act as if that makes Joe Blow no fantasies more dangerous than the average pedophile. It simply doesn't bear out in studies done by the same people you're citing.

Sounds like you keep shifting the goal posts. Be clear about what you mean by "support," since I guess cognition and argument are not good enough.

It isn't without support. You're arguing that you have somehow reached the conclusion that pedophiles (who child molest) are more likely to get away with their crimes. If that's true, then there is a plethora of evidence that would be available. Experts on convicted child molesters would have found evidence that pedophile child molesters are more calculating than non-pedophile child molesters. Your evidence ... none. Experts would also likely find that those that eventually confess, confess to far more previously unreported crimes than non-pedophile offenders. Does this bear out? Who knows, since you've offered no evidence.

Because crimes are unreported doesn't support the idea that there would be an absense of evidence. So show any evidence that supports your speculation. Otherwise the weight of evidence is in his favor.

Haven't read the whole 1000+ thread, but ...
what is this we, and if you are one of them, you should remain hidden.
I've been open about that since I came to these forums, and in every thread on this subject (and a couple on other subjects). And I know I should remain hidden. There are a lot of people who want to kill me. That would seem like modivation enough to hide.
I have shown evidence that all convicted child molesters fantasized about either molestation (10%) or rape as supported by Lanning whose date you're using and by Samenow, whose data also supports the 10% figure. The fantasy and justification is common. The majority of the population does not justify rape or pedophilia nor fantasize about it, according to statistics. So, no, you analysis does not stand. It relies on the study you're using existing in a vacuum. It makes you statistically more likely than the general population, but it also makes you statistically less likely than non-pedophiles. Given that, we can't justify locking up pedophiles to prevent child molestation, but you can't act as if that makes Joe Blow no fantasies more dangerous than the average pedophile. It simply doesn't bear out in studies done by the same people you're citing.
That's a lot of razamataz and you know it. Given the only known difference is the presence or absence of pedophilic fantasies, it does follow from the statistics that the person without them is more likely to be a molester.

Haven't read the whole 1000+ thread, but ...
what is this we, and if you are one of them, you should remain hidden.

Why? Do your children benefit by him hiding from anyone knowing of his attractions or by his coming out and getting support and therapy? I'd say it's the latter, but you seem to prefer the former. Which is more likely, molestation by a pedophile seeking help or molestation by a pedophile that is afraid to be found out because of threats of violence and thus never gets therapy?

I've been open about that since I came to these forums, and in every thread on this subject (and a couple on other subjects). And I know I should remain hidden. There are a lot of people who want to kill me. That would seem like modivation enough to hide.

That's a lot of razamataz and you know it. Given the only known difference is the presence or absence of pedophilic fantasies, it does follow from the statistics that the person without them is more likely to be a molester.

It's not razmataz. The evidence is that people with fantasies about nonconsentual sex are more dangerous than those without such fantasies and your own sources say as much. You can't say they are reliable in one vein and then suddenly deny them in another. You're bastardizing the meaning of the study to a degree. It's a great defense for not locking up non-offending pedophiles since the vast majority will never commit a crime, but it's a far cry from leading to the conclusion that someone with no such fantasies is more dangerous given the evidence you are presenting actually argue the exact opposite.

Haven't read the whole 1000+ thread, but ...
what is this we, and if you are one of them, you should remain hidden.
Good sir, I am going to have to ask you to please read through this thread. Paedophiles are not automatically child molesters. Indeed, most of us(yes, I said us) want help. But the help is not there. Why? Because so many people like you take the view that we must be horrible monsters eager to molest children that you refuse to allow us to ever seek help. Please. You and others like you need to stop auto-stigmatizing us. You have to take the first step if we are to be able to get the help we need. You have to let GO OF THE AUTOMATIC HATE AND STOP PRE-JUDGING US. Please. Help us. You have to extend the help before we can recieve it.

Why? Do your children benefit by him hiding from anyone knowing of his attractions or by his coming out and getting support and therapy? I'd say it's the latter, but you seem to prefer the former. Which is more likely, molestation by a pedophile seeking help or molestation by a pedophile that is afraid to be found out because of threats of violence and thus never gets therapy?
It feels kind of like a waste of time, doesn't it? A lot of people have a kind of natural immunity to logic on this topic.

On another note, since I seem to still be online at the moment, I figured I'd track down and repost that link I offered earlier about child porn and offending.

http://www.critest.com/cpnonoffend.htm

It isn't without support. You're arguing that you have somehow reached the conclusion that pedophiles (who child molest) are more likely to get away with their crimes. If that's true, then there is a plethora of evidence that would be available. Experts on convicted child molesters would have found evidence that pedophile child molesters are more calculating than non-pedophile child molesters. Your evidence ... none.

Well, there is TFC's assertion that pedophilia desire for children sexually is a "thought." Pedophiles have those thoughts for longer than non-pedophiles, by nature of them being pedophiles. I'm not sure I need "evidence" to show that the longer a human thinks about something, the more he has thought about it.

Experts would also likely find that those that eventually confess, confess to far more previously unreported crimes than non-pedophile offenders. Does this bear out? Who knows, since you've offered no evidence.

This isn't necessarily so. Confessions aren't always genuine, honest, or comprehensive.

Because crimes are unreported doesn't support the idea that there would be an absense of evidence. So show any evidence that supports your speculation. Otherwise the weight of evidence is in his favor.

Well, I'm content with the weight of reasoning in my favor and the weight of bias being against him. If you want to find such "evidence" go ahead, but I don't have time to make a doctoral thesis out of an internet argument.

You will find in my posts (regardless of subject) a tendency not to cite multiple studies a la The Cat Tribe and other lawyers; primarily because I do not have bookmarks, nor do I have time nor inclination to do so. If you want to suggest that means I'm wrong, fine, (it doesn't) but I find it telling that the reasoning itself tends to get challenged with "gimme evidence" instead of something more substantial.

Well, good to know that you've decided to fully come out. I was so tired of the trolling.

Meanwhile, how confident are you in your ability to discern who deserves to die and who doesn't? Because if you're wrong, it's murder. You know that little 'thou shalt not kill' commandment. I'm pretty sure it isn't lifted when you kill innocent people because you decided they were bad people.

Do you think that the mainstream Democratic party supports pedophilia? If it does, then we seriously have a ton more problems than I originally thought.

However, pedophiles should vote Democrat because Democrats are more in favor of child molestation than Republicans.

Child molestors: Vote for Jon Tester, Ned Lamont, and Jim Webb.

It's not razmataz. The evidence is that people with fantasies about nonconsentual sex are more dangerous than those without such fantasies and your own sources say as much. You can't say they are reliable in one vein and then suddenly deny them in another. You're bastardizing the meaning of the study to a degree. It's a great defense for not locking up non-offending pedophiles since the vast majority will never commit a crime, but it's a far cry from leading to the conclusion that someone with no such fantasies is more dangerous given the evidence you are presenting actually argue the exact opposite.
I never thought I'd get the chance to point this out you, but you've made a strawman.

I said that given that the only known about a person was the presence or absence of pedophilic fantasies, the one with those fantasies was less likely to molest, a point you've agreed with and argued in favor of this entire thread.

Then you go and start talking about a person with no unhealthy desires or fantasies which is clearly not what I was talking about at all.

You've made a straw man, arguing against your own point of view. I don't understand why you would do that, but it seems that's what you've done.

Do you think that the mainstream Democratic party supports pedophilia? If it does, then we seriously have a ton more problems than I originally thought.

However, pedophiles should vote Democrat because Democrats are more in favor of child molestation than Republicans.

Child molestors: Vote for Jon Tester, Ned Lamont, and Jim Webb.
...what the HELL does that have to do with ANYTHING? No political party is in favor of child molestation. Once again, READ. Most paedophiles WANT HELP. But they CAN'T GET IT, because people like YOU would have them all thrown in jail or executed for something they CANNOT CONTROL, even though they have COMMITED NO CRIMES. I will agree that child molesters should be punished to the utmost, but most paedophiles, including me, would never touch a child. We know it's wrong. We want help. But you won't give it to us.

Good sir, I am going to have to ask you to please read through this thread. Paedophiles are not automatically child molesters.

In his defence, it is 74 pages long on default settings.

Still, even a couple of pages would have told him what you're saying. I somehow doubt be even managed to read the first post.

Indeed, most of us(yes, I said us) want help. But the help is not there. Why? Because so many people like you take the view that we must be horrible monsters eager to molest children that you refuse to allow us to ever seek help. Please. You and others like you need to stop auto-stigmatizing us. You have to take the first step if we are to be able to get the help we need. You have to let GO OF THE AUTOMATIC HATE AND STOP PRE-JUDGING US. Please. Help us. You have to extend the help before we can recieve it.
I'll be honest. I'd like to be able to talk to someone about this. I'm not interested in getting rid of my attractions, but it would be nice to be able to talk out some of the stress ignorant people like that put us through.

...what the HELL does that have to do with ANYTHING? No political party is in favor of child molestation.

He's trying to derail the thread into a political debate and get democrats and republicans arguing over who hates pedophiles more. It's a sad tactic from someone who knows he doesn't have any hope of winning an actual debate.

Once again, READ. Most paedophiles WANT HELP. But they CAN'T GET IT, because people like YOU would have them all thrown in jail or executed for something they CANNOT CONTROL, even though they have COMMITED NO CRIMES. I will agree that child molesters should be punished to the utmost, but most paedophiles, including me, would never touch a child. We know it's wrong. We want help. But you won't give it to us.
Even in this dangerous environment, if I seriously believed that there was a chance I'd molest a child, I'd check myself into an instatution. In spite of what Jocabia has suggested, I don't value my own freedom more than the health safety of children. I believe you feel the same.

Well, there is TFC's assertion that pedophilia desire for children sexually is a "thought." Pedophiles have those thoughts for longer than non-pedophiles, by nature of them being pedophiles. I'm not sure I need "evidence" to show that the longer a human thinks about something, the more he has thought about it.

Thinking about sex with a child could just as easily include spending more time thinking about how wrong it would be to act on it than the average person. Thinking about sex is not equal to thinking about how to hide evidence of that sex.


This isn't necessarily so. Confessions aren't always genuine, honest, or comprehensive.

BUt some of them are. Examining them would be suggestive. You haven't. In fact, all you've made is excuses why you have no evidence for the things you've made up.



Well, I'm content with the weight of reasoning in my favor and the weight of bias being against him. If you want to find such "evidence" go ahead, but I don't have time to make a doctoral thesis out of an internet argument.

No, in fact, you don't have 'time' to actually support your argument at all. If you're not interested in reasoned debate then why bother. Reasoned debate includes an examination of the evidence. Something you've admitted to avoiding. Quick, have you read Lanning's study that he's citing and has linked repeatedly?


