NationStates Jolt Archive

oh my GOD, Srry for trying to help, Fuck this thread

You realize thats the worst idea ever, right?

The only thing someone like that wants you to help him with, is maybe some cybersex.

Yet again, the other reason why I said, delete that post.

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.

merely quoting his previous post.

...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.

good point. I thought of telling him that but decided not to. Sorry I did not attack. Believe me, if you think you will get banned you don't have to worry. Only social Conservatives get banned....

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.)

Yes, so everyone can afford to regularly pay for a psychiatrist.

Yes, no stigma for pedophiles is exactly equal to no stigma for child molesters.... oh, wait, that would be equating things that are not equal. Let's not do that since it's illogical. That's like saying that we need to have a stigma for people who consider hitting someone in the mouth so that people aren't running punching everyone they get mad at. It's a ridiculous argument that does not bear out in the real world.

Yes, there is no problem with medical privacy in this country. If it wouldn't get me kicked of the site, I'd pull up your records right now. You'd be surprised at how much of your personal history is available online.

merely quoting his previous post.

I'm talking about your replies. Much like your new reply about how only social conservatives get banned. The mods are very good at fairly enforcing site rules on people of every brand. Perhaps social conservatives just have trouble avoiding widely baiting everyone in nearly every post. Hmmmm... if only I could think of a socially conservative poster in this thread who openly admits to baiting groups because he thinks it's funny. Hmmm... sorry, drawing a blank. I remember his name had something in common with the Brady Bunch though.

Yes, so everyone can afford to regularly pay for a psychiatrist.

Yes, no stigma for pedophiles is exactly equal to no stigma for child molesters.... oh, wait, that would be equating things that are not equal. Let's not do that since it's illogical.

Yes, there is no problem with medical privacy in this country. If it wouldn't get me kicked of the site, I'd pull up your records right now. You'd be surprised at how much of your personal history is available online.

You see, your assumption about the insurance companies was based on another assumption. I reject both.
The social stigma on pedophiles is the same as that for child molestores because both would like to do the same thing. Its just that one group realizes it.

As a test....I really would like you to try to pull up my medical records...but you are right, you would get in trouble. better let that one stay off the table.

I'm talking about your replies. Much like your new reply about how only social conservatives get banned. The mods are very good at fairly enforcing site rules on people of every brand. Perhaps social conservatives just have trouble avoiding widely baiting everyone in nearly every post. Hmmmm... if only I could think of a socially conservative poster in this thread who openly admits to baiting groups because he thinks it's funny. Hmmm... sorry, drawing a blank. I remember his name had something in common with the Brady Bunch though.

Alabamamississippi?

You see, your assumption about the insurance companies was based on another assumption. I reject both.
The social stigma on pedophiles is the same as that for child molestores because both would like to do the same thing. Its just that one group realizes it.

As a test....I really would like you to try to pull up my medical records...but you are right, you would get in trouble. better let that one stay off the table.
Yes, I know. You reject anything that doesn't agree with you, mountains of evidence be damned, yeah? In fact, you literally complained we presented too much evidence to you. Evidence you refused to read after just a cursory glance to avoid allowing it to accidentally educate you on the subject.

This post is evidence. You admit you don't know the difference between child molesters and pedophiles despite the fact that we offered a pile of ways to learn better. Can you find me one study that says pedophiles and child molesters are the same?

Your medical records are widely available. You do realize that your right to privacy extends to phone records, medical history, employment history, etc. None of that is safe under current standards. It's not a wild conspiracy it's just that our ability to pass laws must logically lag behind technology. Lawmakers aren't seers and until laws force a company to shore up holes in their security it's much more cost effective to only take the measures they are legally held liable for taking. Currently companies are only required to engage in a reasonable effort to secure data.

Alabamamississippi?
Pardon?

This post is evidence. You admit you don't know the difference between child molesters and pedophiles despite the fact that we offered a pile of ways to learn better. Can you find me one study that says pedophiles and child molesters are the same?
I know the difference between the two. In my opinion though, they are both a moral outrage. They are different but both are bad things.

Currently companies are only required to engage in a reasonable effort to secure data.
What more can you require? An unreasonable effort?

Pardon?

Oh, never mind that. Don't know where that came from.

Come on. If you're here to have a discussion present some evidence, man. Quit baiting and actually engage. So far, it seems you're entire goal is to preach, to claim other people won't prove their claims and when they do prove their claims to refuse to read it.

You claimed we were wrong. We proved we weren't. You claimed the study wouldn't be cited. Not only was it cited, but it was posted, all 160 pages of it. (note: you baited with that claim about four times before the study popped up and you SUDDENLY weren't interested) You claimed that pedophiles and child molesters are the same despite all of the evidence presented. Fine. Support your claims. Present one lick of evidence. Because all evidence thus far suggests a preacher looking for a pulpit.

You claimed that pedophiles and child molesters are the same despite all of the evidence presented. Fine. Support your claims. Present one lick of evidence. Because all evidence thus far suggests a preacher looking for a pulpit.

They are the same on the moral level. neither should be accepted and condoned by society. You must be misunderstanding me in some way. My evidence is the pain of the molested children and the pain of the posts of that pedophile that was on here before. Both are horrible and bad things to encounter and society will not be well served to say that either is ok or good. If you need a study to prove that you should be sitting beneath a pulpit.

What more can you require? An unreasonable effort?
Oh, I don't know. Actual security. I guarantee you none of my client's data is vulnerable, but that's because it would hurt my bottom line if it were. Companies are willing to do exactly what they are monetarily incentivized to do. Data security is a major factor in how people select insurance companies because the people's whose data matter usually can't change companies without such information becoming a part of their past conditions. The system is unintentionally built to discourage security. It's no one fault. It's just a general lack of foresight.

Meanwhile are you going to make an actual argument or do we have to rely on your vague attempts to equate things that are not equal because actually defending your argument is too hard? Make an argument. Support it. Why do you refuse to do anything but preach and bait?

And yes, I recognize the reference you made. I know it wasn't meant to be insulting however, because that is clearly beneath you.

They are the same on the moral level. neither should be accepted and condoned by society. You must be misunderstanding me in some way. My evidence is the pain of the molested children and the pain of the posts of that pedophile that was on here before. Both are horrible and bad things to encounter and society will not be well served to say that either is ok or good. If you need a study to prove that you should be sitting beneath a pulpit.


You really are beaten.

Just stop.

They are the same on the moral level. neither should be accepted and condoned by society.
So to you someone attracted to someone and someone who has sex with them without their consent are morally equal? What kind of sick, twisted valuation is that? I'll tell you if you ask any rape victim if they think being thought about and being denied consent are equal, I know what they'll say. I was victimized. I can tell you if all she would have done is thought about sex with me, I'd have had a very different childhood. The fact that you act as if an overt act of non-consentual sex and the thought of the act are morally equal shows an incredible disdain for the victim.

You must be misunderstanding me in some way. My evidence is the pain of the molested children and the pain of the posts of that pedophile that was on here before. Both are horrible and bad things to encounter and society will not be well served to say that either is ok or good. If you need a study to prove that you should be sitting beneath a pulpit.
The pain of the molester and the pain of the victim are not equal. It's disturbing that you would try to paint them as equal.

Your evidence is anecdotal and totally not compelling. While I would encourage a molester to get therapy and I believe they cannot help it, I am not going to compare a person who has an attraction to children as having equal pain from those attractions as a person who is victimized as a child by someone who decides their consent isn't an issue.

Oh, I don't know. Actual security. I guarantee you none of my client's data is vulnerable, but that's because it would hurt my bottom line if it were. Companies are willing to do exactly what they are monetarily incentivized to do. Data security is a major factor in how people select insurance companies because the people's whose data matter usually can't change companies without such information becoming a part of their past conditions. The system is unintentionally built to discourage security. It's no one fault. It's just a general lack of foresight.

Meanwhile are you going to make an actual argument or do we have to rely on your vague attempts to equate things that are not equal because actually defending your argument is too hard? .

The first paragraph was excuse making for pedophiles not to seek treatment. That is not an argument I am prepared to make...or counter, out of its absurdity.
My argument has already been laid out. I Feel that pedophiles suffer from a disorder that urges them to commit vile acts. Child molesters commit vile acts. Neither is somthing that should be an accepted or normal thing that is embraced by society. private treatment, prison, and databases are the key to containing the problem. Talking about it does not help. Losing the stigma is scary because there is a reason ( an obvious one) why the stigma exists. I do not agree with your feeling that some sort of societal embracement of pedophelia is a good thing.

You really are beaten.

Just stop.

May I remind you that the prevailing societal system is on my side of this. How about you "just stop" trying us to accept pedophiles.

May I remind you that the prevailing societal system is on my side of this. How about you "just stop" trying us to accept pedophiles.


Present some facts, any facts, to prove your case....that might help.
Otherwise all your doing is pontificating.

So to you someone attracted to someone and someone who has sex with them without their consent are morally equal? What kind of sick, twisted valuation is that? I'll tell you if you ask any rape victim if they think being thought about and being denied consent are equal, I know what they'll say. I was victimized. I can tell you if all she would have done is thought about sex with me, I'd have had a very different childhood. The fact that you act as if an overt act of non-consentual sex and the thought of the act are morally equal shows an incredible disdain for the victim.
the same perversion motivates both. They are both wrong. one of them affects more than one person ( the molesting) and so it gets prison time and is ..as you say "more wrong". Both are still "wrong" though.


The pain of the molester and the pain of the victim are not equal. It's disturbing that you would try to paint them as equal.
why?

Your evidence is anecdotal and totally not compelling. While I would encourage a molester to get therapy and I believe they cannot help it, I am not going to compare a person who has an attraction to children as having equal pain from those attractions as a person who is victimized as a child by someone who decides their consent isn't an issue. how about you read the posts by the pedophile on this thread earlier.
:sniper:

Present some facts, any facts, to prove your case....that might help.
Otherwise all your doing is pontificating.

You need proof of what I say? What proof do you seek? That pedophilia hurts people? That child molestation hurts people? Or do you want me to prove that psychology can help treat pedophiles? Or that the social stigma on both exists for a reason? Come on, if you don't get it by now you never will. I am speaking in inherent terms. Nobody has wrapped their mind around that yet.

maybe this could help sum up the differences between these two types of people a bit:

paedophiles like to feel children

child molesterers feel children coz they like it

think about it for a sec... makes sense, no?

same fetishes, different approaches. go figure. there may be some other minute differences between them, but this pretty much sums it up.

time for bed.

time for bed.


Hey whats that between your legs?

Oh yah..its your tail.

You need proof of what I say? What proof do you seek? That pedophilia hurts people? That child molestation hurts people? Or do you want me to prove that psychology can help treat pedophiles? Or that the social stigma on both exists for a reason? Come on, if you don't get it by now you never will. I am speaking in inherent terms. Nobody has wrapped their mind around that yet.


Your also making no disctinction between a pedophile, and a child molester.
One is a criminal, and one isnt.

Your also making no disctinction between a pedophile, and a child molester.
One is a criminal, and one isnt.


Howzat?

Asylumny']what exactly did you do? To the child I mean
He didn't do anything. He's giving you a hypthetical scenario based on his fears. You would have seen that yourself if you weren't intent on demonizing him for being a pedophile.
...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.
Sad as I am that I have to say this, but it's an accusation you're going to have to get used to. The moment you say you're a pedophile, people will assume you're a monster. Like I said before, if you want to talk, I'm more than willing to lend an ear.
Asylumny']When you said pheodiphile I assumed you been convicted. Im srry I dont mean to upset you
You shouldn't assume. That's the problem with this subject. People assume horrible things without getting their facts straight. He and I are pedophiles. All that means is we're attracted to kids. That doesn't mean we're rapists, and it's incredibly insulting when people say we are.
Asylumny']when I said anything I meant I would do everything in power to stop it form happening. Not what your mind is thinking
See how it feels when people's sick minds start working on the subject. I knew what you meant, but everyone else's mind seems to be in the gutter.
You realize thats the worst idea ever, right?