You will find in my posts (regardless of subject) a tendency not to cite multiple studies a la The Cat Tribe and other lawyers; primarily because I do not have bookmarks, nor do I have time nor inclination to do so. If you want to suggest that means I'm wrong, fine, (it doesn't) but I find it telling that the reasoning itself tends to get challenged with "gimme evidence" instead of something more substantial.
No, it doesn't prove you wrong. It proves you've lost the debate. Debate relies on evidence. Winning a debate doesn't mean you're right. It means the weight of evidence was in your favor as well as your argumentation was superior. Losing a debate doesn't make you wrong for similar reasons. You are losing the debate because you're lazy and because of it you're relying on a fallacy.

ANd you've added shifting the burden to the mix. You 'find it telling' that people haven't debunked your unsupported assertions, huh? You've tried to claim that your claims are self-evident. They aren't. That's the argument of a person with no support.

...what the HELL does that have to do with ANYTHING? No political party is in favor of child molestation. Once again, READ. Most paedophiles WANT HELP. But they CAN'T GET IT, because people like YOU would have them all thrown in jail or executed for something they CANNOT CONTROL, even though they have COMMITED NO CRIMES. I will agree that child molesters should be punished to the utmost, but most paedophiles, including me, would never touch a child. We know it's wrong. We want help. But you won't give it to us.

I don't think it'll help. Something tells me he didn't do well in reading comprehension.

In his defence, it is 74 pages long on default settings.

Still, even a couple of pages would have told him what you're saying. I somehow doubt be even managed to read the first post.

I'll be honest. I'd like to be able to talk to someone about this. I'm not interested in getting rid of my attractions, but it would be nice to be able to talk out some of the stress ignorant people like that put us through.
74? Huh. Best remember that.

I would appreciate being able to speak with someone as well. I haven't told a soul except for people here, in fact, and that's only due to the anonyminity I can achieve here. I haven't spoken a word to my parents, to my siblings, or to anyone else I fully trust. I honestly don't think I ever will, either.

And yes, you're damned straight I feel the same. I would check myself into the closest ward IMMEDIATELY. There's no way I'd allow myself to ever even come CLOSE to actually molesting a child.

I never thought I'd get the chance to point this out you, but you've made a strawman.

I said that given that the only known about a person was the presence or absence of pedophilic fantasies, the one with those fantasies was less likely to molest, a point you've agreed with and argued in favor of this entire thread.

Then you go and start talking about a person with no unhealthy desires or fantasies which is clearly not what I was talking about at all.

You've made a straw man, arguing against your own point of view. I don't understand why you would do that, but it seems that's what you've done.

No, you are implying that pedophiles are less likely to offend than a person we would consider healthy. However, the evidence does not bear this out. People would equally throw the other more likely offenders in prison prior to offending as well. You need to stick to the evidence. And the only thing the evidence suggests is that pedophiles are statistically unlikely to actually offend. This does not lead to the conclusion that you're pressing through implication.

Again, keep in mind that the same people you're arguing against would make the same accusations against anybody with pedophillic or rape tendencies. Thus your argument against them implies that such accusations are proven unfounded by the statistical likelihood of the people they would give a pass to, to commit an offense. And the fact is the people they would give a pass to ARE less likely to offend, it's just that the likely hood of a pedophile offending isn't really that high.

74? Huh. Best remember that.

Actually I was wrong. It seems we're at 77 now.

I would appreciate being able to speak with someone as well. I haven't told a soul except for people here, in fact, and that's only due to the anonyminity I can achieve here. I haven't spoken a word to my parents, to my siblings, or to anyone else I fully trust. I honestly don't think I ever will, either.

I've only found the courage to tell one person in real life about this. My parents, in spite of being supportive and loving people, who have made it a point to tell me that they'd still love me even if I turned out to be gay, I just can't bring myself to tell this. I hope one day that I'll find the courage to do so, but today isn't that day.

We can talk by telegram if you like. I know it was hard for me the first time I came out (also on an internet forum). I was lucky. The low enrollment and high empathy of the posters there made it a wonderful, life afirming experience. You've taken more abuse in this thread than I took on that entire forum in the entire year I've been out.

And yes, you're damned straight I feel the same. I would check myself into the closest ward IMMEDIATELY. There's no way I'd allow myself to ever even come CLOSE to actually molesting a child.
I thought so. You remind me of myself back when I was just coming out. At the time, I was an emotional wreak and in a panic over the fact that I'd just admited to that online. I was afraid for weeks that I'd be traced or something. I made the mistake of making that post just before a final exam. Good thing I'm such a good student that I could pass an exam in my sleep, as that was a horrible distraction.
No, you are implying that pedophiles are less likely to offend than a person we would consider healthy. However, the evidence does not bear this out. People would equally throw the other more likely offenders in prison prior to offending as well. You need to stick to the evidence. And the only thing the evidence suggests is that pedophiles are statistically unlikely to actually offend. This does not lead to the conclusion that you're pressing through implication.

Again, keep in mind that the same people you're arguing against would make the same accusations against anybody with pedophillic or rape tendencies. Thus your argument against them implies that such accusations are proven unfounded by the statistical likelihood of the people they would give a pass to, to commit an offense. And the fact is the people they would give a pass to ARE less likely to offend, it's just that the likely hood of a pedophile offending isn't really that high.
The evidence is that pedophiles are less likely to offend than nonpedophiles, is it not?

The evidence is that pedophiles are less likely to offend than nonpedophiles, is it not?

If that's all you said, then you'd have a decent argument.

...what the HELL does that have to do with ANYTHING? No political party is in favor of child molestation. Once again, READ. Most paedophiles WANT HELP. But they CAN'T GET IT, because people like YOU would have them all thrown in jail or executed for something they CANNOT CONTROL, even though they have COMMITED NO CRIMES. I will agree that child molesters should be punished to the utmost, but most paedophiles, including me, would never touch a child. We know it's wrong. We want help. But you won't give it to us.

You can't control yourself? That's silly. While I'm dubious of what psychiatrists can do for you, that's your first step. You need to check-in to a psychological clinic TOMORROW MORNING!

In terms of political parties, the Democrats are consistently in favor of lower sentences for child molestation. Even though they technically "oppose" child molestation, their general feeling is that they prefer treatment to prison.

In the USA, pedophiles are generally accepted as part the Democratic base. In Great Britain, the Liberal Democrats are the most friendly to pedophiles, followed by Labour. The Netherlands has recently established a political party JUST FOR pedophiles, and is now apparently leaning towards abolishing the age of consent.

In 30 years, I can envision the Supreme Court ruling, based on Lawrence v. Texas and subequent rulings, that child molestation is actually normal and cannot be prohibited by the States.

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
-Associate Justice Sandra O'Connor (Casey)

You can't control yourself? That's silly. While I'm dubious of what psychiatrists can do for you, that's your first step. You need to check-in to a psychological clinic TOMORROW MORNING!

In terms of political parties, the Democrats are consistently in favor of lower sentences for child molestation. Even though they technically "oppose" child molestation, their general feeling is that they prefer treatment to prison.

In the USA, pedophiles are generally accepted as part the Democratic base. In Great Britain, the Liberal Democrats are the most friendly to pedophiles, followed by Labour. The Netherlands has recently established a political party JUST FOR pedophiles, and is now apparently leaning towards abolishing the age of consent.

In 30 years, I can envision the Supreme Court ruling, based on Lawrence v. Texas and subequent rulings, that child molestation is actually normal and cannot be prohibited by the States.

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
-Associate Justice Sandra O'Connor (Casey)
I'm sorry. I apparently forgot to specify that the "cannot control" bit was the attraction, not any actions. So nice of you to assume that's not what I meant though.

And your arguments about child molestation and the treatment of MOLESTERS ignores, ONCE AGAIN, the fact that MOST PAEDOPHILES HAVE NOT AND WILL NEVER MOLEST! A PAEDOPHILE IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY A CHILD MOLESTER! GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL!

You can't control yourself? That's silly. While I'm dubious of what psychiatrists can do for you, that's your first step. You need to check-in to a psychological clinic TOMORROW MORNING!

In terms of political parties, the Democrats are consistently in favor of lower sentences for child molestation. Even though they technically "oppose" child molestation, their general feeling is that they prefer treatment to prison.

In the USA, pedophiles are generally accepted as part the Democratic base. In Great Britain, the Liberal Democrats are the most friendly to pedophiles, followed by Labour. The Netherlands has recently established a political party JUST FOR pedophiles, and is now apparently leaning towards abolishing the age of consent.

In 30 years, I can envision the Supreme Court ruling, based on Lawrence v. Texas and subequent rulings, that child molestation is actually normal and cannot be prohibited by the States.

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
-Associate Justice Sandra O'Connor (Casey)

Ha. Yeah, that's it. Democrats are all pedophiles. Yep. If we're going to argue from hyperbole then shouldn't we look at the traditional votes of Catholic priests as telling. Oh, wait, I'm not really up with resorting to the same ridiculous practices you engage in.

How about we just stick to the person supporting your argument right now. You. A person how spends the majority of their time on NS lying about what they believe. A person who almost giggled with glee at how the native americans were slaughtered and their culture was destroyed. See we don't have to use broad generalizations to point out who supports your argument. We can just look at you.

You can't control yourself? That's silly. While I'm dubious of what psychiatrists can do for you, that's your first step. You need to check-in to a psychological clinic TOMORROW MORNING!

He said nothing of the sort, and you know it. He's making a plea for understanding, and even buying into the lie that we need help, and you're still giving him grief. I won't let this stand.

In terms of political parties, the Democrats are consistently in favor of lower sentences for child molestation. Even though they technically "oppose" child molestation, their general feeling is that they prefer treatment to prison.

In the USA, pedophiles are generally accepted as part the Democratic base. In Great Britain, the Liberal Democrats are the most friendly to pedophiles, followed by Labour. The Netherlands has recently established a political party JUST FOR pedophiles, and is now apparently leaning towards abolishing the age of consent.

Your efforts to turn this into a "which party hates pedophiles more" flame war have been exposed for what they are. Quit spreading hate.

In 30 years, I can envision the Supreme Court ruling, based on Lawrence v. Texas and subequent rulings, that child molestation is actually normal and cannot be prohibited by the States.

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
-Associate Justice Sandra O'Connor (Casey)
You are being alarmist and hyperbolizing. On what grounds do you cite Lawrence v. Texas as affirming a right to rape?

It may be that within the timetable you suggest, that children will be allowed to be sexual beings, and explore that aspect of themselves with adults, but there's no reason to believe that actual rape will ever be supported regardless of who we're dealing with. In fact, the only thing which could possibly support the idea of child rape is the current legislation which regards children basicly as the property of their parents to do with as they see fit.

In terms of political parties, the Democrats are consistently in favor of lower sentences for child molestation. Even though they technically "oppose" child molestation, their general feeling is that they prefer treatment to prison.