The only thing someone like that wants you to help him with, is maybe some cybersex.
Case in point.

Howzat?
One commits a crime - having sex with children.
The other might desire to commit the same crime, but does not necessarily do it.

Kinda like the difference between me wishing to kill that annoying neighbour who always plays those terrible songs with his stereo on max volume, and actually doing it.

Last time I tried to reply to this post, I got cut off from the forum and lost the post. Hopefully I'll be able to do it as well this time and actually get it posted.
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.

I still don't understand. If the only difference we're looking at is "pedophile" or "not pedophile", then it makes sense to talk about both groups as a whole. Since nonpedophiles are more likely to molest children than pedophiles (you did the math earlier) I don't see how being a pedophile doesn't count as a midagating factor in terms of risk of becoming a child molester.

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?

Did you read your own explaination of the math? Once again, 20% of the population is made up of pedophiles. Only 10% of molesters are pedophiles. From these numbers, pedophiles are less likely to molest than nonpedophiles. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? You were making this same arguement not long ago.

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.

All right. Now you've stated that rape fantasies are the biggest risk factor (unsubstantiated, but let's go with it). You've said that pedophiles have fewer rape fantasies, and yet you still refuse to accept that pedophilia is a midigating factor rather than an agrivating factor.

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?

It would've been more convincing if you hadn't used your "hypothetical arguement" two paragraphs before this one in this very post.

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.

Again, you're making a choice about how to divide up the population, which I don't think you can support. You're proposing three categories of people: pedophiles, nonpedophiles with rape fantasies, and nonpedophiles without rape fantasies. There is nothing intuitive about that choice of division, especially when we're talking about the differences between pedophiles and nonpedophiles in general trends. Prove you've made a more appropriate division than I have, or admit you were wrong.

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.

I should think that the finding that most child molesters aren't pedophiles was a far more important finding than the finding that most child molesters had rape fantasies.

I still am. Only one of us is ignoring the actuall studying we've both cited and it's not me.

No. Something is definately wrong. Usually, when you take an undefensible position, you do a very good job confusing the issue, and end up with me confused as to which way is up. This time, it's been consistently clear where your failure of logic is. Your arguementation is definately off for some reason.

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?
I don't question the conclusions of the study. I question your interpretations of the study.

Honestly, I think what happened is that you suddenly realised that you've been telling people that pedophiles are less dangerous than nonpedophiles, and you couldn't reconcile it with you intuitive belief that we're sick people who need help. So, you decided to conoct a new story about how "I wasn't saying pedophiles are less dangerous than nonpedophiles. I was saying they're less dangerous than this other group of sickos."

Howzat?
As screwed up as things are now adays, some people still have this problem with calling someone a criminal because of their thoughts.

Still, if any subject is going to sell people on the idea of thought-crime, this is the one.

All right. Now you've stated that rape fantasies are the biggest risk factor (unsubstantiated, but let's go with it).

Someone didn't read the study they've been trotting out for several weeks. Quick, what was the purpose of the Lanning study? I linked it in this thread. If providing an entire study you, yourself, have given credence to as evidence of my points is unsubstantiated, then I don't know what to say. Meanwhile, you continue your fallacious argument. What's the first biggest factor? Rape fantasies. What's second? Pedophilia. So much so that they found no molesters without those two factors. Given that the study you're using showed that all people who molester were either pedophiles or had rape fantasies, it's just a bit disingenuous to use other information to try and bastardize to make the information suggest pedophiles are less dangerous than most other people. They are less dangerous than a small minority of other people and other than people with rape fantasies are the only people who are a danger to children in terms of molestation, however unlikely that danger is.

I still don't understand. If the only difference we're looking at is "pedophile" or "not pedophile", then it makes sense to talk about both groups as a whole. Since nonpedophiles are more likely to molest children than pedophiles (you did the math earlier) I don't see how being a pedophile doesn't count as a midagating factor in terms of risk of becoming a child molester.

Except that was not the purpose of the study you are citing. You keep trying to make the study create a conclusion that it doesn't actually offer up. Yes, if we simplify to absurdity one could call it suggestive. However, looking at the real results of the study we learn other than people with rape fantasies, pedophiles are the only people that were found to molest children.



Did you read your own explaination of the math? Once again, 20% of the population is made up of pedophiles. Only 10% of molesters are pedophiles. From these numbers, pedophiles are less likely to molest than nonpedophiles. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? You were making this same arguement not long ago.

I know what the math is. It's an oversimplification because it ignores the fact that the vast majority of non-pedophiles have none of the factors found to be contributory to child molestation. However all pedophiles have a factor that is contributory. They for some reason seem to usually lack the other contributory factor, but they have one of them. The vast, vast majority of non-pedophiles have NO contributory factors. You are trying to make the study suggest that having pedophilia makes you less likely to molest than lacking pedophilia, but the study actually found pedophilia to be the only factor present other than rape fantasies. No molester was found to be absent both.


All right. Now you've stated that rape fantasies are the biggest risk factor (unsubstantiated, but let's go with it). You've said that pedophiles have fewer rape fantasies, and yet you still refuse to accept that pedophilia is a midigating factor rather than an agrivating factor.

Really? Let's analyze that since it's the opposite of the findings of the study. Let's see. Let's take the rape fantasies out of the picture. Absent the rape fantasies who is more likely to molest? The answer. Molesters. With the rape fantasies, who is more likely to molest? Again, molesters. Who has less rape fantasies? Apparently molesters, but the point is that when isolating for other factors, molestation is agrivating. You are not isolating for other factors because doing so would make you look bad. You are ignoring other factors which is not the same as isolating, which is what you're trying to claim.


It would've been more convincing if you hadn't used your "hypothetical arguement" two paragraphs before this one in this very post.

No, I didn't. I have made my arguments very clear. I'm sorry that reading isn't something you like to do, but right after making the argument you complained about I pointed out that I was making a point that you further evidenced by misunderstanding. Again, continue to push that one. It only proves my point further.


Again, you're making a choice about how to divide up the population, which I don't think you can support. You're proposing three categories of people: pedophiles, nonpedophiles with rape fantasies, and nonpedophiles without rape fantasies. There is nothing intuitive about that choice of division, especially when we're talking about the differences between pedophiles and nonpedophiles in general trends. Prove you've made a more appropriate division than I have, or admit you were wrong.

I'm not making a choice. The study did. You didn't read it. You've giving the study credence for weeks. Don't you just wish you could take that back? Next time read it.


I should think that the finding that most child molesters aren't pedophiles was a far more important finding than the finding that most child molesters had rape fantasies.

I don't think finding that most child molesters aren't pedophiles to be surpising at all. It's a pretty widely accepted idea in psychology. The more compelling fact was that all child molesters had a particular type of thinking in common and that the most dangerous thinking was rape fantasies. It shows that entertaining such fantasies is not a good idea, to say the least. Of course, you'd have noticed this if you'd bothered to read more than a summary written in regards to pedophilia, rather than a true analysis of the study or the study itself. I posted the study. Don't you think it's time you examine it?



No. Something is definately wrong. Usually, when you take an undefensible position, you do a very good job confusing the issue, and end up with me confused as to which way is up. This time, it's been consistently clear where your failure of logic is. Your arguementation is definately off for some reason.

Why? Because you can't follow it? I'm telling you exactly what a study you're citing found and you think it's off because you haven't read the study you've been pretending to understand. It found the exact opposite conclusion to the one that you're claiming. That is that pedophilia is an aggrivating factor. You cited the study as proof. Is this study suddenly not reliable because you found out what it says?


I don't question the conclusions of the study. I question your interpretations of the study.

Then you read the study, yes? Because if you had you'd know it wasn't a study of pedophiles but a study of child molesters. They didn't isolate for pedophilia as you claim, the isolated for molestation. Now, quick, what was common about EVERY molester according to the study? If you read it, you'd know. If you read it it, you'd know there are two aggrivating factors according to the study. Rape fantasies were one. What was the other one?

Come on, you're an expert on this study, no? What conclusion was it reaching? Hint: it was not focused on pedophiles. What was the methodology? Who was it studying? Why? I've answered all these questions, but according to you I don't know what I'm talking about so why don't you tell me about the study, professor?

Honestly, I think what happened is that you suddenly realised that you've been telling people that pedophiles are less dangerous than nonpedophiles, and you couldn't reconcile it with you intuitive belief that we're sick people who need help. So, you decided to conoct a new story about how "I wasn't saying pedophiles are less dangerous than nonpedophiles. I was saying they're less dangerous than this other group of sickos."
I didn't suddenly realize anything. I told you that I did say exactly what you're saying. However, I was only arguing that pedophiles are not likely to offend. You've turned it into pedophilia being a mitigating factor. That's the opposite of the conclusion of the study. Taking a study and pretending it concludes the opposite of what it does is lying with style.

The first paragraph was excuse making for pedophiles not to seek treatment. That is not an argument I am prepared to make...or counter, out of its absurdity.
My argument has already been laid out. I Feel that pedophiles suffer from a disorder that urges them to commit vile acts. Child molesters commit vile acts. Neither is somthing that should be an accepted or normal thing that is embraced by society. private treatment, prison, and databases are the key to containing the problem. Talking about it does not help. Losing the stigma is scary because there is a reason ( an obvious one) why the stigma exists. I do not agree with your feeling that some sort of societal embracement of pedophelia is a good thing.

Ha. Amusing. As usual, no evidence, no support, no nothing. All we get to see is your hind end as you flle all evidence destroying your argument. You admitted that you are unwilling to read anything that might educate you on the subject while disingenuously requesting cited sources.

You seek to punish innocent people. Yes, I very much stand up for the innocent. Some would have you thrown off the site for annoying tendency to preach and your lack of actual debate skills, but I would defend you because your innocent of any rule-breaking despite your intentional avoidance of information that counters your view. I defend the innocent until they become a credible danger. You threaten them. Yep, I can see how you would be morally outraged at a person who defends the innocent that you would happily punish.

You need proof of what I say? What proof do you seek? That pedophilia hurts people? That child molestation hurts people? Or do you want me to prove that psychology can help treat pedophiles? Or that the social stigma on both exists for a reason? Come on, if you don't get it by now you never will. I am speaking in inherent terms. Nobody has wrapped their mind around that yet.
No, you're not speaking in inherent terms. You're preaching and you're doing so with no evidence on your side. You simplify your argument to the point of absurdity. Child molesting hurts people. Intolerance hurts people. I guess you and child molesters are equal according to the same standards of argumentation you present. However, looking at it logically we would find that you and child molesters are not equal. Similar with innocent pedophiles and people who have committed crimes against children.

Jocabia, let's try this again.

Reviewing the numbers we have the proportions of child molesters in the populations of nonpedophiles and in pedophiles were as follows:

(10% / 20% = .5) < (90% / 80% = 1.1)

Thus, as you pointed out earlier, nonpedophiles are more than twice as likely to be molesters as pedophiles judging from those numbers.

This wasn't a conclusion of any of the studies we've been talking about. It's a conclusion we reached here after examining the results of two studies.

This is rather inescapable from the evidence presented if we accept the numbers from those two studies. The question then becomes: Why?

My theory is that pedophiles are more likely to have considered the potential consequences before an oportunity arrises. Does that seem like a reasonable explaination?

Jocabia, let's try this again.

Reviewing the numbers we have the proportions of child molesters in the populations of nonpedophiles and in pedophiles were as follows:

(10% / 20% = .5) < (90% / 80% = 1.1)

Thus, as you pointed out earlier, nonpedophiles are more than twice as likely to be molesters as pedophiles judging from those numbers.

This wasn't a conclusion of any of the studies we've been talking about. It's a conclusion we reached here after examining the results of two studies.

This is rather inescapable from the evidence presented if we accept the numbers from those two studies. The question then becomes: Why?

My theory is that pedophiles are more likely to have considered the potential consequences before an oportunity arrises. Does that seem like a reasonable explaination?

The problem is that the study you are citing actually found it to be an aggrivating factor though you're trying to argue the opposite. Why? Because it's not isolated. You really should read the study. You're making a fool of yourself. You keep trying to talk about pedophilia like it was studied in a vacuum but it wasn't. The studied focused on criminals. That's a very important point that you're ignoring. By focusing on criminals you have to look at what factors are common among those criminals. If pedophilia was limiting factor then if you isolated for any other factor you would expect to find less or equal pedophile molestors than non-pedophiles molests. Do you? Nope. You don't. According to the study you've been citing for weeks, you don't find that.

So, what do you find and what's the explanation for it. You find that the most affecting factor is rape fantasies. So what we can conclude from the study and the additional information you're introducing is that rape fantasies occur less in pedophiles. I don't have an explanation for it, but that's the only conclusion that makes any sense. Yours DOES not. Because to reach yours one has to rely on a study as reliable while rejecting it simultaneously.

Now, since you're arguing that this study says that pedophilia is mitigating. Can I give you any two similar people one who is a pedophile and one who isn't and have a greater likelihood in the non-pedophile for molesting? The answer, according to the study you've been citing for weeks, is NO. You cannot. If you isolate for pedophilia you find a higher likelihood of molesting. All things considered, pedophilia is aggrivating, not mitigating.

Go ahead, try to tell me that if I take 2000 people, according to the study, and 2000 are pedophiles and 2000 are not with all other things being equal that there will be more molesters among the non-pedophiles. Go ahead. You'll be wrong if you do. Because all things being equal includes rape fantasies. And absent rape fantasies and pedophilia, people do no molest according to the study you cited over and over. Absent only one or the other means that a person may still molest. That's according to a study you've been lending credence to for several weeks. It's not complicated. Certainly you can understand when you're hooked.

As screwed up as things are now adays, some people still have this problem with calling someone a criminal because of their thoughts.

Still, if any subject is going to sell people on the idea of thought-crime, this is the one.

One fine issue to ride on, then.

I have no problem with calling someone a criminal because of that person's evil thoughts. None whatsoever.

One fine issue to ride on, then.

I have no problem with calling someone a criminal because of that person's evil thoughts. None whatsoever.

If one must be codemned for their thoughts, then we are all criminals.

If one must be codemned for their thoughts, then we are all criminals.


Why so? I'm challenging you to prove that, preferably by way of a syllogism.

Why so? I'm challenging you to prove that, preferably by way of a syllogism.

If you have a bad thought, you are a criminal.
It is literally impossible to never have one bad thought.
Therefore, we must all be criminals.

I'm pretty sure that works... I'm not very awake right now. I'll be having to go to bed after this post, anyways.

If you have a bad thought, you are a criminal.
It is literally impossible to never have one bad thought.
Therefore, we must all be criminals.

I'm pretty sure that works... I'm not very awake right now. I'll be having to go to bed after this post, anyways.


Why is that impossible?

And which bad thoughts would be classified as criminal?

It is obviously bad to park without a license.
You're punished when caught - yet it is no criminal offense.

I'm pretty sure your syllogism is full of holes -
so get some sleep and try again when fully rested :)

Why is that impossible?

And which bad thoughts would be classified as criminal?

That's a problem with thought crime. The laws are different in many places, even within the U.S., so it would be hard to distinguish criminal thoughts from non-criminal ones, so it would depend entirely on where you have the thought.

It is obviously bad to park without a license.
You're punished when caught - yet it is no criminal offense.

I'm pretty sure your syllogism is full of holes -
so get some sleep and try again when fully rested :)

I knew I was never good with syllogisms. :P

Well, I just thought up a pretty good legal argument, so I guess I'll see where it one goes. Of course, this is using the current U.S. legal system, since it is quite effective and more reasonable compared to the other ones I know.

Let's assume you have thought crimes.

It would be incredibly hard to prove intent for thought crimes, since the person has to have wanted to have that thought for it to be illegal (by US law, at least). And we all know that not all thoughts can be controlled, so it would be impossible to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt, of course) that the thought was not uncontrollable (sorry about all the negatives in that sentence, it's just the wording that made the most sense to me). All someone would have to do is plead not guilty by reason that they could not control the thought, and they'd get off scott-free. Even the worst defense lawyer could lose a case of that sort.

Also, there's no real evidence that a thought occurred, so it would also be literally impossible to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with our technology. And we wouldn't be able to unless we had the technology to read EXACTLY what the person is thinking, or what their past thoughts have been, including images and such, and even then, we'd have to monitor their thoughts 24/7. But then you can reason that it is impossible to have humans monitor people's thoughts with the simple logic that you could never have more than the number of people there are when you add them together. It sounds rather confusing, so I think I should give an example:

Let's say you have 5 people. All must have their thoughts constantly monitored, so you must use 5 people since it's not a good idea to force any of the monitors to multi-task. But then when you have them all monitoring thoughts, there is no one left to make food, so they would starve.

Therefore, you must have machines do the job. To have a machine be able to detect criminal thoughts and identify those people EXACTLY, is impossible to accomplish modern science. And even if you had the technology, it would be an extreme violation of someone's privacy.

So you could conclude if we had thought crime, it could not be enforced and would be incredibly impracticable.

I knew I was never good with syllogisms. :P

Well, I just thought up a pretty good legal argument, so I guess I'll see where it one goes. Of course, this is using the current U.S. legal system, since it is quite effective and more reasonable compared to the other ones I know.

Let's assume you have thought crimes.

It would be incredibly hard to prove intent for thought crimes, since the person has to have wanted to have that thought for it to be illegal (by US law, at least). And we all know that not all thoughts can be controlled, so it would be impossible to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt, of course) that the thought was not uncontrollable (sorry about all the negatives in that sentence, it's just the wording that made the most sense to me). All someone would have to do is plead not guilty by reason that they could not control the thought, and they'd get off scott-free. Even the worst defense lawyer could lose a case of that sort.

Also, there's no real evidence that a thought occurred, so it would also be literally impossible to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with our technology. And we wouldn't be able to unless we had the technology to read EXACTLY what the person is thinking, or what their past thoughts have been, including images and such, and even then, we'd have to monitor their thoughts 24/7. But then you can reason that it is impossible to have humans monitor people's thoughts with the simple logic that you could never have more than the number of people there are when you add them together. It sounds rather confusing, so I think I should give an example:

Let's say you have 5 people. All must have their thoughts constantly monitored, so you must use 5 people since it's not a good idea to force any of the monitors to multi-task. But then when you have them all monitoring thoughts, there is no one left to make food, so they would starve.

Therefore, you must have machines do the job. To have a machine be able to detect criminal thoughts and identify those people EXACTLY us who those people are is impossible to accomplish modern science. And even if you had the technology, it would be an extreme violation of someone's privacy.

So you could conclude if we had thought crime, it could not be enforced and would be incredibly impracticable.

My apologies, but that is the dumbest argument I have ever heard.

My apologies, but that is the dumbest argument I have ever heard.

Well, I don't see you coming up with anything better.

I knew I was never good with syllogisms. :P

Well, I just thought up a pretty good legal argument, so I guess I'll see where it one goes. Of course, this is using the current U.S. legal system, since it is quite effective and more reasonable compared to the other ones I know.

Let's assume you have thought crimes.

It would be incredibly hard to prove intent for thought crimes, since the person has to have wanted to have that thought for it to be illegal (by US law, at least). And we all know that not all thoughts can be controlled, so it would be impossible to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt, of course) that the thought was not uncontrollable (sorry about all the negatives in that sentence, it's just the wording that made the most sense to me). All someone would have to do is plead not guilty by reason that they could not control the thought, and they'd get off scott-free. Even the worst defense lawyer could lose a case of that sort.

Also, there's no real evidence that a thought occurred, so it would also be literally impossible to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with our technology. And we wouldn't be able to unless we had the technology to read EXACTLY what the person is thinking, or what their past thoughts have been, including images and such, and even then, we'd have to monitor their thoughts 24/7. But then you can reason that it is impossible to have humans monitor people's thoughts with the simple logic that you could never have more than the number of people there are when you add them together. It sounds rather confusing, so I think I should give an example:

Let's say you have 5 people. All must have their thoughts constantly monitored, so you must use 5 people since it's not a good idea to force any of the monitors to multi-task. But then when you have them all monitoring thoughts, there is no one left to make food, so they would starve.

Therefore, you must have machines do the job. To have a machine be able to detect criminal thoughts and identify those people EXACTLY, is impossible to accomplish modern science. And even if you had the technology, it would be an extreme violation of someone's privacy.

So you could conclude if we had thought crime, it could not be enforced and would be incredibly impracticable.


I must say that I am utterly uncovinced by the arguments that thoughts cannot be controlled. Just about EVERYTHING can be controlled - including emotions - it is merely a matter of iron will and iron discipline.

Intent, therefore, is not all that relevant. What is relevant is that a person has not applied iron will and iron discipline. He chose not to.

I must also say I don't see the need to monitor full-time.
After all, we're not highly concerned if someone litters occasionally ( or thinks bad thoughts occasionally ) - what we're concerned about is someone littering all the time ( or thinks bad thoughts all the time ).
If someone litters all the time, we issue an ASBO.
If the ASBO is broken, you get a stay in one of Her Majesty's Prisons.
If you think '8 year old girls turn me on' all the time, we chuck you into the bin as well.

A short interruption: have you considered polygraphs?
I'm thinking that technological barriers tend to exist to be overcome.

I must say that I am utterly uncovinced by the arguments that thoughts cannot be controlled. Just about EVERYTHING can be controlled - including emotions - it is merely a matter of iron will and iron discipline.

Bullshit.

Clear your mind...and try really hard not to think of pink chickens.

Cant do it, can you?

If you said "yes I can", statistically, your probably a liar.


Intent, therefore, is not all that relevant. What is relevant is that a person has not applied iron will and iron discipline. He chose not to.

Unless you believe in some kind of "Thoughtcrime" that would make Orwell puke, theres nothing unnatural about thinking about doing anything.

Actions are what makes a person, and defines the law.

If any potential pedophile actually ACTS on his/her desires, THEN, he/she is a criminal.


Have you ever been so angry at someone, you thought about killing them?
Even for a split-second, and even if, in reality, you had no intention of actuallty doing anything of the sort?

Again, if you said "no", statistically, your probably lying.

Fantasies are harmless, no matter what the fantasy, its all about action.




I must also say I don't see the need to monitor full-time.
After all, we're not highly concerned if someone litters occasionally ( or thinks bad thoughts occasionally ) - what we're concerned about is someone littering all the time ( or thinks bad thoughts all the time ).
If someone litters all the time, we issue an ASBO.
If the ASBO is broken, you get a stay in one of Her Majesty's Prisons.
If you think '8 year old girls turn me on' all the time, we chuck you into the bin as well.

A short interruption: have you considered polygraphs?
I'm thinking that technological barriers tend to exist to be overcome.[/QUOTE]

Bullshit.

Clear your mind...and try really hard not to think of pink chickens.

Cant do it, can you?

If you said "yes I can", statistically, your probably a liar.



Unless you believe in some kind of "Thoughtcrime" that would make Orwell puke, theres nothing unnatural about thinking about doing anything.

Actions are what makes a person, and defines the law.

If any potential pedophile actually ACTS on his/her desires, THEN, he/she is a criminal.


Have you ever been so angry at someone, you thought about killing them?
Even for a split-second, and even if, in reality, you had no intention of actuallty doing anything of the sort?

Again, if you said "no", statistically, your probably lying.

Fantasies are harmless, no matter what the fantasy, its all about action.




I must also say I don't see the need to monitor full-time.
After all, we're not highly concerned if someone litters occasionally ( or thinks bad thoughts occasionally ) - what we're concerned about is someone littering all the time ( or thinks bad thoughts all the time ).
If someone litters all the time, we issue an ASBO.
If the ASBO is broken, you get a stay in one of Her Majesty's Prisons.
If you think '8 year old girls turn me on' all the time, we chuck you into the bin as well.

A short interruption: have you considered polygraphs?
I'm thinking that technological barriers tend to exist to be overcome.[/QUOTE]

Bullcrap. Thoughts can be controlled by Will and Discipline.
Not merely can I not think about whatever word it was you mentioned,
I can forget the very thing it was. *poof*
Same way that folks who TRY can control what they dream about at night.