Of course they're in favor of lower sentences, they spend 25 to life here! It's absolutely ludicrous!

In the USA, pedophiles are generally accepted as part the Democratic base. In Great Britain, the Liberal Democrats are the most friendly to pedophiles, followed by Labour.

Well, they are human, after all.

The Netherlands has recently established a political party JUST FOR pedophiles, and is now apparently leaning towards abolishing the age of consent.

Abolishing the age of consent doesn't mean that the kid will stop saying no.

In 30 years, I can envision the Supreme Court ruling, based on Lawrence v. Texas and subequent rulings, that child molestation is actually normal and cannot be prohibited by the States.

If it is considered normal then, you can assume that few people think it's sick then.

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
-Associate Justice Sandra O'Connor (Casey)

OMGWTF!! IT'S LIFE, THE UNIVERSE, AND EVERYTHING!!!

Someone who commited such crimes? Absolutely. The key is to remember that just because one abused does not make all paedophiles criminals just because they are attracted to children. Do not punish the innocent for the crimes of the criminal.


Maybe you haven't acted on your desires that to me does not make you any less than a sick bastard.

By the way it is illeagal to view and or own child pornography, so if you do then therefore you are a criminal, a sick perverted one at that.

What joy can you possibly get from looking at children. You need help and you need it fast.
Its because of sick bastards like you I can no longer go to the beach and take photos of my children while they participate in surf carnivals, I can't photograph them recieveing awards at school or anywhere else other peoples children are. So thanks to sickos like you I miss recording important childhood milestones. Thanks a lot

Maybe you haven't acted on your desires that to me does not make you any less than a sick bastard.

By the way it is illeagal to view and or own child pornography, so if you do then therefore you are a criminal, a sick perverted one at that.

What joy can you possibly get from looking at children. You need help and you need it fast.
Its because of sick bastards like you I can no longer go to the beach and take photos of my children while they participate in surf carnivals, I can't photograph them recieveing awards at school or anywhere else other peoples children are. So thanks to sickos like you I miss recording important childhood milestones. Thanks a lot
Hey, you know what? I'm sick of trying to make people like you listen to logic or any semblance of reason. I'm sick of trying to explain things to people like you. I want help but I can't get it! You know why? Because those of us that do seek help essentially destroy their lives with the current social stigma, Not that you care. Not that you'd ever have any sympathy for those of us who know our desires are wrong and want help. Not that you'd ever even THINK that maybe...just maybe...we're not the monsters you think we are.

If that's all you said, then you'd have a decent argument.
That's exactly what I said. Let me get you a quote:
I take it that you aren't attracted to kids? In that case, statistics presented in this thread indicate that you're more likely to molest a child than he is.
As you can see, the only difference I was addressing was pedophile/not pedophile.
Maybe you haven't acted on your desires that to me does not make you any less than a sick bastard.

I should think not. (You should really watch your double and tripple negatives.)

By the way it is illeagal to view and or own child pornography, so if you do then therefore you are a criminal, a sick perverted one at that.

You have no evidence that he has commited any crime even the "crime" of viewing forbidden information. This is inflamatory, and I ask you to cease immediately.

What joy can you possibly get from looking at children.

Quite a bit, actually. Thanks for asking.

You need help and you need it fast.

Like he said, there's no help for people like us. People like you are too intent on murdering us to bother to think about ways to help us.

Its because of sick bastards like you I can no longer go to the beach and take photos of my children while they participate in surf carnivals, I can't photograph them recieveing awards at school or anywhere else other peoples children are. So thanks to sickos like you I miss recording important childhood milestones. Thanks a lot
Don't blame that on us. The reason people can't take pictures of kids is because of the hysteria around us, and that's perpetuated by people like you who ignore the facts and desire to do us harm in any way they can.

What joy can you possibly get from looking at children. You need help and you need it fast.

You know how some people like kinky sex? Same reason.

That's exactly what I said. Let me get you a quote:

As you can see, the only difference I was addressing was pedophile/not pedophile.


However, it's disingenuous to suggest that this is what your reply implies. Again, you oversimplify your claim to bastardize the argument. It's disingenuous to suggest he would fit into a demographic that is statistically more likely to commit child molestation unless one simplifies it much too far. Am I guilty of such simplification? Yes. Doesn't make it right.

However, it's disingenuous to suggest that this is what your reply implies. Again, you oversimplify your claim to bastardize the argument. It's disingenuous to suggest he would fit into a demographic that is statistically more likely to commit child molestation unless one simplifies it much too far. Am I guilty of such simplification? Yes. Doesn't make it right.
Jocabia, my reply implies only that being attracted to children makes one less likely to rape children.

You've cited other potential risk factors, but you've failed to address the fact that taken in isolation, pedophilia is a midigating rather than an agrivating factor in the likelyhood of molestation. If it were an agrivating factor, pedophiles would be more likely to molest.

Jocabia, my reply implies only that being attracted to children makes one less likely to rape children.

No, it doesn't. There's the conclusion you're drawing that is not found in the evidence. It doesn't make one less likely to rape children. It actually makes one more likely according to the same source you're citing. It makes you less likely than those with rape fantasies by an extreme margin, but it's still higher than those with neither.


You've cited other potential risk factors, but you've failed to address the fact that taken in isolation, pedophilia is a midigating rather than an agrivating factor in the likelyhood of molestation. If it were an agrivating factor, pedophiles would be more likely to molest.
It doesn't exist in isolation. If you actually isolated pedophilia it would increase the likelihood of child molestation. This study didn't do that. It looked pedophilia in conjuction with a factors found in other offenders. It showed they are statistically less likely than non-pedophiles with rape fantasies.

No, it doesn't. There's the conclusion you're drawing that is not found in the evidence. It doesn't make one less likely to rape children. It actually makes one more likely according to the same source you're citing. It makes you less likely than those with rape fantasies by an extreme margin, but it's still higher than those with neither.



It doesn't exist in isolation. If you actually isolated pedophilia it would increase the likelihood of child molestation. This study didn't do that. It looked pedophilia in conjuction with a factors found in other offenders. It showed they are statistically less likely than non-pedophiles with rape fantasies.
Look, take all people who are attracted to children, and all people who aren't, and adjusting for the relative size of the populations, there are still less child molesters among those attracted to children.

You're trying to suggest that a different division is more reasonable than pedophiles/nonpedophiles, but there's no reason to believe, if we're to question pedophilia in isolation, that limiting the nonpedophiles to people who don't have violent fantasies is at all conductive to an appropriate comparison. In fact, the only thing dividing people up that way could do is confuse the issue of whether pedophiles are more likely to molest than nonpedophiles.

If you're going to make a general statement about nonpedophiles, you take all nonpedophiles, make sense?

Child molesters will soon be granted rights under our legal system. After all, they are merely acting out of attraction. If it is consensual it does not hurt anybody. This is the evil argument that will be made, and using the precedent from gay marriage cases they will win. Child molesting will, in effect, be legalized. I wish it were not so, but it will be. A slow downward spiral as our culture continues to deteriorate.

Child molesters will soon be granted rights under our legal system. After all, they are merely acting out of attraction.

You haven't been reading the thread, have you? 90% of child molesters aren't attracted to children.

If it is consensual it does not hurt anybody. This is the evil argument that will be made, and using the precedent from gay marriage cases they will win. Child molesting will, in effect, be legalized. I wish it were not so, but it will be. A slow downward spiral as our culture continues to deteriorate.
I think you're ignoring the ever popular arguement that children aren't capable of consenting, so it can never be consentual. Regardless, your "the sky is falling" alarmism is a best case scenario from my point of view. Especially if you presume a limitation in legality to actual consent, and coersion and physical force remain illegal to use to obtain sex.

You haven't been reading the thread, have you? 90% of child molesters aren't attracted to children.

I think you're ignoring the ever popular arguement that children aren't capable of consenting, so it can never be consentual. Regardless, your "the sky is falling" alarmism is a best case scenario from my point of view. Especially if you presume a limitation in legality to actual consent, and coersion and physical force remain illegal to use to obtain sex.

ah, I would love to see your data on that 90% figure ( heh)
and um....yeah age of consent can be changed at any time by an activist judge. All 50 states used to outlaw Sodomy. In 1960 anybody could claim that gay marriage could never happen because of that. Times change, it seems, often for the worse.

Look, take all people who are attracted to children, and all people who aren't, and adjusting for the relative size of the populations, there are still less child molesters among those attracted to children.

Yes, and again if your conclusion stopped there it would be fine. However, you claim that being attracted to children makes you less likely to offend which is not what the data says.


You're trying to suggest that a different division is more reasonable than pedophiles/nonpedophiles, but there's no reason to believe, if we're to question pedophilia in isolation, that limiting the nonpedophiles to people who don't have violent fantasies is at all conductive to an appropriate comparison. In fact, the only thing dividing people up that way could do is confuse the issue of whether pedophiles are more likely to molest than nonpedophiles.

If you're going to make a general statement about nonpedophiles, you take all nonpedophiles, make snse?
Your general statement is more than misleading and cannot be drawn from the data. Being attracted to children makes you slightly more likely to offend in isolation. The group that is most likely to offend by a large margin is the group that has fantasies of rape.

People who have fantasies of non-consentual sex according to the study you are citing comprise 100% of the population of those convicted of sexual molestation. All pedophiles have fantasies of non-consentual sex.

Now see how the above paragraph if one is not clear suggests something that is not true. It's exactly what you're doing. The fact is while pedophiles are among those that have a potential for child molestation their potential for offending is far less than non-pedophile members of the group of people who fantasize about non-consentual sex. However, given that those that have no such fantasies are not seen in the population of child molesters at all, that would be the group that is safest to children, obviously.

It is conducive, because it doesn't bastardize the data to suggest something it does not say.

ah, I would love to see your data on that 90% figure ( heh)
and um....yeah age of consent can be changed at any time by an activist judge. All 50 states used to outlaw Sodomy. In 1960 anybody could claim that gay marriage could never happen because of that. Times change, it seems, often for the worse.

It's a study by the FBI under Lanning. It's been cited repeatedly in the thread, but you're free to look it up. You can also find similar figures from Dr. Samenow, a reknowned criminal psychologist who very much considers pedophilia to be dangerous.

Meanwhile, I don't find it amusing in the least that you cannot tell the difference between consentual acts you don't like and non-consentual acts. It's actually rather sad.

Yes, and again if your conclusion stopped there it would be fine. However, you claim that being attracted to children makes you less likely to offend which is not what the data says.
Your general statement is more than misleading and cannot be drawn from the data. Being attracted to children makes you slightly more likely to offend in isolation. The group that is most likely to offend by a large margin is the group that has fantasies of rape.

People who have fantasies of non-consentual sex according to the study you are citing comprise 100% of the population of those convicted of sexual molestation. All pedophiles have fantasies of non-consentual sex.

Now see how the above paragraph if one is not clear suggests something that is not true. It's exactly what you're doing. The fact is while pedophiles are among those that have a potential for child molestation their potential for offending is far less than non-pedophile members of the group of people who fantasize about non-consentual sex. However, given that those that have no such fantasies are not seen in the population of child molesters at all, that would be the group that is safest to children, obviously.

It is conducive, because it doesn't bastardize the data to suggest something it does not say.

so.....I think I follow this....if you are attracted to kids you are more likely to act on it if you like raping them. Well that does make some obvious sense. What I don't understand is how was the data arrived at that most pedophiles do not molest kids. I always thought that was what a pedophile did. 90% was the figure used by another person on this thread. I find that to be impossible. Also.....what did you mean by....slightly?

ah, I would love to see your data on that 90% figure ( heh)

It was stated by FBI agent Lanning, a specialist in sex offenders. I'll link you to an article where he says it.
http://old.valleyadvocate.com/articles/pedophile.html
The relevant section:

About 90 percent [of child molesters] are so-called "situational child molesters" who capitalize on opportunities to molest children but don't necessarily prefer sex with children ... The 10 percent of child molesters who make up the second category are the bona fide "pedophiles," those who genuinely favor sex with children.


and um....yeah age of consent can be changed at any time by an activist judge. All 50 states used to outlaw Sodomy. In 1960 anybody could claim that gay marriage could never happen because of that. Times change, it seems, often for the worse.
Again, this is nothing more than alarmism.

It's a study by the FBI under Lanning. It's been cited repeatedly in the thread, but you're free to look it up. You can also find similar figures from Dr. Samenow, a reknowned criminal psychologist who very much considers pedophilia to be dangerous.

Meanwhile, I don't find it amusing in the least that you cannot tell the difference between consentual acts you don't like and non-consentual acts. It's actually rather sad.

ah but who is to say what is consensual and what is not....the mere text of the law..? that never stopped a judge before! I saw the posts that were previously stated. I did not see anything about the specific nature of how "90%" was arrived at

ah but who is to say what is consensual and what is not....the mere text of the law..? that never stopped a judge before! I saw the posts that were previously stated. I did not see anything about the specific nature of how "90%" was arrived at

You didn't? Did you look? We cited the actual studies. I'm tired of citing sources to people who run away as soon as they get pounded by evidence.

Meanwhile, what says what is consentual is *gasp* consent. Rape laws have gotten more strict over time, not less. There is no support for your claims. Hmmm... seems like a repeat of last night.

so.....I think I follow this....if you are attracted to kids you are more likely to act on it if you like raping them. Well that does make some obvious sense. What I don't understand is how was the data arrived at that most pedophiles do not molest kids. I always thought that was what a pedophile did. 90% was the figure used by another person on this thread. I find that to be impossible. Also.....what did you mean by....slightly?

Um, no, you don't understand it. Traditional rapists sometimes rape targets of opportunity. Targets less likely to convict them. Targets easier to control. Children. They are not attracted to children in a pedophillic way. Again, you would do well to do a little research. This stuff is pretty critical to understanding the debate.

And another basic thing to understand is that pedophilia is attraction to chidren. Most NEVER act on that attraction. EVER.

It was stated by FBI agent Lanning, a specialist in sex offenders. I'll link you to an article where he says it.
http://old.valleyadvocate.com/articles/pedophile.html
The relevant section:


Again, this is nothing more than alarmism.

Your article made a claim. It did not say how it arrived at the data. Naming "studies" without telling who funded them or what they did is about as good as using wikipedia. IN other words..terrible.

I will stop being an "alarmist" when you show me how judges that "found" ways to legalize and find Constitutional rights to abortion, sodomy, and gay marriage will not continue to chew our society to the bone.

And another basic thing to understand is that pedophilia is attraction to chidren. Most NEVER act on that attraction. EVER.
How are such studies to reflect this conducted?

Yes, and again if your conclusion stopped there it would be fine. However, you claim that being attracted to children makes you less likely to offend which is not what the data says.

Pedophiles make up 20% of the population but only 10% of child molesters. I really have no idea why you don't see the obvious conclusion as being that pedophiles are less likely to molest children. It boggles the mind.

Your general statement is more than misleading and cannot be drawn from the data. Being attracted to children makes you slightly more likely to offend in isolation.

Evidence? So far, all the evidence presented has shown the oposite.

The group that is most likely to offend by a large margin is the group that has fantasies of rape.

Are you suggesting that pedophiles are less likely to have fantasies about rape? And you don't consider pedophilia to be a midagating factor?

People who have fantasies of non-consentual sex according to the study you are citing comprise 100% of the population of those convicted of sexual molestation. All pedophiles have fantasies of non-consentual sex.

And now you're making shit up. You're deliberately using the concepts rape and statutory rape in different ways as you write out your arguement. You say the ones with rape fantasies are more dangerous than the ones with pedophilic fantasies, and then you make no distinction between the two here.

Now see how the above paragraph if one is not clear suggests something that is not true. It's exactly what you're doing. The fact is while pedophiles are among those that have a potential for child molestation their potential for offending is far less than non-pedophile members of the group of people who fantasize about non-consentual sex. However, given that those that have no such fantasies are not seen in the population of child molesters at all, that would be the group that is safest to children, obviously.

You're acting like we can isolate the factor which leads to rape in normal people. The fact is, whatever X-factor leads to creating child molesters, pedophiles have less of it than nonpedophiles, or we have some other component to our psychological makeup that midigates that X-factor.

It is conducive, because it doesn't bastardize the data to suggest something it does not say.
Bastardizing data, huh? Again, where exactly did this comparison of pedophilia to rape fantasies come from? Which one of us is ignoring the simplest implications of statistics he's been using throughout the entire thread?

What's wrong with you today? Usually you're arguing circles around me.
so.....I think I follow this....if you are attracted to kids you are more likely to act on it if you like raping them. Well that does make some obvious sense. What I don't understand is how was the data arrived at that most pedophiles do not molest kids. I always thought that was what a pedophile did. 90% was the figure used by another person on this thread. I find that to be impossible. Also.....what did you mean by....slightly?
You see, Jocabia. You're confusing the bigots. And after we'd made such an effort to explain things to them. Did your account get hacked or something?

You didn't? Did you look? We cited the actual studies. I'm tired of citing sources to people who run away as soon as they get pounded by evidence.

Meanwhile, what says what is consentual is *gasp* consent. Rape laws have gotten more strict over time, not less. There is no support for your claims. Hmmm... seems like a repeat of last night.

I see no specific study with who did it and the methodology attached. It is not there. Don't hand me this bull about rape laws getting more strict. If a 15 year old female has sex in NY with an 21 year old and gets pregnant ( she is below the age of consent), not only will the 21 year old not get in trouble but the girl can get her baby killed without her parents finding out. Isnt that great? Oh and about last night...I left because you were being a name calling flamer. I can't wait until you start tonight. Should be in about the next 3 or 4 posts, the words "dumb", " stupid", "in over your head", etc. will spill forth instead of facts ( or in this case studies, in last nights case where you found a wall of seperation of church and state in the federalist papers).

You see, Jocabia. You're confusing the bigots. And after we'd made such an effort to explain things to them. Did your account get hacked or something?

ah, after your defense of child molesters I am a bigot. Wow. Still waiting on that data.

Barrygoldwater, since I suspect you are a puppet account(or a troll account not made by a regular user)--and a poorly thought-out one at that--I will only repeat the simple fact that one that is attracted to children--that is, a paedophile--is not automatically a child molester. Most paedophiles recognize that their attraction is wrong. They, however, cannot seek the help they need due to social stigma. If we open up society to helping paedophiles, I guarentee you things will be better off. For EVERYONE.

Your article made a claim. It did not say how it arrived at the data. Naming "studies" without telling who funded them or what they did is about as good as using wikipedia. IN other words..terrible.

Here's one that puts the percentage at 14.8% of offenders.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/acc_ctte/completed_inquiries/pre1996/ncapedo/report/c02.htm

Here is a study that puts the percentage of pedophiles in the general population at 33%.
http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/97-048_article.html

Take those numbers together, and you see that pedophiles are less likely than nonpedophiles to molest children.

I will stop being an "alarmist" when you show me how judges that "found" ways to legalize and find Constitutional rights to abortion, sodomy, and gay marriage will not continue to chew our society to the bone.
"Oh noes! Teh gays is gettin' rights!!!!!!!11111111"

Like I said, alarmist.

Edit:
You know what, here's a site which has collected a lot of the relevant information. I've posted it before, but if you really want to look at the data, you should check it out.

http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/MAAs

I will only repeat the simple fact that one that is attracted to children--that is, a paedophile--is not automatically a child molester. Most paedophiles recognize that their attraction is wrong. They, however, cannot seek the help they need due to social stigma. If we open up society to helping paedophiles, I guarentee you things will be better off. For EVERYONE.

yes, I have read your claims and that dopey article but I see no scientific studies or data of any kind. I see claims. This does not suffice. How can society help pedophiles? I thought we already were by keeping the stigma alive and strong. This is, after all, according to you..what keeps them from hurting children. Why not foster the stigma if it saves kids from being raped and adults from jail time?

Pedophiles make up 20% of the population but only 10% of child molesters. I really have no idea why you don't see the obvious conclusion as being that pedophiles are less likely to molest children. It boggles the mind.

Ha. Because they are only less likely than other people with non-consentual fantasies. They are more likely than the majority of the population. It's absolutely present in the actual study. However, you are limiting the scope of what you're looking at to make a conclusion that is not present in the study.

If you're trying to prove that you're less likely to molest children than other people with non-consentual fantasies, then booyah, ya did it. However, if you're comparing yourself with people who have neither fantasy, you're pretty much infinitely more likely, since according to this study their likelihood is nil.



Evidence? So far, all the evidence presented has shown the oposite.

I'm sorry? Um, the Lanning study you cited mentions clearly that EVERY SINGLE PERSON they studied had fantasies about non-consentual sex, whether it be rape or pedophilia. Both Lanning and Samenow reached the same conclusion of the 10% and the same conclusion that it begins with a rich fantasy life including non-consentual sex. Did you actually read the study you've been citing for your entire time on NS?




Are you suggesting that pedophiles are less likely to have fantasies about rape? And you don't consider pedophilia to be a midagating factor?

I'm suggesting that rape fantasies are found more often in people who offend. Pedophilic fantasies less often. But non-consentual fantasies 100% of the time. 100%. People who have neither are the least likely offenders according to the studies you are citing. You should try reading them.

And, yes, it would appear from the evidence that rape fantasies are not commonly found in pedophiles. I don't know a reason for this, but the study we are talking about certainly suggests that is true.