[QUOTE]

Bullcrap. Thoughts can be controlled by Will and Discipline.
Not merely can I not think about whatever word it was you mentioned,
I can forget the very thing it was. *poof*
Same way that folks who TRY can control what they dream about at night.


You are mistaken.

You can sometimes control such things, with mental discipline, but no one can completely eliminate thoughts of that kind ( or any kind) from popping into ones head unbidden.

To say otherwise, makes you quite incorrect.

[QUOTE=BogMarsh]


You are mistaken.

You can sometimes control such things, with mental discipline, but no one can completely eliminate thoughts of that kind ( or any kind) from popping into ones head unbidden.

To say otherwise, makes you quite incorrect.

Have you tried?

Have you polled every human to see if it is possible?

Can I just point out that 'thoughtcrimes' in this case are NOT judged on actual 'thoughts'.

They're based on physical expressions of such thoughts.

For example, posting on a forum saying "I think 8 year olds are hot" is considered a 'thoughtcrime' if you want to prosecute it (at least by those who want to post such things)

THINKING "I think 8 year olds are hot" will never be a 'thoughtcrime' - merely a thought.

We wouldn't need to monitor people, just what they write and say and do. And just try claiming that people have no control over that...

Bullcrap. Thoughts can be controlled by Will and Discipline.
Not merely can I not think about whatever word it was you mentioned,
I can forget the very thing it was. *poof*
Same way that folks who TRY can control what they dream about at night.

But how do you prove that the person in question can control their thoughts entirely?

Have you tried?

Have you polled every human to see if it is possible?

Have you ever taken psychology?

I must say that I am utterly uncovinced by the arguments that thoughts cannot be controlled. Just about EVERYTHING can be controlled - including emotions - it is merely a matter of iron will and iron discipline.

What have you been smoking? Emotions cannot be controlled forever. If you try to control your emotions, eventually you cannot contain everything and you break out in some way. Killing someone maybe, committing suicide... if you can control them, it would have serious effects...

Intent, therefore, is not all that relevant. What is relevant is that a person has not applied iron will and iron discipline. He chose not to.

Who says he chose not to? What if he is mentally incapable of doing that? What if he doesn't know how to do it, but can't afford to be taught it?

A short interruption: have you considered polygraphs?
I'm thinking that technological barriers tend to exist to be overcome.

Are you refering to making them take polygraphs, or that it is possible to beat the test?

I must say that I am utterly uncovinced by the arguments that thoughts cannot be controlled. Just about EVERYTHING can be controlled - including emotions - it is merely a matter of iron will and iron discipline.

So, you think everyone has iron will? I question whether anyone has the ability to will away their sexual thoughts. If it were as easy as you are suggesting (by saying people should be held accountable for their thoughts) then people would never have thoughts or desires they didn't want. No guy would ever have to say TMI because he could just will away the mental image of the 87 year old grandmother getting banged by 35 guys in a row that their buddy mentions he heard about somewhere.

Intent, therefore, is not all that relevant. What is relevant is that a person has not applied iron will and iron discipline. He chose not to.

The best you could ever accomlish with that additude is criminal negligence, and that would require that everyone generally agree with you that thoughts are consiously controlable by everyone. And honestly, the reason we use the term "iron will" and "iron dicipline" is because these traits are uncommon. If they weren't, we would just call them will and dicipline.

I must also say I don't see the need to monitor full-time.
After all, we're not highly concerned if someone litters occasionally ( or thinks bad thoughts occasionally ) - what we're concerned about is someone littering all the time ( or thinks bad thoughts all the time ).
If someone litters all the time, we issue an ASBO.
If the ASBO is broken, you get a stay in one of Her Majesty's Prisons.
If you think '8 year old girls turn me on' all the time, we chuck you into the bin as well.

Ah, selective enforcement then. You don't bag every pedophile, just like you don't bag every litterer or every speeder. Of course applying that standard to a crime which, in all likelyhood, will contine to be regarded as the same severity as murder (if not greater severity) would be akin to suggesting that you don't have to arrest all murderers, just the ones who do it enough that we catch them on a random check.

This is what I hate about selective enforcement. It's a carte blance for the police to employ biased enforcement, protecting friends and harrassing enemies, and to enforce only the laws that further their own goals and agendas.

A short interruption: have you considered polygraphs?
I'm thinking that technological barriers tend to exist to be overcome.
Even if we could develop microwave mind reading devices that could be used to monitor and analyse everyone's thoughts in real time, it's a bad idea to prosecute or persecute someone for their thoughts.

So...why are we on the subject of thoughtcrimes? The very idea is stupid and unrealistic, not to mention it refuses to recognize the basic fact that most people cannot and will not be able to control all of their thoughts, that so said "Iron will and discipline" will only help certain people, and so on and so forth. In other words, it is irrelevant.

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?
So your into kiddies?
Well, another possible option is the guillotine.

What settings do the mods use as a standard? I ask because on standard settings, this thread is 88 pages long. I thought I read a while back that threads would be closed after 65 pages, and that a new thread should be made at that point.

Was this some sort of exception, or have the mods just not noticed this thread yet?

Oh, and Admiral Canaris, why is it you insist on believing that people should be executed because they are attracted to someone you don't like them being attracted to?

What settings do the mods use as a standard? I ask because on standard settings, this thread is 88 pages long. I thought I read a while back that threads would be closed after 65 pages, and that a new thread should be made at that point.

Was this some sort of exception, or have the mods just not noticed this thread yet?

Oh, and Admiral Canaris, why is it you insist on believing that people should be executed because they are attracted to someone you don't like them being attracted to?

The limits were for the old forum. On this forum, the mods don't usually close threads that still have active discussion and haven't devolved into Spam.

The limits were for the old forum. On this forum, the mods don't usually close threads that still have active discussion and haven't devolved into Spam.
Okay. Thanks for clearing that up.

Oh, and Admiral Canaris, why is it you insist on believing that people should be executed because they are attracted to someone you don't like them being attracted to?
For one because he asked for a suggestion.
For another kids are not labrats which pinky lefties can use to experiment for the benefit of paedophiles. Like they did in the Netherlands. Where they gave such a monster a job in a kindergarten. Three guesses what he ended up doing. So cut the why is it you insist on believing that people should be executed because they are attracted to someone you don't like them being attracted to? crap. A good paedophile is...well you get the idea.

For one because he asked for a suggestion.
For another kids are not labrats which pinky lefties can use to experiment for the benefit of paedophiles. Like they did in the Netherlands. Where they gave such a monster a job in a kindergarten. Three guesses what he ended up doing. So cut the why is it you insist on believing that people should be executed because they are attracted to someone you don't like them being attracted to? crap. A good paedophile is...well you get the idea.

And the fact that the vast majority of pedophiles will never offend. And by vast majority, I mean HUGE majority. We'll just start killing innocent people. And, hey, if we murder everyone there won't be any crime. Yeah, that's an excellent idea. Not stupid at all.

And the fact that the vast majority of pedophiles will never offend. And by vast majority, I mean HUGE majority.
Oh golly. I now see the errors of my ways. Let's organise a pedo pride parade. And as compensation for years of opression we should get them little kiddies-adult love laws and make them kindergarten teachers, swim instructors and what not. Cause they will NEVER offend if we tie them to the bacon. Well, most likely. Perhaps. Hey and if they do start fondeling them. Theres still more who haven't yet. As a matter of fact. Why don't you become a pedo sponsor. You could wear a cool button and hand out flyers for pedophile rights. Start at the elementary schools and kindergartens. Probably the places biggest anti-pedo places.
Here is the start for a rebuttal list. In case you run into childlover hating biggots.
1. Nazi.
2. Kidlover.
3. Pedo hater.




Not stupid at all.
Yeah. Let the children cum to them.:rolleyes:

Pedo Power (http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/1076/pedopoweriq5.gif)

Oh golly. I now see the errors of my ways. Let's organise a pedo pride parade. And as compensation for years of opression we should get them little kiddies-adult love laws and make them kindergarten teachers, swim instructors and what not. Cause they will NEVER offend if we tie them to the bacon. Well, most likely. Perhaps. Hey and if they do start fondeling them. Theres still more who haven't yet. As a matter of fact. Why don't you become a pedo sponsor. You could wear a cool button and hand out flyers for pedophile rights. Start at the elementary schools and kindergartens. Probably the places biggest anti-pedo places.
Here is the start for a rebuttal list. In case you run into childlover hating biggots.
1. Nazi.
2. Kidlover.
3. Pedo hater.





Yeah. Let the children cum to them.:rolleyes:

Actually, if you'd bother to read you'd see I don't support pedophilia at all. I consider it an illness. I don't kill people for needing therapy. The ones that do offend deserve strict punishment, but basically people who aren't just flamebaiting on the internet tend to have this odd belief in not punishing people for things they haven't done and by all accounts will likely NEVER do.

So, if we start killing people for their desires and you desire to kill people who are innocent... perhaps you don't want us to go that route.

And the fact that the vast majority of pedophiles will never offend. And by vast majority, I mean HUGE majority. We'll just start killing innocent people. And, hey, if we murder everyone there won't be any crime. Yeah, that's an excellent idea. Not stupid at all.
Do you actually think he understood that already? I mean honestly? You've been reading these threads for a long time. People like that come in with a lot of preconceptions, and they never bother to read all the very good information that was posted before they make their ignorant, hateful posts. There's a rythm to these things, and as long as you've been arguing on this subject, I'd think you'd picked up on it by now.
Oh golly. I now see the errors of my ways.

You don't yet, but if you have any intelectual honestly, you soon will. There've been studies posted throughout this thread which indicate that pedophiles are far more common than you are likely to accept, making up 20-33% of the male population, and that they make up only a small minority of child molesters, up to 10%. What do those numbers say to you?

Let's organise a pedo pride parade.

Don't I wish. I'd like to see one, but the police have this funny problem enforcing the laws against hate crime and violence when it comes to people like us.

And as compensation for years of opression we should get them little kiddies-adult love laws and make them kindergarten teachers, swim instructors and what not. Cause they will NEVER offend if we tie them to the bacon.

Incidentally, I am an instructor at an elementary school, and am often left alone as the sole authority to a room full of kindergardeners. I haven't molested anyone, and never intend to.

Well, most likely. Perhaps. Hey and if they do start fondeling them. Theres still more who haven't yet.

Indeed. Adjusting for the differences in overall population (thus taking two evenly sized groups of pedophiles and nonpedophiles), there are more pedophiles who haven't molested than nonpedophiles who haven't.

As a matter of fact. Why don't you become a pedo sponsor. You could wear a cool button and hand out flyers for pedophile rights. Start at the elementary schools and kindergartens. Probably the places biggest anti-pedo places.

Actually, Jocabia is of the opinion that people like me are sick and in need of treatment, not to mention a danger to ourselves and others. He just doesn't believe in punishing people who haven't done anything wrong.

Here is the start for a rebuttal list. In case you run into childlover hating biggots.
1. Nazi.
2. Kidlover.
3. Pedo hater.

Actually, I just use the term biggot, or if I'm in the company of other pedophiles, the term anti.

Yeah. Let the children cum to them.:rolleyes:
How crass.

Actually, if you'd bother to read you'd see I don't support pedophilia at all. I consider it an illness. I don't kill people for needing therapy. The ones that do offend deserve strict punishment, but basically people who aren't just flamebaiting on the internet tend to have this odd belief in not punishing people for things they haven't done and by all accounts will likely NEVER do.
Will LIKELY. If you like taking chances find yourself a pedo and let them babysit your kids if you have have any.

Pedo Power (http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/1076/pedopoweriq5.gif)

Well, let's see so far we've got flaming, flamebaiting, trolling, threats, wishing for death. You hit the perfect storm of ignoring the site rules.

Meanwhile, do you have an ability to actually discuss things or did you just come here to prove you don't know the difference between innocent people and child molesters.