And now you're making shit up. You're deliberately using the concepts rape and statutory rape in different ways as you write out your arguement. You say the ones with rape fantasies are more dangerous than the ones with pedophilic fantasies, and then you make no distinction between the two here.

Did you read the paragraph after it where I said that by wording it that way, while technically true, it would suggest something untrue. "Now see how the above paragraph if one is not clear suggests something that is not true." I was referring to the paragraph that you were replying to that is worded in a way that it suggests something untrue without saying it. I wasn't actually making the argument. I was showing you why the way you are arguing implies an untrue assertion even when you don't actually say it. Thanks for proving my point. Couldn't have done it better myself. What was that about arguing circles around you?


You're acting like we can isolate the factor which leads to rape in normal people. The fact is, whatever X-factor leads to creating child molesters, pedophiles have less of it than nonpedophiles, or we have some other component to our psychological makeup that midigates that X-factor.

Again, NO. You're again, intentionally simplifying the study to make it look like having pedophilic tendencies makes a person safer. However, if you look at people without rape fantasies pedophiles still have a chance to offend. Non-pedophiles do not. That means that the vast, vast majority of non-pedophiles do not have any of the known factors that lead to child molestation according to the studies YOU are citing. All child molestors have either pedophilic tendencies or rape fantasies or both, but never neither. If you're looking for a factor that isolates what is dangerous, then it's fantasies of non-consentual sex. However, it's important to not that of the fantasies the most dangerous of them by a large margin is rape fantasies.


Bastardizing data, huh? Again, where exactly did this comparison of pedophilia to rape fantasies come from? Which one of us is ignoring the simplest implications of statistics he's been using throughout the entire thread?

You're not looking at the actual results of the study and what it was actually studying. It was looking for a breakdown of offenders and what is common about them. What they found that was common that ALL of them had non-consentual fantasies.


What's wrong with you today? Usually you're arguing circles around me.

I still am. Only one of us is ignoring the actuall studying we've both cited and it's not me.


You see, Jocabia. You're confusing the bigots. And after we'd made such an effort to explain things to them. Did your account get hacked or something?
I can't help it if you're not following along. If you're going to use this study, make sure you make it's conclusions clear. A - the vast majority of child molesters will never offend. B - fantasies that normalize non-consentual sex are dangerous.

What you don't get is that you've been trotting out this study for weeks. Hard to deny a study that concludes what you don't like when you've been using it for so long to nail the people who are hyperbolous, huh?

ah, after your defense of child molesters I am a bigot. Wow.

Lie to yourself if you have to. I know better. Not once have I defended child molesters, in my life. Feel free to provide a quote if you can. You can't.

And you are a bigot, and not just because you feel it's okay to discriminate against pedophiles. You also have gone on record as being against gays, which you'll find a surprising number of people consider to be a bigoted view.

Still waiting on that data.
No you aren't. You've got what you were after when Jocabia made that confusing statement which you took to mean pedophiles are more dangerous than everyone else. The fact is that we aren't. I provided you with a few links to pursue, but you won't bother to read them. You'll just keep on spouting the same alarmist bullshit you've been spouting since you showed up here.
yes, I have read your claims and that dopey article but I see no scientific studies or data of any kind. I see claims. This does not suffice. How can society help pedophiles? I thought we already were by keeping the stigma alive and strong. This is, after all, according to you..what keeps them from hurting children. Why not foster the stigma if it saves kids from being raped and adults from jail time?
You and I clearly have very different ideas about the meaning of the word "help". I'm rather inclined to offer to "help" you.

yes, I have read your claims and that dopey article but I see no scientific studies or data of any kind. I see claims. This does not suffice. How can society help pedophiles? I thought we already were by keeping the stigma alive and strong. This is, after all, according to you..what keeps them from hurting children. Why not foster the stigma if it saves kids from being raped and adults from jail time?

Ha. Okay. Let's look at a bit of data, then, shall we?

Here's a summary - all of the studies are directly cited with all source material and who and where they made the conclusions used on this link -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

The Kinsey analysis found it to be between 2 and 10 % of actual molesters. He was studing it from a sexual preference point of view, so you won't like that one.

However, Lanning and Samenow were both studying criminals. They found the numbers to be 10%.

Here are the actual studies - http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf

Here's one from Australia, placing it at 14.8
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/acc_ctte/completed_inquiries/pre1996/ncapedo/report/c02.htm

Here's one that puts the percentage at 14.8% of offenders.
the link says nothing of the kind..but it does say " allowance has to be made for the fact that they are merely estimates, very tentative ones in some cases, and that the methodology and definitions underlying them are not identical. ", wow.http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/acc_ctte/completed_inquiries/pre1996/ncapedo/report/c02.htm

Here is a study that puts the percentage of pedophiles in the general population at 33%.
http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/97-048_article.html
80 people in a study....hehehe

Take those numbers together, and you see that pedophiles are less likely than nonpedophiles to molest children.

those studies are not studies

"Oh noes! Teh gays is gettin' rights!!!!!!!11111111"

homosexuality was considered a mental perversion , immoral, and/or a mental diease for centuries of law. In the last 40 years that has changed. Who knows what the next 40 will bring. I believe the bible was right when it called both an abomination.

Edit:
You know what, here's a site which has collected a lot of the relevant information. I've posted it before, but if you really want to look at the data, you should check it out.

http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/MAAs

one of the goals on that site is "To promote a degree of understanding regarding an attraction to minors.", as I said....wow. .

And you are a bigot, and not just because you feel it's okay to discriminate against pedophiles. You also have gone on record as being against gays, which you'll find a surprising number of people consider to be a bigoted view.

No you aren't. You've got what you were after when Jocabia made that confusing statement which you took to mean pedophiles are more dangerous than everyone else. The fact is that we aren't. I provided you with a few links to pursue, but you won't bother to read them. You'll just keep on spouting the same alarmist bullshit you've been spouting since you showed up here.

You and I clearly have very different ideas about the meaning of the word "help". I'm rather inclined to offer to "help" you.

First of all I do feel that it is ok to discriminate against a person who is perverted. You bet I do. Secondly...I don't think you can help me.....but lets look at your argument. You said that a social stigma keeps pedophiles from acting on their feelings. Isnt that a good thing in your opinion? It is good not to hurt kids and go to jail, right?

one of the goals on that site is "To promote a degree of understanding regarding an attraction to minors.", as I said....wow. .
Indeed. Wow. Actual tolorance for people who cannot control the fact that they are attracted to children. What a horrifying idea. What a really stupid thing to do. I mean, to actually ask society to open up a little, to be open to helping them in whatever way society could so that the paedophiles would never have to worry about being in situations with children, so that maybe, eventually, they might actually stop being attracted to children altogether? So that they could live lives of their own? Nah. Such an idiotic idea. Far better for society to hate and punish them, so that those who do come out destroy their lives and those that don't stay secretive, always paranoid. Far better to simply write them off. Best thing to do, right? Gotta think of the children.

(:rolleyes: doesn't even BEGIN to cover it...)

Ha. Okay. Let's look at a bit of data, then, shall we?

Here's a summary - all of the studies are directly cited with all source material and who and where they made the conclusions used on this link -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

The Kinsey analysis found it to be between 2 and 10 % of actual molesters. He was studing it from a sexual preference point of view, so you won't like that one.

However, Lanning and Samenow were both studying criminals. They found the numbers to be 10%.

Here are the actual studies - http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf

Here's one from Australia, placing it at 14.8
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/acc_ctte/completed_inquiries/pre1996/ncapedo/report/c02.htm

wikipedia does not count for jack because you or I can change it to say anything we want. Giving me a 160 page book to read does not make it easy to see where your figures come from. I think it is deceptive ploy. The Australia one...specificly states that its own data is not accurate and is mere guesswork.

one of the goals on that site is "To promote a degree of understanding regarding an attraction to minors.", as I said....wow. .

So this passes as an argument for you? You dismiss all date without presenting ANY of your own. Sad. Debaters present evidence. So far your argument amounts to "I don't like it so anything that is counter to what I expect regarding it MUST be wrong". Do you have an actual argument?

wikipedia does not count for jack because you or I can change it to say anything we want. Giving me a 160 page book to read does not make it easy to see where your figures come from. I think it is deceptive ploy. The Australia one...specificly states that its own data is not accurate and is mere guesswork.

So in other words, you dismissed each one without reading it. The 'book' is the actual study you requested. It has a summary and the findings are cited by us and by wikipedia. You believe anybody can edit wikipedia without knowing what they're talking about? Do it. You'll get a scathing letter telling you to get an education and it'll be right back. The article is more sourced than any encyclopedic article you'll ever find. It has around fifty sources all linked and directly cited.

Basically, I see your argument amounts to not accepting any evidence that doesn't justify your bigotry. If all of our evidence is wrong, how about presenting yours?

Indeed. Wow. Actual tolorance for people who cannot control the fact that they are attracted to children. What a horrifying idea. What a really stupid thing to do. I mean, to actually ask society to open up a little, to be open to helping them in whatever way society could so that the paedophiles would never have to worry about being in situations with children, so that maybe, eventually, they might actually stop being attracted to children altogether? So that they could live lives of their own? Nah. Such an idiotic idea. Far better for society to hate and punish them, so that those who do come out destroy their lives and those that don't stay secretive, always paranoid. Far better to simply write them off. Best thing to do, right? Gotta think of the children.

..)

I will not be tolerant of those who are guilty of such offensive perversions. I have sympathy for the disorder but that does not make me like the person any better. If society "opened up" it would not cure them as you claim. That is illogical. It is such a vile concept. Those who act on it should be jailed and those who keep it secret should do just that. In this fantasy land where we can embrace these people...nothing changes! Those who act on it go to prison or ..."therapy" and those who do not are still stuck with the fact that they cannot act on it.

So this passes as an argument for you? You dismiss all date without presenting ANY of your own. Sad. Debaters present evidence. So far your argument amounts to "I don't like it so anything that is counter to what I expect regarding it MUST be wrong". Do you have an actual argument?

my argument is the following:

All people who molest children are evil and should be jailed for long periods of time.
All pedophiles should be made aware of how dangerous their condition is and be forced to restrain it
No pedophile and/or child molestor should be accepted as completely normal because it is a virtually incurable problem that causes great harm to society and lies outside the conduct of any reasonable ethical or moral code.

This is an often overlooked fact when it comes to paedophiles and paedophilism. Many paedophiles will make the case that sexual attraction to children is like any other sexuality, and I agree...to a point...

See, that's where people go wrong. Sexuality is a learned behavior. I am willing to accept that some people may have a genetic predisposition towards abberant sexual behavior, but that doesn't excuse them in behaving in a way that is destructive to themselves, and their fellow beings.

I believe in the power of human will, people can do (or not do) anything that they set their minds to. When people say 'that's just the way I am' they are denying their power to govern their own wills, and claiming to be merely a puppet moved about by the whims of their basest desires, over which they have no control. This is a lie.