I'll explain it to you. You wish to murder people. But you can't be put to death because it's just internet bravado and we all realize you aren't actually planning to do anything, fortunately. See, we don't punish people for simply desiring to do something illegal. We punish people only when they have either committed a crime are a credible danger to themselves and others. No study of pedophiles show them to be a credible threat.

Will LIKELY. If you like taking chances find yourself a pedo and let them babysit your kids if you have have any.

Likely, huh? You can prove this, no? Because throughout this threads it has been shown that the likelihood of a pedophile offending against children is low. There is actually an aggrivating factor that is more dangerous and that is found more frequently in non-pedophiles than pedophiles. That aggrivating factor and pedophilia are the only factors found in offenders, but the other factor is far, far more prevelant than one would expect.

You don't yet, but if you have any intelectual honestly, you soon will. There've been studies posted throughout this thread which indicate that pedophiles are far more common than you are likely to accept, making up 20-33% of the male population, and that they make up only a small minority of child molesters, up to 10%. What do those numbers say to you?
That we probably have a few to many.


Don't I wish. I'd like to see one, but the police have this funny problem enforcing the laws against hate crime and violence when it comes to people like us.
Yeah I bet you would.


Incidentally, I am an instructor at an elementary school, and am often left alone as the sole authority to a room full of kindergardeners. I haven't molested anyone, and never intend to.
Figures. I wonder if you still would be if the parents knew about that.

Indeed. Adjusting for the differences in overall population (thus taking two evenly sized groups of pedophiles and nonpedophiles), there are more pedophiles who haven't molested than nonpedophiles who haven't.
Let's be clear. If you isolate for pedophilia you'll find no molesters in the non-pedophile group. If you don't isolate for pedophilia molestation is actually more common outside of the pedophile group.

Well, let's see so far we've got flaming, flamebaiting, trolling, threats, wishing for death. You hit the perfect storm of ignoring the site rules.
Well, next time you make a thread about a subject like this why don't you just say in your opening post you only want to read opinions like your own.


Meanwhile, do you have an ability to actually discuss things or did you just come here to prove you don't know the difference between innocent people and child molesters.
I came in here to give my personal opinion on the matter. If you don't like it boohoo.
No study of pedophiles show them to be a credible threat.
Yeah. Thats how convicted pedophile child molesters get out of jail to commit the same crime again. After some therapy and them telling their shrink what they want to hear are declared no longer a threat. And after some time...

88 Pages at the time of writing this, wow.

As an ephebophile I'd have to say this.

I have not, nor do I intend to, break the law on this matter. I feel that would be wrong.
If there was no law on this matter, I would still have a fairly high limit, Which would vary from person to person.

The death penalty, I feel, is wrong as a punishment. But I do feel strongly about those who harm kids. So much so as repeat OFFENDER'S (Not those who just have (Relatively) uncommon preferences) would end up with castration if I was a Despotic leader.

You think it's easy for anyone to seek help for anything? It isn't.
You think that it's not made worse by society? It is.

If society understood how the fringes felt, I'd probably getting psychiatric help for numerous things. Even without breaking any laws (As I will repeat I have not done).


Oh to those who do support death penalty. I do consider it an illness I'm afraid. In my view, it would be the same as killing people for having OCD, or Diabetes. Can be genetic, can be just you, Either way, I can't say it's the persons choice to feel that way, But in a good society, it should be their choice NOT to harm anyone.

Well, next time you make a thread about a subject like this why don't you just say in your opening post you only want to read opinions like your own.

My opinions have nothing to do with the site rules. Many people have agreed with you in this thread without violating the site rules. Your inability to follow the rules has nothing to do with topic. The OSRS is available to you at antime. I recommend reading it.

I came in here to give my personal opinion on the matter. If you don't like it boohoo.

Your opinion is ignorant of the reality of the situation. I don't like child molesters. I was molested by one. It doesn't make me want to murder innocent people. Wanting to kill people who are innocent I would say is at least as dangerous as fantasizing about children, if not more.


Yeah. Thats how convicted pedophile child molesters get out of jail to commit the same crime again. After some therapy and them telling their shrink what they want to hear are declared no longer a threat. And after some time...

Yes, once people have offended their likelihood of reoffending is astronomical. Most of them are not actually pedophiles as you can read. Only about 10% of offenders are actual clinical pedophiles. Most people who molest children choose them as targets of opportunity, for much the same reason that most rapists choose women. It's not about attraction. It's about choosing targets that are less likely to be able to stop you. But you knew that right?

Also, people who are convicted of theft are much more likely to offend then people who never do it. People who murder, people who commit any crime. You are equating criminals with the innocent and given that should we be more concerned that you wish to murder people?

That we probably have a few to many.

Too many child molesters, I agree. Far too many. As for pedophiles, given the numbers, I'd say we don't have enough. If the proportions of pedophiles were higher, we'd have a lower instance of molestation.

Yeah I bet you would.

What? The section you quoted was about police enforcement. Are you a member of law enforcement who would ignore the law when it comes to crimes commited against pedophiles like me, or are you simply a wanna be hate criminal?

Figures. I wonder if you still would be if the parents knew about that.
If they knew I wasn't abusing their kids? I somehow think that would be a positive thing to them.
Let's be clear. If you isolate for pedophilia you'll find no molesters in the non-pedophile group. If you don't isolate for pedophilia molestation is actually more common outside of the pedophile group.
Let me see if I understand this. You believe we have any ability to find people who have no risk factors and that it's appropriate to compare them to people with one risk factor which seems to midigate the effects of a more common risk factor?

Why can't you just admit that I'm giving an accurate assessment of the numbers without qualifying it to fit your agenda?
Well, next time you make a thread about a subject like this why don't you just say in your opening post you only want to read opinions like your own.

Jocabia wasn't the one who made the thread. And Jocabia's views are actually quite similar to your own, only he advocates lifelong instatutionalization rather than execution. You really shouldn't be arguing with your ally.

I came in here to give my personal opinion on the matter. If you don't like it boohoo.

And you expressed your opinion in a way which violates site rules. You may think the taboo around this subject gives you a carte blanche to violate whatever rules you feel like as long as you're anti-pedophile, but there have been posters diciplined in this thread for that exact behavior. Do yourself a favor and stop.

Yeah. Thats how convicted pedophile child molesters get out of jail to commit the same crime again. After some therapy and them telling their shrink what they want to hear are declared no longer a threat. And after some time...
Actually, they get out because they served their entire sentence, and society declares them no longer a theat. Not that prisons actually do anything to rehabilitate, but that's what all the rhetoric says. Not to mention that no convicted child molester is ever actually reintegrated into society anymore. Registries and the like do everything in their power to make sure the outside world is as much or more a prison than actual prison.
88 Pages at the time of writing this, wow.

Subects which inspire strong feelings tend to get long.

As an ephebophile I'd have to say this.

I have not, nor do I intend to, break the law on this matter. I feel that would be wrong.

And as a pedophile and nepiophile, I feel the same.

If there was no law on this matter, I would still have a fairly high limit, Which would vary from person to person.

While I would likely put the limit lower than you, I agree that varying from person to person is appropriate, since people mature at different rates, both physically and cognatively.

The death penalty, I feel, is wrong as a punishment. But I do feel strongly about those who harm kids. So much so as repeat OFFENDER'S (Not those who just have (Relatively) uncommon preferences) would end up with castration if I was a Despotic leader.

Castration isn't an effective solution. It's been studied, and doesn't significantly detter rape crimes, or prevent reoffenses.

You think it's easy for anyone to seek help for anything? It isn't.
You think that it's not made worse by society? It is.

Very true.

If society understood how the fringes felt, I'd probably getting psychiatric help for numerous things. Even without breaking any laws (As I will repeat I have not done).

I'd probably be seeing someone myself, but then again, if society did know how I felt, I'd have fewer stressors, so would be less in need of therapy.

Oh to those who do support death penalty. I do consider it an illness I'm afraid. In my view, it would be the same as killing people for having OCD, or Diabetes. Can be genetic, can be just you, Either way, I can't say it's the persons choice to feel that way, But in a good society, it should be their choice NOT to harm anyone.
I don't consider it an illness. Still, I do find it odd that an insanity defense isn't ever used successfully by child molesters, what with it being a mental illness, and grounds for civil commitment and all.

Castration isn't an effective solution. It's been studied, and doesn't significantly detter rape crimes, or prevent reoffenses.


Actually yeah, Having said that I now feel kinda stupid. After all, if they don't have that to use, what would they use? Probably something ALOT worse.
However I'll leave it there for archival purposes.

And maybe not an illness, But a definate difference in how the brain works. Even if it's just a small thing changed, like how people with green eyes can't see dogs.

Actually yeah, Having said that I now feel kinda stupid. After all, if they don't have that to use, what would they use? Probably something ALOT worse.
However I'll leave it there for archival purposes.

It's a common enough mistake, but one I feel is important to correct, since I want people to be using programs for dealing with child molesters that actually work.

And maybe not an illness, But a definate difference in how the brain works. Even if it's just a small thing changed, like how people with green eyes can't see dogs.
What?

People with green eyes can't see dogs
What?

Someone famous said it, so it must be true Leaf-eyed (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/03/22)

Thread hijack over now.

Has insanity really never been used in court?

Too many child molesters, I agree. Far too many. As for pedophiles, given the numbers, I'd say we don't have enough. If the proportions of pedophiles were higher, we'd have a lower instance of molestation.

The evidence disagrees with you. Pedophilia is an aggrivating factor.

Let me see if I understand this. You believe we have any ability to find people who have no risk factors and that it's appropriate to compare them to people with one risk factor which seems to midigate the effects of a more common risk factor?

Why can't you just admit that I'm giving an accurate assessment of the numbers without qualifying it to fit your agenda?

Ha. No, you are bastardizing a study you didn't read to fit your agenda. The study found pedophilia to be an aggrivating factor. Now if you'd like to prove the lower incidence is of rape fantasies in pedophiles is more than coincidental, feel free to do so.

You are citing not the conclusion of the study nor even the major findings of the study. Just one small summarized tidbit that out of context says what you want it to say and in context says exactly the opposite.

It is known that most people have no risk factors and that there are no molester who are not either pedophiles or rape fetishists. None.

If a person is a rape fetishist and pedophile they are equally likely to offend than a rape fetishist and a non-pedophile. If they are a not a rape fetishist and a pedophile they MAY offend, and if they are not a rape fetishist and are not a pedophile they are not known to offend according to the study you are trotting out.

That means that if you isolate for pedophilia according to the study it aggravates the issue. It's an aggravating factor by the definition of aggravating. Next.

Ya know, as far as I am aware, even in the days of the Great Society and such where there was an honest effort to reform these people, I know not of one study that concluded that a significant number of pedophiles could be rehabilitated. So if we're trying to go onto some great crusade and put these 'poor bastards' through rehab so they won't have attractions to children anymore, then well, I don't think we'd be plodding new ground here.

And yeah, personally if you admit to having a fascination with kids then you deserve to be an outcast; you're admitting to possibly wanting to have sexual relations, with children, the most guarded element of Western society. You get what you deserve; admit at your own risk.

The evidence disagrees with you. Pedophilia is an aggrivating factor.
And you say I don't read the evidence.
Ha. No, you are bastardizing a study you didn't read to fit your agenda. The study found pedophilia to be an aggrivating factor. Now if you'd like to prove the lower incidence is of rape fantasies in pedophiles is more than coincidental, feel free to do so.

So you feel that lower instance is not coincidental? Do you feel that the proportions of offending pedophiles to offending nonpedophiles is a coincidence too?

You are citing not the conclusion of the study nor even the major findings of the study. Just one small summarized tidbit that out of context says what you want it to say and in context says exactly the opposite.

Let me see if I understand this right. If I refference a study with a certain statistical finding, I must always agree with the subjective interpretation of the researcher if I am to agree that the statistic has value? Is that what you're saying?

It is known that most people have no risk factors and that there are no molester who are not either pedophiles or rape fetishists. None.

Interesting. I wonder if there was a significant difference in the type of the offense between those with just pedophilia as a factor and those who posessed other risk factors.

If a person is a rape fetishist and pedophile they are equally likely to offend than a rape fetishist and a non-pedophile.

In other words, you are suggesting that pedophilia has no effect, and that a person interested in rape is just as likely to molest a child if he isn't a pedophile. Thus, there are equal proportions in offenders with rape fantasies of pedophiles and nonpedophiles, and that these proportions are consistent with the general population?

If they are a not a rape fetishist and a pedophile they MAY offend, and if they are not a rape fetishist and are not a pedophile they are not known to offend according to the study you are trotting out.

Which kind of begs the question of why nonpedophiles in general are more likely to offend than pedophiles in general. Why do you think that is?

That means that if you isolate for pedophilia according to the study it aggravates the issue. It's an aggravating factor by the definition of aggravating. Next.
And an agrivating factor that apparently diminishes the instance of a more agrivating factor. Gee, when a factor makes a person less likely to have another, worse factor, what do we call that?

Ya know, as far as I am aware, even in the days of the Great Society and such where there was an honest effort to reform these people, I know not of one study that concluded that a significant number of pedophiles could be rehabilitated. So if we're trying to go onto some great crusade and put these 'poor bastards' through rehab so they won't have attractions to children anymore, then well, I don't think we'd be plodding new ground here.

And yeah, personally if you admit to having a fascination with kids then you deserve to be an outcast; you're admitting to possibly wanting to have sexual relations, with children, the most guarded element of Western society. You get what you deserve; admit at your own risk.
So you'd preffer we keep on hiding, right? You want us to be able to move amongst you without being detected and to be placed in positions of trust over children without being free to tell you we happen to be pedophiles. That's a great plan...if you want to encourage child molesters.

So you'd preffer we keep on hiding, right? You want us to be able to move amongst you without being detected and to be placed in positions of trust over children without being free to tell you we happen to be pedophiles. That's a great plan...if you want to encourage child molesters.

I never said that you moron. I said that if you admit to being one who wishes to have sex with children, that you deserve to be shunned. If you don't admit it then well, no one knows your intentions other than you, who is keeping it from us; then I guess the point is moot; if we don't know we can't do anything whatever the word 'anything' entails.

You realise that that kind of thinking prevents most pedophiles from getting psychiatric help AND is the biggest impediment to research on pedophilia.
And so it seriously increases the amount of child molesters because of it.

Has insanity really never been used in court?
Generally, it's status as a mental illness only comes up after the molester has served his time, at which point, the state seeks to have the molester subjected to civil commitment. Apparently they were fully responsible for their actions as far as the trial is concerned, but once they've been put through the punative legal system, it turns out they were just sick all along. Nasty little inconsistent cycle.
I never said that you moron.

Watch it. The mods are well aware that this subject causes emotions to run high, and have had to remove people for rules violationss before. Please avoid the personal insults, for your own good.

I said that if you admit to being one who wishes to have sex with children, that you deserve to be shunned. If you don't admit it then well, no one knows your intentions other than you, who is keeping it from us; then I guess the point is moot; if we don't know we can't do anything whatever the word 'anything' entails.
In other words, you don't care how many of us there are, or what positions we're in, so long as you never have to hear about it. There's no incentive for us to tell you who we are, so we continue to hide in the dark places of the world. And since we're criminals and monsters no matter what we do, there's no incentive not to molest children, other than our own consiences.
You realise that that kind of thinking prevents most pedophiles from getting psychiatric help AND is the biggest impediment to research on pedophilia.
And so it seriously increases the amount of child molesters because of it.
Honestly, I don't think he cares. I think he's more concerned with the fact that he has a socially acceptable target for hate and violence than he is about keeping children safe. In fact, I think he's willing to put children in greater danger in order to perpetuate his ability to get away with commiting and advocating violence. I hope I'm wrong, but his resposes so far seem to support my conclusion.

You realise that that kind of thinking prevents most pedophiles from getting psychiatric help AND is the biggest impediment to research on pedophilia.
And so it seriously increases the amount of child molesters because of it.
Oh please. Convicted pedophiles get plenty of help (or are at least offered, not sure how many accept it) for one thing, and even if they didn't now, during the progressive era under such administrations as Johnson and Carter, these people would have RECIEVED LOADS of help. Even the University of Tennessee during my father's time about thirty-five years ago did some research on the matter back when no one gave two shits; when no one looked for the creepy teacher or mailman, and what they found amounted to nothing. Though this is anecdotal and I don't feel like trolling through the databases of the internet to find actual studies, if you can produce evidence that states pedophiles can be helped fine; otherwise I take what you say with an idealistic grain of salt.

Oh please. Convicted pedophiles get plenty of help (or are at least offered, not sure how many accept it) for one thing, and even if they didn't now, during the progressive era under such administrations as Johnson and Carter, these people would have RECIEVED LOADS of help. Even the University of Tennessee during my father's time about thirty-five years ago did some research on the matter back when no one gave two shits; when no one looked for the creepy teacher or mailman, and what they found amounted to nothing. Though this is anecdotal and I don't feel like trolling through the databases of the internet to find actual studies, if you can produce evidence that states pedophiles can be helped fine; otherwise I take what you say with an idealistic grain of salt.
You know, to me, the fact that we can't be helped suggests that maybe we aren't sick.

Watch it. The mods are well aware that this subject causes emotions to run high, and have had to remove people for rules violationss before. Please avoid the personal insults, for your own good.

A personal insult is you claiming I'd 'prefer' you to be about hiding and molesting children, me calling you a moron is a matter of fact for making such a rediculous insinuation.

In other words, you don't care how many of us there are, or what positions we're in, so long as you never have to hear about it. There's no incentive for us to tell you who we are, so we continue to hide in the dark places of the world. And since we're criminals and monsters no matter what we do, there's no incentive not to molest children, other than our own consiences.

In other words you need to be locked up, drugged up, or have your balls removed if you think about sex with children for more than two seconds at any given point in your life. If you identify yourself as someone who is A DANGER TO THE CHILDREN then you have to do what is right and remove yourself from the children, by any means possible without trying to pin the responsibility on other people.

Honestly, I don't think he cares. I think he's more concerned with the fact that he has a socially acceptable target for hate and violence than he is about keeping children safe. In fact, I think he's willing to put children in greater danger in order to perpetuate his ability to get away with commiting and advocating violence. I hope I'm wrong, but his resposes so far seem to support my conclusion.


Oh yes, the indignance; the POOR ME I AM A VICTIM! indignance that is so profound in the post civil-rights era where the only way to survive an argument is to try and skew yourself as some poor martyr. No where have I said to go out and shoot or lynch pedophiles, I have simply stated that what research I am aware of what -not- promising and that if you admit to having a fascination in line with monsters, then you deserve to be shunned for your own stupidity.

Oh please. Convicted pedophiles get plenty of help (or are at least offered, not sure how many accept it) for one thing, and even if they didn't now, during the progressive era under such administrations as Johnson and Carter, these people would have RECIEVED LOADS of help. Even the University of Tennessee during my father's time about thirty-five years ago did some research on the matter back when no one gave two shits; when no one looked for the creepy teacher or mailman, and what they found amounted to nothing. Though this is anecdotal and I don't feel like trolling through the databases of the internet to find actual studies, if you can produce evidence that states pedophiles can be helped fine; otherwise I take what you say with an idealistic grain of salt.
First thing, convicted pedophiles is incorrect. You can't convict a pedophile just on being a pedophile.
And you need proof for any argument you have or your argument is worthless.

You know, to me, the fact that we can't be helped suggests that maybe we aren't sick.
So perhaps AIDS, lacking a cure, is not a disease but an annoying allergy?

First thing, convicted pedophiles is incorrect. You can't convict a pedophile just on being a pedophile.
And you need proof for any argument you have or your argument is worthless.

I honestly do not know HOW to respond to this since apparently there is such a VAST and OVERWHELMING communication gap between us that the fact CONVICTED PEDOPHILES, bolded to indicate emphasis, assumes someone was CONVICTED FOR BEING A PEDOPHILE (molesting children and such?) means they were not convicted for being a pedophile. Wow.

Also if you want to play that game then fine; where is your evidence from a peer reviewed scientific source that claims pedophiles, convicted of a child related crime or not, can be helped in any way, and acheive even moderate success with those methods?

So perhaps AIDS, lacking a cure, is not a disease but an annoying allergy?
AIDS causes harm.
If an incurable disease doesn't harm people including the victim, there's no reason to cure it.
If there's no reason to cure it then why is it called a disease at all?

A personal insult is you claiming I'd 'prefer' you to be about hiding and molesting children, me calling you a moron is a matter of fact for makign such a rediculous insinuation.

You are free to refute my claim at any time. I should think your best bet for doing so would be to make it clear why I should be telling people who I am. So far, your posts are just full of reasons why I should be hiding, criminal or not.

In other words you need to be locked up, drugged up, or have your balls removed if you think about sex with children for more than two seconds at any given point in your life.

Seems you want everyone so punished. There isn't anyone alive who can meet the standards you've laid out. No one who's ever been in the presence of a crying infant could meet that standard you've laid out.

If you identify yourself as someone who is A DANGER TO THE CHILDREN then you have to do what is right and remove yourself from the children, by any means possible without trying to pin the responsibility on other people.

Being a pedophile doesn't make me a danger to children. Honestly, considering your view that thinking about children for more than two seconds makes a person a monster, you are the person I'd rather not have access to children.

Oh yes, the indignance; the POOR ME I AM A VICTIM! indignance that is so profound in the post civil-rights era where the only way to survive an argument is to try and skew yourself as some poor martyr. No where have I said to go out and shoot or lynch pedophiles, I have simply stated that what research I am aware of what -not- promising and that if you admit to having a fascination in line with monsters, then you deserve to be shunned for your own stupidity.
Don't worry about me. I'm not so stupid as to admit to this anywhere people could identify me. There are too many people like you out there at the moment. With luck there will be fewer like you in the future.
So perhaps AIDS, lacking a cure, is not a disease but an annoying allergy?
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of homosexuality, who's attempted cures had exactly the same results they have when applied to pedophiles.

AIDS causes harm.
If an incurable disease doesn't harm people including the victim, there's no reason to cure it.
If there's no reason to cure it then why is it called a disease at all?
And molesting a child, doing possible decades of mental and emotional harm to a human being isn't somehow harmful?

And molesting a child, doing possible decades of mental and emotional harm to a human being isn't somehow harmful?
Of course it's harmful. It's just that most of the time it isn't a pedophile doing it, so you can't really say it's caused by pedophilia.

I honestly do not know HOW to respond to this since apparently there is such a VAST and OVERWHELMING communication gap between us that the fact CONVICTED PEDOPHILES, bolded to indicate emphasis, assumes someone was CONVICTED FOR BEING A PEDOPHILE (molesting children and such?) means they were not convicted for being a pedophile. Wow.

You aren't convicted of being a pedophile. You are convicted of molesting children. What you said is about as accurate as calling rapists convicted heterosexuals.

Also if you want to play that game then fine; where is your evidence from a peer reviewed scientific source that claims pedophiles, convicted of a child related crime or not, can be helped in any way, and acheive even moderate success with those methods?
You said it, you have to prove it. Rules of debate.
And you've worded it wrong. I don't think pedophiles can be cured. I think that a psychiatrist can help stop them act on it.
Granted, if they're thinking of acting on it they have deeper problems then just pedophilia. But I think you get my point.
And I'm not going to start a debate on this subject, so I'll not back it up and let it die on purpose.

You are free to refute my claim at any time. I should think your best bet for doing so would be to make it clear why I should be telling people who I am. So far, your posts are just full of reasons why I should be hiding, criminal or not.

So you don't... molest ze children? You know, kinda like telling people you've been bathing in lit napalm and maybe it would be a good idea to sprinkle some water around to put you out?

Seems you want everyone so punished. There isn't anyone alive who can meet the standards you've laid out. No one who's ever been in the presence of a crying infant could meet that standard you've laid out.

I'm not sure I know... any body who would want to bone a crying infant, ever. Regardless, I guess I should confess my statement is mostly hyperboyle; obviously people have the occasional ... odd sexual fantasy that would not require them drawn and quartered, but then again, having that same odd fantasy involving little children very often is indicative of, well, a problem I would say.