Men are free, they are agents unto themselves, and are free to act for themselves, and not to be acted upon.

But when people choose to commit immoral or unlawful actions, certain negative consequences inevitibly follow. Try to reform them, try to help them if you can, I am very much in favor of being merciful, but if they will not forsake their crimes then we cannont show them mercy, because it is more important to protect the rights of their potential future victems, than it is to protect the rights of these deviants. The consequences are heavy, but in the vast majority of cases the culprits were not ignorant of the fact that what they were doing was wrong, and that they would be punished severely.

They knew it was a snake when they picked it up, so they are the only ones that they can blamed when it bites them.

Such a sad state of afairs, would to God that man would learn temperance, then we wouldn't see such horrible acts being perpetrated against the innocent...

[QUOTE=Jocabia

Basically, I see your argument amounts to not accepting any evidence that doesn't justify your bigotry. If all of our evidence is wrong, how about presenting yours?[/QUOTE]

The evidence that you gave was a book that would take hours to read, wikipedia, and a study by the australian parliament that has a disclaimer saying that the information is not very accurate. That is shady indeed.

See, that's where people go wrong. Sexuality is a learned behavior. I am willing to accept that some people may have a genetic predisposition towards abberant sexual behavior, but that doesn't excuse them in behaving in a way that destructive to themselves, and their fellow beings.

I believe in the power of human will, people can do (or not do) anything they they set their minds to. When people say 'that's just the way I am' they are denying their own soverign will, and claiming to be merely a puppet moved about by the whims of their physical desires, over which they have no control. Which is a lie.

Men are free, they are agents unto themselves, and are free to act for themselves, and not to be acted upon.

But when people choose to commit immoral or unlawful actions, certain negative consequences inevitibly follow. Try to reform them, try to help them if you can, I am very much in favor of being merciful, but if they will not forsake their crimes then we cannont show them mercy, because it is more important to protect the rights of their potential future victems, than it is to protect the rights of these deviants. The consequences are heavy, but in the vast majority of cases the culprits were not ignorant of the fact that what they were doing was wrong, and that they would be punished severely.

They knew it was a snake when they picked it up, so they are the only ones that they can blamed when it bites them.

Such a sad state of afairs, would to God that man would learn temperance, then we wouldn't see such horrible acts being perpetrated against the innocent...

Responsibility for ones own actions? In modern liberal society? I don't know if thats gonna fly on this thread. :p

I will not be tolerant of those who are guilty of such offensive perversions. I have sympathy for the disorder but that does not make me like the person any better. If society "opened up" it would not cure them as you claim. That is illogical. It is such a vile concept. Those who act on it should be jailed and those who keep it secret should do just that. In this fantasy land where we can embrace these people...nothing changes! Those who act on it go to prison or ..."therapy" and those who do not are still stuck with the fact that they cannot act on it.
Wrong, sir! Wrong!

I am not claiming a miracle cure-all. But you do not understand the sheer amount of stress a paedophile who knows his attraction is wrong is under. You do not understand how much of a relief it would be for said paedophile to be able to talk about his attraction, to be able to get psychological help. Science may hopefully one day lead to a way to cure this disorder. But until then, we can help with therapy and the like. I am not proposing we let paedophiles have sex with children. That is, in fact, the kind of thing that opening up would help prevent. Why? Because we help them learn fully how to avoid ever even contemplating actual sex with children. Consider how much we are able to help those with other mental disorders, how badly they would have suffered in the past. This is no different. Things will not change immediately. It is not a magical panacea. But, it will help, a great deal. If you are that bigoted by your idiotic beliefs, regardless of their source, then we are through discussing this. Go rant about me and other paedophiles in your church or whatever place you find comfort. Leave those of us with sense and reason alone.

See, that's where people go wrong. Sexuality is a learned behavior. I am willing to accept that some people may have a genetic predisposition towards abberant sexual behavior, but that doesn't excuse them in behaving in a way that destructive to themselves, and their fellow beings.

I believe in the power of human will, people can do (or not do) anything they they set their minds to. When people say 'that's just the way I am' they are denying their own soverign will, and claiming to be merely a puppet moved about by the whims of their physical desires, over which they have no control. Which is a lie.

Men are free, they are agents unto themselves, and are free to act for themselves, and not to be acted upon.

But when people choose to commit immoral or unlawful actions, certain negative consequences inevitibly follow. Try to reform them, try to help them if you can, I am very much in favor of being merciful, but if they will not forsake their crimes then we cannont show them mercy, because it is more important to protect the rights of their potential future victems, than it is to protect the rights of these deviants. The consequences are heavy, but in the vast majority of cases the culprits were not ignorant of the fact that what they were doing was wrong, and that they would be punished severely.

They knew it was a snake when they picked it up, so they are the only ones that they can blamed when it bites them.

Such a sad state of afairs, would to God that man would learn temperance, then we wouldn't see such horrible acts being perpetrated against the innocent...
You seem like a reasonable fellow. Unfortunate that you read but just the first post. Basically, we were talking about those paedophiles that hadn't commited crimes, those that knew their sexual attraction was wrong and want help. Do you agree, then, as I assume you might, that you would be open and willing to aid those of us who seek help? Do you agree that opening up society to aiding us, to helping us with therapy and whatnot else for our disorder is a good idea? I would in no circumstances ever argue in favor of an actual child molester. But a paedophile is not automatically one.

The evidence that you gave was a book that would take hours to read, wikipedia, and a study by the australian parliament that has a disclaimer saying that the information is not very accurate. That is shady indeed.
Shady as compared to a person who presents no evidence like yourself? Shady as compared who didn't happen to follow ANY of the sources of the wiki article? Shady as someone who rejected an Australian study that actually doesn't say it's not accurate? It says that some people may not agree with how they define their terms because the terms are generally considered a bit nebulous and they chose to make them VERY specific. They define their terms clearly. They explain their methodology. Science has something called peer review. And forgive me for saying so, but it consists of more than some nonsense that someone picks up by reading a sentence of the entire study.

Shady as someone he rejected six sources so far on for superficial reasons rather than addressing any problems with methodology or sourcing?

You mean shady like that?

Responsibility for ones own actions? In modern liberal society? I don't know if thats gonna fly on this thread. :p
Flamebaiting? Weren't you the guy who suggested that such tactics were beneath you? Anything to substitute for actually presenting any evidence for you claims, huh?

You seem like a reasonable fellow. Unfortunate that you read but just the first post. Basically, we were talking about those paedophiles that hadn't commited crimes, those that knew their sexual attraction was wrong and want help. Do you agree, then, as I assume you might, that you would be open and willing to aid those of us who seek help? Do you agree that opening up society to aiding us, to helping us with therapy and whatnot else for our disorder is a good idea? I would in no circumstances ever argue in favor of an actual child molester. But a paedophile is not automatically one.

Very much in favor. My church has a program to help people with these sort of disorders. It has a very high success rate from what I've heard.

I see no specific study with who did it and the methodology attached. It is not there.

How about no more lies, my friend? You say you want the study with the methodology attached. I gave it to you, by Lanning as we stated repeatedly, and you refused to read it. I gave you an article that references a summary of the study by Lanning and you refuse to read it. It takes more to reject evidence than closing your eyes and complaining you can't see.

Very much in favor. My church has a program to help people with these sort of disorders. It has a very high success rate from what I've heard.
Well, certainly, not all methods would be best(my own opinion, point of view, that sort of thing), but it's nice to finally see someone in your position--someone who would, if you would please forgive the possible insult, one who would be as close-minded as possible to any help whatsoever--willing to help out. I thank you, really. Makes me just a bit more hopeful, all things considered.

my argument is the following:

All people who molest children are evil and should be jailed for long periods of time.
All pedophiles should be made aware of how dangerous their condition is and be forced to restrain it
No pedophile and/or child molestor should be accepted as completely normal because it is a virtually incurable problem that causes great harm to society and lies outside the conduct of any reasonable ethical or moral code.

So you DID NOT make an argument against the data presented? Good. Because that would be silly since you're unwilling to read the study the data comes from.

Wrong, sir! Wrong!

I am not claiming a miracle cure-all. But you do not understand the sheer amount of stress a paedophile who knows his attraction is wrong is under. You do not understand how much of a relief it would be for said paedophile to be able to talk about his attraction, to be able to get psychological help. Science may hopefully one day lead to a way to cure this disorder. But until then, we can help with therapy and the like. I am not proposing we let paedophiles have sex with children. That is, in fact, the kind of thing that opening up would help prevent. Why? Because we help them learn fully how to avoid ever even contemplating actual sex with children. Consider how much we are able to help those with other mental disorders, how badly they would have suffered in the past. This is no different. Things will not change immediately. It is not a magical panacea. But, it will help, a great deal. If you are that bigoted by your idiotic beliefs, regardless of their source, then we are through discussing this. Go rant about me and other paedophiles in your church or whatever place you find comfort. Leave those of us with sense and reason alone.

But what more do you want then therapy? You already have that! You can get psychological help. Where else do you want to..talk about it? You know that it is a problem so you obviously don't want people to think that it is ok or good. But really, you say you want "to be able to get psychological help." you can't?

also, no matter what I say about the problem of pedophilia I want to make it clear that I do not hate pedophiles. I do not hate gays. I have a good friend who is. I harbor no hate. I just believe that society is best served when such thoughts/actions are eliminated from discussion, acceptance, and action.

You seem like a reasonable fellow. Unfortunate that you read but just the first post. Basically, we were talking about those paedophiles that hadn't commited crimes, those that knew their sexual attraction was wrong and want help. Do you agree, then, as I assume you might, that you would be open and willing to aid those of us who seek help? Do you agree that opening up society to aiding us, to helping us with therapy and whatnot else for our disorder is a good idea? I would in no circumstances ever argue in favor of an actual child molester. But a paedophile is not automatically one.

anybody who seeks help should get it.

Shady as compared to a person who presents no evidence like yourself? Shady as compared who didn't happen to follow ANY of the sources of the wiki article?I will not waste time looking over links from wikipedia, source of the manipulator Shady as someone who rejected an Australian study that actually doesn't say it's not accurate? it says that it is not a scientific study

Shady as someone he rejected six sources so far on for superficial reasons rather than addressing any problems with methodology or sourcing?

You mean shady like that?

Even if I was to assume that your 150 page book contained evidence of what you say it does not make me think that pedophilia is a good thing. In fact, it is not even relavent to my thoughts on that perversion.