Being a pedophile doesn't make me a danger to children. Honestly, considering your view that thinking about children for more than two seconds makes a person a monster, you are the person I'd rather not have access to children.

Wanting to have sex with children, makes you a danger to children.

Don't worry about me. I'm not so stupid as to admit to this anywhere people could identify me. There are too many people like you out there at the moment. With luck there will be fewer like you in the future.

Yes, LET THE GLORIOUS SEXUAL REVOLUTION EXTEND TO CHILDREN AND ADULTS! ALL US WATCHFUL PARENTS AND GAURDIANS OF SOCIETY ARE BASTARDS FOR WANTING TO KEEP CHILDREN SAFE! Damn me for now wanting some children to be possibly emotionally damaged for life.

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of homosexuality, who's attempted cures had exactly the same results they have when applied to pedophiles.

Because possibly wanting to have sex with a consenting adult of the same gender might be less of a disease than it is a quirk of some kind? Whereas wanting to bone a child, a stupid, and nonconsenting being, something you know full well is... sick? Sorta like throwing puppies over bridges and putting kittens into a path of a rampaging steamroller?

You aren't convicted of being a pedophile. You are convicted of molesting children. What you said is about as accurate as calling rapists convicted heterosexuals.

And in mainstream english, we call those people *GASP!* Pedophiles. DUM DUM DUM!

You said it, you have to prove it. Rules of debate.
And you've worded it wrong. I don't think pedophiles can be cured. I think that a psychiatrist can help stop them act on it.
Granted, if they're thinking of acting on it they have deeper problems then just pedophilia. But I think you get my point.
And I'm not going to start a debate on this subject, so I'll not back it up and let it die on purpose.
Uh, no. I can offer anecdotal evidence from my father, who was arround during this time of progressive thinking and a witness to some of these studies as he lived on compus, but that is as far as I am willing to go. If you fidn that is lacking, then fine, I will concede your point based completely on laziness and lathargy at the wee hours of the AM, however I have yet to see from you, or anyone else -- though this may be not wanting to waddle through 80+ pages of trash -- prove in anyway that ANYONE has developed a method to keep even around 30% of pedophiles from acting/repeating a crime.

And in mainstream english, we call those people *GASP!* Pedophiles. DUM DUM DUM!

No, they're called child molestors. Pedophiles are people who are ATTRACTED to children. The difference is the difference between heterosexual and rapist.

(snip) prove in anyway that ANYONE has developed a method to keep even around 30% of pedophiles from acting/repeating a crime.
And of course, it's already been cited that only about 10% of pedophiles molest someone.

No, they're called child molestors. Pedophiles are people who are ATTRACTED to children. The difference is the difference between heterosexual and rapist.
http://news.google.com/news?hs=uuo&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=convicted%20pedophile&btnG=Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

Long link, but, whatever.

And of course, it's already been cited that only about 10% of pedophiles molest someone.[/QUOTE]


And of those ten percent how many reoffend and how many are rehabilitated?

So you don't... molest ze children? You know, kinda like telling people you've been bathing in lit napalm and maybe it would be a good idea to sprinkle some water around to put you out?

Seriously, do you think all pedophiles are molesters? That's just jacked up.

I'm not sure I know... any body who would want to bone a crying infant, ever. Regardless, I guess I should confess my statement is mostly hyperboyle; obviously people have the occasional ... odd sexual fantasy that would not require them drawn and quartered, but then again, having that same odd fantasy involving little children very often is indicative of, well, a problem I would say

It isn't a problem so long as one doesn't do any real harm to the children, in my view. "Drawn and quartered"? I must say, you would make a perfect Medieval aristocrat.

Wanting to have sex with children, makes you a danger to children.
No, it doesn't. I fantasize about such things every so often, but I would never do it in reality as who knows how much harm could be done in the process.

Yes, LET THE GLORIOUS SEXUAL REVOLUTION EXTEND TO CHILDREN AND ADULTS! ALL US WATCHFUL PARENTS AND GAURDIANS OF SOCIETY ARE BASTARDS FOR WANTING TO KEEP CHILDREN SAFE! Damn me for now wanting some children to be possibly emotionally damaged for life.
You completely miss the point. The point is that there are too many overreacting people like you who want to have us hung and our insides cut apart with swords simply for fantasizing about sex. We have our rights, dammit.

Because possibly wanting to have sex with a consenting adult of the same gender might be less of a disease than it is a quirk of some kind? Whereas wanting to bone a child, a stupid, and nonconsenting being, something you know full well is... sick? Sorta like throwing puppies over bridges and putting kittens into a path of a rampaging steamroller?
Again, you totally miss the point. The subject was "trying to cure such mentalities (or whatever)", not that either is bad.

So you don't... molest ze children?

No, I don't.

You know, kinda like telling people you've been bathing in lit napalm and maybe it would be a good idea to sprinkle some water around to put you out?

You are aware that napalm burns under water, right? I'm not sure I understand your analogy.

I'm not sure I know... any body who would want to bone a crying infant, ever. Regardless, I guess I should confess my statement is mostly hyperboyle; obviously people have the occasional ... odd sexual fantasy that would not require them drawn and quartered, but then again, having that same odd fantasy involving little children very often is indicative of, well, a problem I would say.

You didn't say it had to be sexual thoughts. You said anyone who "thinks about children for more than two seconds" should have these horrible things done to them. It is possible to think about children in a nonsexual way. I know this must be a hard concept for you.

Wanting to have sex with children, makes you a danger to children.

I'm afraid the statistics don't support with your assertion.

Yes, LET THE GLORIOUS SEXUAL REVOLUTION EXTEND TO CHILDREN AND ADULTS! ALL US WATCHFUL PARENTS AND GAURDIANS OF SOCIETY ARE BASTARDS FOR WANTING TO KEEP CHILDREN SAFE! Damn me for now wanting some children to be possibly emotionally damaged for life.

I know it was a typo on your part, but it makes your statment more accurate. Yes, damn you for wanting some children to be possibly emotionally damaged for life. You seem to think sex is the ultimate evil in terms of emotional damage to children. I would contend that devaluing a child's opinions and ignoring their soverignty over their own body is a much worse problem.

Because possibly wanting to have sex with a consenting adult of the same gender might be less of a disease than it is a quirk of some kind? Whereas wanting to bone a child, a stupid, and nonconsenting being, something you know full well is... sick? Sorta like throwing puppies over bridges and putting kittens into a path of a rampaging steamroller?
Stupid? Look, disrespect me all you want, but stop relagating children to subhuman status. It's that kind of thinking that people use to justify raping children.

http://news.google.com/news?hs=uuo&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=convicted%20pedophile&btnG=Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

Long link, but, whatever.

I am not responsible for the media misusing a word.

And of those ten percent how many reoffend and how many are rehabilitated?
Most of them do reoffend, however I should say here that so do most non-pedophile molestors.
I'll also say here that there are more non-pedo molestors then there are pedo.
I'd guess that that would be some kind of effect of the gigantic social pressure on pedophiles not to act on it, whereas that same social pressure is pretty toned down, relatively, for non-pedophiles.

http://news.google.com/news?hs=uuo&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=convicted%20pedophile&btnG=Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

Long link, but, whatever.

Just because the media is irresponsible with its use of words doesn't mean the law actually lists being a pedophile as a crime.

And of those ten percent how many reoffend and how many are rehabilitated?
I'd like to know the same about the 90% of molesters who aren't pedophiles.
Seriously, do you think all pedophiles are molesters? That's just jacked up.

It's pretty common. Some people are genuinely ignorant due to the media bias, others are willfully ignorant, preffering to believe we're all monsters rather than deal with the actual facts.

It isn't a problem so long as one doesn't do any real harm to the children, in my view. "Drawn and quartered"? I must say, you would make a perfect Medieval aristocrat.

He seems to feel otherwise. Harming children isn't his standard, in case you missed it. That isn't what he's concerned about.

No, it doesn't. I fantasize about such things every so often, but I would never do it in reality as who knows how much harm could be done in the process.

Indeed. The potential for harm is pretty great, especially when you consider the social condemnation that the child would be exposed to even if all other possible avenues of harm were somehow avoided.

You completely miss the point. The point is that there are too many overreacting people like you who want to have us hung and our insides cut apart with swords simply for fantasizing about sex. We have our rights, dammit.

Actually, we don't have our rights. The legal system is pretty much stacked against us, the police refuse to enforce the laws against assault and death threats when they're applied to people like us. We really have little incentive to obey the law, since people like us are considered criminals by default.

Again, you totally miss the point. The subject was "trying to cure such mentalities (or whatever)", not that either is bad.
Indeed.

I'd guess that that would be some kind of effect of the gigantic social pressure on pedophiles not to act on it, whereas that same social pressure is pretty toned down, relatively, for non-pedophiles.
There is no social pressure for pedophiles not to act on it. The social pressure is applied to pedophiles whether they molest or not. Because of the social pressure, I would have expected the oposite to be true.

There is no social pressure for pedophiles not to act on it. The social pressure is applied to pedophiles whether they molest or not. Because of the social pressure, I would have expected the oposite to be true.
Think about it.
You don't want to molest anyone. You are a pedophile. This requires some thought on the subject and so you are aware of the social pressure to not molest people.
Most nonpedophiles do not give nearly as much thought to the subject until they start seriously wanting to molest someone, and by that time it's harder to avoid it then just thinking(including sexual fantasy here) about pedophilia in general.

Think about it.
You don't want to molest anyone. You are a pedophile. This requires some thought on the subject and so you are aware of the social pressure to not molest people.
Most nonpedophiles do not give nearly as much thought to the subject until they start seriously wanting to molest someone, and by that time it's harder to avoid it then just thinking(including sexual fantasy here) about pedophilia in general.


Think about this.

A person does not want to molest anyone.
A person is a peadophile.
This requires some thought on the subject and so you are aware of the social pressure to not molest people.

Most nonpedophiles do not give nearly as much thought to the subject until they start seriously wanting to molest someone, and by that time it's harder to avoid it then just thinking(including sexual fantasy here) about pedophilia in general.

Either way you look at it, the person in question is someone I want out of the gene pool.
Deviants are not wanted.

It's pretty common. Some people are genuinely ignorant due to the media bias, others are willfully ignorant, preffering to believe we're all monsters rather than deal with the actual facts.
Common, indeed - sadly.

He seems to feel otherwise. Harming children isn't his standard, in case you missed it. That isn't what he's concerned about.
Well, duh. :P I just wanted to make it clear.

Indeed. The potential for harm is pretty great, especially when you consider the social condemnation that the child would be exposed to even if all other possible avenues of harm were somehow avoided.
Yes. Isn't it great how our society treats the victim just as bad (or worse) than the victimiser?

Actually, we don't have our rights. The legal system is pretty much stacked against us, the police refuse to enforce the laws against assault and death threats when they're applied to people like us. We really have little incentive to obey the law, since people like us are considered criminals by default.
Well, we should have our rights, anyway. At least we can be free here on NationStates (well, sort of... there are always people like Electron to come along and persecute us).

Indeed.
Ja ja. :D

Think about this.

A person does not want to molest anyone.
A person is a peadophile.
This requires some thought on the subject and so you are aware of the social pressure to not molest people.

Most nonpedophiles do not give nearly as much thought to the subject until they start seriously wanting to molest someone, and by that time it's harder to avoid it then just thinking(including sexual fantasy here) about pedophilia in general.

Either way you look at it, the person in question is someone I want out of the gene pool.
Deviants are not wanted.
I assume you're one of the murder fantasy people, because that means I can ignore you.
It's not like I don't have evidence for it either.

"Deviants are not wanted"
Think about that.
Do you not want say, sadists or masochists?
I'll even go out on a limb here and say that that could easily apply to gay people.
Do you not want gay people?

I assume you're one of the murder fantasy people, because that means I can ignore you.
It's not like I don't have evidence for it either.