Flamebaiting? Weren't you the guy who suggested that such tactics were beneath you? Anything to substitute for actually presenting any evidence for you claims, huh?

the little green face stood for "don't take this seriously unless you are Jacobia:p

Even if I was to assume that your 150 page book contained evidence of what you say it does not make me think that pedophilia is a good thing. In fact, it is not even relavent to my thoughts on that perversion.
So you were being dishonest when you said you actually wanted the source material with the methodology. You proved that you won't accept a simple study and no educated person thinks the write-up of a well-done study is going to be brief, so please let's not have any dishonest requests for sources you aren't going to read. You didn't come her to educate yourself or learn anything about your bigotry. You came to preach.

See, here's the thing. Society looks at paedophiles and sees only monsters. No paedophile who has come out and is honest will ever garner another job. No paedophile will ever be trusted with doing even the simplest of tasks. No paedophile will be trusted with a house, with renting an apartment, or possibly even a homeless shelter. No open, honest paedophile, right now, will EVER get the true help he or she deserves. No, what they will get instead is fear, hatred, stigmatism, and a destruction of their life. It is a simple and pure FACT. That, Barry, is the problem. I can't GET the help I need simply because it's not there. Society HAS to open up to actually, truly helping paedophiles, to recognizing that we're not monsters just because of our attraction, that most of us want help, that most of us deserve it, that most of us just want to live normal lives, and that most of us are good people, that one mental disorder does not a horrible person make. We are not monsters. We are not scheming little demons eager to molest every child we see. We are people who are normal in every other sense of the word, with a problem that needs help to fix. A problem that cannot get the help it needs right now, a problem that can easily doom said paedophile to a horrible life if help is not given. Much in the same way society opened up to helping those with other mental disorders, so too does society need to open up to helping paedophiles. It is not open at the moment. It is not, and saying it is would be foolish and ignorant. Open the door, Barry. It is people like you that currently hold it shut. Open it, and perhaps, in a few decades, we WILL be able to easily and openly talk about our mental disorder and have it helped through therapy and other means just like any other disorder. We will be able to function in society and whatnot. We will be, in other words, free. I truly hope it happens. If I were religious, I would pray for it, but as an athiest, I can only hope. Still, hope is a powerful thing. Hope has changed so many things in the past. Perhaps, just perhaps, it can change one more.

anybody who seeks help should get it.

Unfortunately, because of people like you, what they're likely to get is stigmatized and their life ruined, with a decent chance of being murdered. That doesn't encourage them to seek help. It encourages them to hide and fester.

the little green face stood for "don't take this seriously unless you are Jacobia:p

I knew what you meant. You meant to bait liberals and the people in this thread. See, we actually read the things you take the time to present. That's how one becomes educated.

Come on, disingenuously request some more sources. I've seen you do it in two threads so far. Aren't you due for another request about now?

See, here's the thing. Society looks at paedophiles and sees only monsters. No paedophile who has come out and is honest will ever garner another job. No paedophile will ever be trusted with doing even the simplest of tasks. No paedophile will be trusted with a house, with renting an apartment, or possibly even a homeless shelter. No open, honest paedophile, right now, will EVER get the true help he or she deserves. No, what they will get instead is fear, hatred, stigmatism, and a destruction of their life. It is a simple and pure FACT. That, Barry, is the problem. I can't GET the help I need simply because it's not there. Society HAS to open up to actually, truly helping paedophiles, to recognizing that we're not monsters just because of our attraction, that most of us want help, that most of us deserve it, that most of us just want to live normal lives, and that most of us are good people, that one mental disorder does not a horrible person make. We are not monsters. We are not scheming little demons eager to molest every child we see. We are people who are normal in every other sense of the word, with a problem that needs help to fix. A problem that cannot get the help it needs right now, a problem that can easily doom said paedophile to a horrible life if help is not given. Much in the same way society opened up to helping those with other mental disorders, so too does society need to open up to helping paedophiles. It is not open at the moment. It is not, and saying it is would be foolish and ignorant. Open the door, Barry. It is people like you that currently hold it shut. Open it, and perhaps, in a few decades, we WILL be able to easily and openly talk about our mental disorder and have it helped through therapy and other means just like any other disorder. We will be able to function in society and whatnot. We will be, in other words, free. I truly hope it happens. If I were religious, I would pray for it, but as an athiest, I can only hope. Still, hope is a powerful thing. Hope has changed so many things in the past. Perhaps, just perhaps, it can change one more.

You have psychologists and ways of suppressing the urges to act on the problem. You know that it is somthing that if acted on is harmful to society. Why should sombody hire an open pedophile? People who tend to be open about such things are viewed as a risk by those who hire! Same thing with housing. Imagine the real estate agents worries about property values. People have a reason as to why they shun accepting such tendancies. Accepting things in the mind often leads to a legitimizing of the behavior itself ( see homosexuality). Nobody openly talks about bestiality either, I mean good grief, what is the point of discussing somthing openly if it has no positive role to play? How about discussing the good in yourself, which, judging by your heartfelt appeal to hope, is a very strong part of your personality.

Unfortunately, because of people like you, what they're likely to get is stigmatized and their life ruined, with a decent chance of being murdered. That doesn't encourage them to seek help. It encourages them to hide and fester.

People fear that which urges people to do evil. Nasty things can be the result when such tendancies are made public. Seeking "help" is a private matter with private doctors who are confidential. You all seem to forget that fact.

I knew what you meant. You meant to bait liberals and the people in this thread. See, we actually read the things you take the time to present. That's how one becomes educated.

Come on, disingenuously request some more sources. I've seen you do it in two threads so far. Aren't you due for another request about now?

Well I did not know that my joke would offend. I apologize. You should for your overtly rude behavior and demeaning attitude.

People fear that which urges people to do evil. Nasty things can be the result when such tendancies are made public. Seeking "help" is a private matter with private doctors who are confidential. You all seem to forget that fact.

Medical privacy in the US is a joke. And in this case not a laughing matter.

molesting chidren is totaly nautral, it what God intened for us to do

Well I did not know that my joke would offend. I apologize. You should for your overtly rude behavior and demeaning attitude.
Ha. Amusing. My 'behavior' is simply calling you out for dishonestly requesting evidence that you don't actually intend to examine no matter what it says. If that is rude, then I'm your huckleberry.

Medical privacy in the US is a joke. And in this case not a laughing matter.

Do you seriously believe that trained medical psychologists will go around gabbing it up about a patient? Merely claiming that medical privacy is "a joke" does not justify anything. I don't see where you are going with this. Trying to say that people cannot be treated because of problems with medical privacy? Does that go for every illness? Scary stuff...thank God it is not so.

Asylumny']molesting chidren is totaly nautral, it what God intened for us to do

offensive to everybody here at once! I did not know that was possible:p

Ha. Amusing. My 'behavior' is simply calling you out for dishonestly requesting evidence that you don't actually intend to examine no matter what it says. If that is rude, then I'm your huckleberry.

:confused: I really don't want to know.

offensive to everybody here at once! I did not know that was possible:p

well you never have meet me have you?

Asylumny']well you never have meet me have you?

hmmmm?

Do you seriously believe that trained medical psychologists will go around gabbing it up about a patient? Merely claiming that medical privacy is "a joke" does not justify anything. I don't see where you are going with this. Trying to say that people cannot be treated because of problems with medical privacy? Does that go for every illness? Scary stuff...thank God it is not so.
First of all, if you use company insurance the insurance company can find out why you were treated and often are not particularly discreet. Second of all, medical records are kept on computers. They are often detailed and if you think doctors are experts on computer security, you're wrong.

Most illnesses don't present a danger to your life if people discover you have it. This is untrue of pedophilia.

:confused:
*suspects this would be an appropriate smiley to put after most posts you read but is just judging by the quality of the reply*

im not a child molester, stop accusing me!

You have psychologists and ways of suppressing the urges to act on the problem. You know that it is somthing that if acted on is harmful to society. Why should sombody hire an open pedophile? People who tend to be open about such things are viewed as a risk by those who hire! Same thing with housing. Imagine the real estate agents worries about property values. People have a reason as to why they shun accepting such tendancies. Accepting things in the mind often leads to a legitimizing of the behavior itself ( see homosexuality). Nobody openly talks about bestiality either, I mean good grief, what is the point of discussing somthing openly if it has no positive role to play? How about discussing the good in yourself, which, judging by your heartfelt appeal to hope, is a very strong part of your personality.
Do you know what happens when a person breaks under stress? Do you? Do you understand how it can be even WORSE on people who have emotional disorders, as I do? I am both bipolar and a paedophile. I live in an area dominated by conservative, religious folks. I am under enormous stress each and every day. It is no wonder I choose to spend most of my free time at home, no wonder I am overweight due to overeating(an attempt to cope with emotional stress that never works yet I do it anyway.) I have broken, occasionally, and it is not a pretty sight. I become so angry, so furious, that I can be a great danger to people. I seek psychological help regarding my emotional disorder, so that is not such a worry. But the paedophilism cannot be helped because if I ever open up about it so I can SEEK THE DAMNED HELP I will destroy my life. Can you imagine what I could do if I snap around little children? Can you imagine what would happen if I go temporarily insane due to the sheer amount of stress I cannot lift because people like you force me into this situation? You will have ended up CAUSING THE VERY ACTS THAT YOU SEEK TO PREVENT. YOU, BY YOUR OWN NATURE, CREATE THE MONSTER! Yes, that's right! You're at fault! Because you don't let us get help, you make things worse.

But no, you won't understand. Of course you won't. You prefer to bandy on your merry way, writing off people like us. Forget it. I am so sick of debating this. None of you are seeing the emotion I've been putting into each and every post on this. I can't stand this anymore right now. Please excuse me.

Do you know what happens when a person breaks under stress? Do you? Do you understand how it can be even WORSE on people who have emotional disorders, as I do? I am both bipolar and a paedophile. I live in an area dominated by conservative, religious folks. I am under enormous stress each and every day. It is no wonder I choose to spend most of my free time at home, no wonder I am overweight due to overeating(an attempt to cope with emotional stress that never works yet I do it anyway.) I have broken, occasionally, and it is not a pretty sight. I become so angry, so furious, that I can be a great danger to people. I seek psychological help regarding my emotional disorder, so that is not such a worry. But the paedophilism cannot be helped because if I ever open up about it so I can SEEK THE DAMNED HELP I will destroy my life. Can you imagine what I could do if I snap around little children? Can you imagine what would happen if I go temporarily insane due to the sheer amount of stress I cannot lift because people like you force me into this situation? You will have ended up CAUSING THE VERY ACTS THAT YOU SEEK TO PREVENT. YOU, BY YOUR OWN NATURE, CREATE THE MONSTER! Yes, that's right! You're at fault! Because you don't let us get help, you make things worse.

But no, you won't understand. Of course you won't. You prefer to bandy on your merry way, writing off people like us. Forget it. I am so sick of debating this. None of you are seeing the emotion I've been putting into each and every post on this. I can't stand this anymore right now. Please excuse me.

oh really! want to come over?

First of all, if you use company insurance the insurance company can find out why you were treated and often are not particularly discreet. Second of all, medical records are kept on computers. They are often detailed and if you think doctors are experts on computer security, you're wrong.

Most illnesses don't present a danger to your life if people discover you have it. This is untrue of pedophilia.

Insurance companies will not kill you for being a pedophile. They might hike your rates though. Also...do you seriously believe that people are going rifling through computers in doctor's offices to gain intimate knowledge of people's problems? That really is a paranoid idea. The government, nurses at the doctors, and insurance companies are not out to hunt people with mental orders who commit no crime down. It is a lousy argument to make because if you had "open discussion" and "acceptance" on the issue those 3 groups would be finding out anyway....right? What would this acceptance breed other than taking away incentives not to act on the emotions?

*suspects this would be an appropriate smiley to put after most posts you read but is just judging by the quality of the reply*

and yours would be.....:mad: because you like playing silly insult games.

Asylumny']im not a child molester, stop accusing me!
you don't take advantage of your God given right?

Im not insulting Im jsut scared, look at bottom of sig

Do you know what happens when a person breaks under stress? Do you? Do you understand how it can be even WORSE on people who have emotional disorders, as I do? I am both bipolar and a paedophile. I live in an area dominated by conservative, religious folks. I am under enormous stress each and every day. It is no wonder I choose to spend most of my free time at home, no wonder I am overweight due to overeating(an attempt to cope with emotional stress that never works yet I do it anyway.) I have broken, occasionally, and it is not a pretty sight. I become so angry, so furious, that I can be a great danger to people. I seek psychological help regarding my emotional disorder, so that is not such a worry. But the paedophilism cannot be helped because if I ever open up about it so I can SEEK THE DAMNED HELP I will destroy my life. Can you imagine what I could do if I snap around little children? Can you imagine what would happen if I go temporarily insane due to the sheer amount of stress I cannot lift because people like you force me into this situation? You will have ended up CAUSING THE VERY ACTS THAT YOU SEEK TO PREVENT. YOU, BY YOUR OWN NATURE, CREATE THE MONSTER! Yes, that's right! You're at fault! Because you don't let us get help, you make things worse.

But no, you won't understand. Of course you won't. You prefer to bandy on your merry way, writing off people like us. Forget it. I am so sick of debating this. None of you are seeing the emotion I've been putting into each and every post on this. I can't stand this anymore right now. Please excuse me.
You are in a tough spot but the decision is yours. You can seek help or you can continue on as you have. I would plead you to seek help if I knew you as a friend. I cannot imagine the pain that you are in and I have sympathy for that. I do not think that it is a good idea for your problems to be a socially accepted norm. They hurt people such as yourself. Do not blame me for the problem, I have done nothing. I see your emotion and see your plight. Help is needed. Help will not ruin your life. It sounds like it is bottoming out right here. I am sorry to here you are an athiest because my offer of prayer means nothing (I have religious training). Perhaps, it is, in the end, the thought that counts the most. Good luck and stay tough.

Do you know what happens when a person breaks under stress? Do you? Do you understand how it can be even WORSE on people who have emotional disorders, as I do? I am both bipolar and a paedophile. I live in an area dominated by conservative, religious folks. I am under enormous stress each and every day. It is no wonder I choose to spend most of my free time at home, no wonder I am overweight due to overeating(an attempt to cope with emotional stress that never works yet I do it anyway.) I have broken, occasionally, and it is not a pretty sight. I become so angry, so furious, that I can be a great danger to people. I seek psychological help regarding my emotional disorder, so that is not such a worry. But the paedophilism cannot be helped because if I ever open up about it so I can SEEK THE DAMNED HELP I will destroy my life. Can you imagine what I could do if I snap around little children? Can you imagine what would happen if I go temporarily insane due to the sheer amount of stress I cannot lift because people like you force me into this situation? You will have ended up CAUSING THE VERY ACTS THAT YOU SEEK TO PREVENT. YOU, BY YOUR OWN NATURE, CREATE THE MONSTER! Yes, that's right! You're at fault! Because you don't let us get help, you make things worse.

But no, you won't understand. Of course you won't. You prefer to bandy on your merry way, writing off people like us. Forget it. I am so sick of debating this. None of you are seeing the emotion I've been putting into each and every post on this. I can't stand this anymore right now. Please excuse me.

what exactly did you do? To the child I mean

Asylumny']what exactly did you do? To the child I mean

That is not necessary is it? Come on, we can feel the pain of that post. I do not think that this is a good road to travel down.

oww srry I didnt think about it. It must be mental torture to think about it. Once again im srry

and yours would be.....:mad: because you like playing silly insult games.

Yes, because you'd rather debate, yes? Again, it's not insulting to call them like you intentionally present yourself. You proudly proclaimed that your request for sources was a lie and that you never intended to drink them in. Shall I quote you? If you find it insulting for people to accurately portray your actions, I'm your huckleberry.

This is my first time talking to a registered sex offender, and Im only 13 years old so. But if you ever need to talk, contact me on ns, nation name is asylumny. If you have any urges Ill try to help you through it, we dont want history repeating itself.

Yes, because you'd rather debate, yes? Again, it's not insulting to call them like you intentionally present yourself. You proudly proclaimed that your request for sources was a lie and that you never intended to drink them in. Shall I quote you? If you find it insulting for people to accurately portray your actions, I'm your huckleberry.

I intended to read valid sources. Get off this boat before it sinks. I am finding the other people who are posting so interesting!

Asylumny']This is my first time talking to a registered sex offender, and Im only 13 years old so. But if you ever need to talk, contact me on ns, nation name is asylumny. If you have any urges Ill try to help you through it, we dont want history repeating itself.

is that a joke?

no Im dead serouis. Ill do anything to prevent history from repeating itself

Insurance companies will not kill you for being a pedophile. They might hike your rates though. Also...do you seriously believe that people are going rifling through computers in doctor's offices to gain intimate knowledge of people's problems? That really is a paranoid idea. The government, nurses at the doctors, and insurance companies are not out to hunt people with mental orders who commit no crime down. It is a lousy argument to make because if you had "open discussion" and "acceptance" on the issue those 3 groups would be finding out anyway....right? What would this acceptance breed other than taking away incentives not to act on the emotions?

Who said insurance companies will kill you? Are you intentionally trying not to have a discussion? Yes, you are. Meanwhile, if the insurance company of a person's workplace happens to let 'slip' why one is getting therapy, that is very dangerous. Insurance companies are manned by people, many of whom are making a paltry bit of change for their work. Not quite the same confidentiality promise of a doctor who would lose his license after 8 years of schooling and an incredibly grueling apprenticeship.

No, the government, nurses nor doctors are out to hunt them down. However, just about everyone else is. If I quoted every person who said that pedophiles should die in this thread it would take you an hour to read it.

The stigma isn't the reason to not act. The harm it causes is. The stigma is what prevents them from getting help. I mean, not everyone is going to be as open to looking at the data as you. You might be surprised but there are some people out there that are ignorant of the condition and willfully avoid being educated on it. Ever met any?

Asylumny']no Im dead serouis. Ill do anything to prevent history from repeating itself

Asylumny, delete that post, quickly....

I intended to read valid sources. Get off this boat before it sinks. I am finding the other people who are posting so interesting!

So you're saying you were interested in reading the study, but only until the actual study was posted? Because I posted the EXACT study you asked for with the complete write up. And when pressed you admitted that you don't care and never cared what it said. Are you AGAIN changing your story?

Asylumny, delete that post, quickly....

Why. He lives half way across the country and I trust he wont do anything

you don't take advantage of your God given right?

Oh, hey, more baiting. How fun? Good thing you're not a hypocrite who keeps telling people we have to be careful not ever give the slightest hint of disdain for people's views.

Asylumny']Why. He lives half way across the country and I trust he wont do anything

Meh. I'm just trying to help you man....

Asylumny']This is my first time talking to a registered sex offender, and Im only 13 years old so. But if you ever need to talk, contact me on ns, nation name is asylumny. If you have any urges Ill try to help you through it, we dont want history repeating itself.
...a REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER? When the bloody FUCK did I ever say I had actually done anything? I said I might snap. I said I had in the past--angry snapping, I should say, where I was more prone to just lash out than anything else--but I have never and will never sexually molest anyone. I'm glad I was able to calm down for a few brief moments, for I feel that I might be flaming enough to net me a temp ban if I hadn't. Please do not EVER accuse me of that again.

Well I want to help him. Im very good at relexaing people (when i want too) and make them relize the consquences

...a REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER? When the bloody FUCK did I ever say I had actually done anything? I said I might snap. I said I had in the past--angry snapping, I should say, where I was more prone to just lash out than anything else--but I have never and will never sexually molest anyone. I'm glad I was able to calm down for a few brief moments, for I feel that I might be flaming enough to net me a temp ban if I hadn't. Please do not EVER accuse me of that again.

When you said pheodiphile I assumed you been convicted. Im srry I dont mean to upset you

...a REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER? When the bloody FUCK did I ever say I had actually done anything? I said I might snap. I said I had in the past--angry snapping, I should say, where I was more prone to just lash out than anything else--but I have never and will never sexually molest anyone. I'm glad I was able to calm down for a few brief moments, for I feel that I might be flaming enough to net me a temp ban if I hadn't. Please do not EVER accuse me of that again.

See why I said delete that post Asylumny??

Asylumny']no Im dead serouis. Ill do anything to prevent history from repeating itself

must be joking. Not funny.

when I said anything I meant I would do everything in power to stop it form happening. Not what your mind is thinking

must be joking. Not funny.

lol

Thats almost sigworthy.



...almost.

Asylumny']This is my first time talking to a registered sex offender, and Im only 13 years old so. But if you ever need to talk, contact me on ns, nation name is asylumny. If you have any urges Ill try to help you through it, we dont want history repeating itself.


You realize thats the worst idea ever, right?

The only thing someone like that wants you to help him with, is maybe some cybersex.

Meanwhile, if the insurance company of a person's workplace happens to let 'slip' why one is getting therapy, that is very dangerous. Insurance companies are manned by people, many of whom are making a paltry bit of change for their work. Not quite the same confidentiality promise of a doctor who would lose his license after 8 years of schooling and an incredibly grueling apprenticeship.

No, the government, nurses nor doctors are out to hunt them down. However, just about everyone else is.
The stigma isn't the reason to not act. The harm it causes is. The stigma is what prevents them from getting help.

I love coloring the insults that your write and then hitting backspace.
Paranoid ideas about people who work at an insurance company has nothing to do with consulting a private psychologist with your own money. The social stigma is there for a reason. The disorder's only feature is dangerous to children. If the stigma did not exist...think about what you want...no stigma for pedophiles. Nothing to stop them. Anybody can get help for any disorder once they conquer their fear of confronting the illness ( like paranoid thoughts about big bussiness, medical records, etc.)