"Deviants are not wanted"
Think about that.
Do you not want say, sadists or masochists?
I'll even go out on a limb here and say that that could easily apply to gay people.
Do you not want gay people?


Frankly, I care very little about gay people one or the other.

Meanwhile, the continued existence of even one peadophile is unacceptable.
Let the State be utterly ruthless.

Frankly, I care very little about gay people one or the other.

Meanwhile, the continued existence of even one peadophile is unacceptable.
Let the State be utterly ruthless.
That is the most messed up thing I have ever heard in my life. How utterly ignorant. :mad:

That is the most messed up thing I have ever heard in my life. How utterly ignorant. :mad:

You mean opinionated.

Or is ignorant a buzzword for those who disagree with your philosophy?

Let me be straightforward: tolerance towards a destestable thing equals complicity. Frankly, I consider 'tolerance' not something to be proud of.

Frankly, I care very little about gay people one or the other.

Meanwhile, the continued existence of even one peadophile is unacceptable.
Let the State be utterly ruthless.
Yep, you're one of those murder fantasy people.
I should say before I start ignoring you totally that if you need a subject to channel your murderious rage, you ought to get help.

Yep, you're one of those murder fantasy people.
I should say before I start ignoring you totally that if you need a subject to channel your murderious rage, you ought to get help.


That a fact?
I say that the State must, and shall use its power to inflict Capital Punishment.

I'm thinking that you are one of those persons who thinks paedophilia should be tolerated.

You mean opinionated.

Or is ignorant a buzzword for those who disagree with your philosophy?
>.>

Let me be straightforward: tolerance towards a destestable thing equals complicity. Frankly, I consider 'tolerance' not something to be proud of.
For one, define "detestable".
Tolerance is a great thing. It has helped us to dissolve the boundaries between white and coloured people; why shouldn't it do the same in this situation?

That a fact?
I say that the State must, and shall use its power to inflict Capital Punishment.
Duh. :sniper: :mp5:

I'm thinking that you are one of those persons who thinks paedophilia should be tolerated.
Judge people by their character, not their characteristics. Is that so hard?

Instead of making a half a dozen posts to address all those made by contributing people since I was away for about thirty minutes, and since am far to lazy to go on a copy and paste spree, I shall try to rebuf what poor arguments I noticed upon skimming through the afforementioned posted.

1) Sheni, dear boy. It is not my fault or anyone elses that a words meaning has been changed by the media or any other entity that is powerful enough to change a words meaning in everyday coversation. It happens, get over it. What you'd doing is simply nitpicking; sticking to a point that is UTTERLY irrelevant instead of actually debating further.

2) (Yes the number list may be annoying, but so is trying to deal withs oem sorta newly formed pedo support group on the internet.) Identifying yourself as a 'pedophile' means that you have a strong enough interest in boning the future of the World at an age where their understanding over -anything- is limited by immature minds is, frankly very disturbing and reason enough for you to be hauled off into a paddy wagon and thrown into a dank, dark cell where you will not be a threat to society or its future.

There is a difference between a simple fantasy and outright desire. Someone who occasionally fantasizes about having any sort of sexual relationship with a child is not a danger to society, and is not under the general use of the term, a pedophile. Someone who desires to have sex with children is a very real very possible threat.

Sexual impulses are amongst the strongest of impulses that human beings can experience, as the BIOLOGICAL IMPULSE TO BONE SOMETHING is possibly as strong as our built in instinct to survive. Do these feelings always manifest? Obviously not; but if a person identifies himself as one who feels strong urges to have sex with children, then yes: something must be done. If therapy works then woohoo, I don't see any evidence that it does, but regardless, if it keeps them from harming kids in a way that is probably just as damaging as witnessing the death of another human being, then it must be done.

And yes, children are immature, children are stupid, children are fragile. That is something that has been as constant as the rising sun. So parents, culture, and society all agree on one thing, and that is to protect these beings for the survival of the species, as well as society and its parent culture. Molesting children, damages children, it does them harm; when hasn't it? Show me a case where a child being molested from a young age on up is not warped in some way. They are young, they are developing, they are easily manipulated, and trying to take advantage of that for sexual gratification is just downright fucking evil.

Do I feel bad that the world hates child fuckers? Nope, and I don't imagine the sane among us do either. Children don't want to have sex, children aren't designed by God or evolution to have sex; that is something that comes with growing up and reaching adulthood. If you or anyone else identify with these things as targets for you sexual pleasure, then you are a menace to society and culture love or hate either; you are a menace to me and everyone else who might raise children some day, and you should be delt with in any way possible to make sure that you do not harm others.

This is not about being the thought police and arresting people for having fantasies; no. This is about stopping people with a real illness from hurting other people; sorry if you hate it, but you all seem to be supporting each other quite well with whatever oddass hole every paedo from here to the Nambla website you all crawled out from when you decided to flaunt yourselves around as indignant victims of subjective morality, so I don't feel bad about hurting your feelings and not wanting you to bone a kid.

That a fact?
I say that the State must, and shall use its power to inflict Capital Punishment.

I'm thinking that you are one of those persons who thinks paedophilia should be tolerated.
And I'm thinking that you're being too emotional about this.

Let's look at the facts:

Thus far, there has been little to no proof that paedophilism is always the result of some form of trauma(though I'm nigh certain in my case it was, and I know exactly what trauma it would have been too) and is thusly a disease/mental condition. Likewise, there is no proof that it is a sexuality like homo and heterosexuality. There really is nothing to say either way at this point.

A paedophile, like a heterosexual or homosexual, cannot control the fact that they are attracted to what they are attracted to. This is not something that can be changed directly by pure will. Thoughts and desires will occur regardless.

Most paedophiles recognize that their desires and attractions are wrong. I, for instance, am fully aware of the fact that a child is not mentally or emotionally developed enough to even truly concieve of what sexual activity means, let alone being able to give consent with full thought to the consequences, both immediate and future. This has been proven in countless ways.

Most paedophiles will not ever molest. Most paedophiles do not wish to harm children, just like most heterosexuals and homosexuals do not wish to rape others.

Society places severe, harsh pressures on paedophiles. Society views all paedophiles as child molesters, when other facts prove that this is not true. Society, in fact, can often incite more molesting with its current attitude. Some might eventually crack under the strain in one way or another, as they might think "Society sees me as a criminal already anyway, so why not just do it?" Now, one must understand that this is most certainly not applicable to all paedophiles, but to some, due to their emotional maturity and/or possible other factors, such as emotional disorders, it is applicable. Furthermore, society refuses to allow for the proper aid to be given to paedophiles. Psychological help for anything is never easy to achieve, and for paedophilism, it is nigh impossible. The one method available, avoidance therapy, has been proven time and again to be far more destructive than it could ever be helpful. Those that do seek help run the high risk of their medical records being revealed to others in one way or another, and as is common currently with society's views, said person will end up being tried and convicted in the public eye. They will never be able to net another job, never be able to have a place to live--either from denial of rent or denial of purchasing a home--and probably not even protection from violence.

Essentially, all a paedophile really happens to be is a person attracted to children. Most paedophiles are normal in every other respect, are valuable people in so many ways, be it their intellectual capacity, their knack for physical labor, or anything else society might see as useful, so to speak. Paedophiles, apart from their attraction to children, are just like any other person. And just like any other person, they have rights. No, society should not allow paedophiles to have their way with children, or anything like that. What society should be doing is being understanding with paedophiles, recognizing the facts outlined above, and allow them to seek TRUE help. It is amazing how much is lost through hatred and condemnation. In the past, when homosexuals were prosecuted and executed en masse and individually, either by the state or by individuals, we may have lost countless scientists, doctors, and others who could have contributed so much to society. The same is true of those paedophiles who are condemned and assaulted, those paedophiles that just want the help that they so desperately need, who just want to be normal. For all society knows, the paedophile that was killed by an angry mob convinced that said paedophile was a molester when they might have not been could have been the next Einstein or Hawking. The paedophile might have been the person who invents a cure for all types of cancer, or AIDS.

Paedophiles are people with an unfortunate attraction. That's all we are. The sooner society recognizes that, the sooner society realizes it and tries to truly help us instead of condemn us, the better off society will be.

And I'm thinking that you're being too emotional about this.

SNIP

With all due respect, the situation is plain and simple:
EITHER we want this trait as part of the human race, OR we remove it from the gene pool.

No other considerations are necessary at all.

When I'm reading these lengthy debates, I am reminded of a little something attributed to the stoic Philosopher Epictetus.

Once upon a time, he and a friend of his got summoned by the Emperor of Rome.
They were given a choice: renounce Stocism - or be killed.
They were even given time to consider it.
Epictetus' friend asked him what Epictetus would do.
The Stoic answered: I wont renounce. Let me be killed if it must be. *shrug*
His friend said: 'but what about me?'
Epictetus said: 'you go right ahead and renounce.'
Friend: 'why?'
Epictetus: 'because you have considered it. '

What's my point?
To even consider the detestable is to be guilty of the detestable.

With all due respect, the situation is plain and simple:
EITHER we want this trait as part of the human race, OR we remove it from the gene pool.

No other considerations are necessary at all.

When I'm reading these lengthy debates, I am reminded of a little something attributed to the stoic Philosopher Epictetus.

Once upon a time, he and a friend of his got summoned by the Emperor of Rome.
They were given a choice: renounce Stocism - or be killed.
They were even given time to consider it.
Epictetus' friend asked him what Epictetus would do.
The Stoic answered: I wont renounce. Let me be killed if it must be. *shrug*
His friend said: 'but what about me?'
Epictetus said: 'you go right ahead and renounce.'
Friend: 'why?'
Epictetus: 'because you have considered it. '

What's my point?
To even consider the detestable is to be guilty of the detestable.
A falty, illogical argument if there ever was one.

So a person who, in a moment of anger, randomly considered killing a person should be convicted of murder?

So a person who idly thought about robbing a bank as fun(say, due to a video game or a movie or what have you) should be convicted of robbery?

So a person who fantastized about having sex with another adult who would never be interested in them should be convicted of rape?

In other words, are we talking thoughtcrimes here? Because I thought that was already covered as stupid and ridiculously impractical and unproveable earlier in this thread.

A falty, illogical argument if there ever was one.

So a person who, in a moment of anger, randomly considered killing a person should be convicted of murder?

So a person who idly thought about robbing a bank as fun(say, due to a video game or a movie or what have you) should be convicted of robbery?

So a person who fantastized about having sex with another adult who would never be interested in them should be convicted of rape?

In other words, are we talking thoughtcrimes here? Because I thought that was already covered as stupid and ridiculously impractical and unproveable earlier in this thread.

I have no problem with convicting for thought crimes.

If you - or anyone - has the wrong fantasies, that person needs to clean up the act muy pronto. We're in the 21st century: neurolinguistic programming is possible.

In other words, are we talking thoughtcrimes here? Because I thought that was already covered as stupid and ridiculously impractical and unproveable earlier in this thread
It's easy enough to prove. It's just that the Libbies shudder in fear of the consequences.
For an obvious example: imagine the thought crime to be unpatrioticness.
Hook suspect to polygraph.
Feed him that God Bless the USA thingie.
Suspect does not get happy as a clam listening to it?
Then he's either deaf - or guilty as charged.

I have no problem with convicting for thought crimes.

If you - or anyone - has the wrong fantasies, that person needs to clean up the act muy pronto. We're in the 21st century: neurolinguistic programming is possible.


It's easy enough to prove. It's just that the Libbies shudder in fear of the consequences.
For an obvious example: imagine the thought crime to be unpatrioticness.
Hook suspect to polygraph.
Feed him that God Bless the USA thingie.
Suspect does not get happy as a clam listening to it?
Then he's either deaf - or guilty as charged.
It seems we've reached a fundemental difference of opinion that cannot be resolved due to our outlooks on life. Quite frankly, I find your outlook to be disgusting, abhorrant, and downright frightening. People who wish to restrict the social freedoms of others in that way...I just don't understand it. I also cannot understand why you would not at least want to help paedophiles for the possible use they might bring to society. I was certain an argument like that might have at least some meaning to you. Apparently I was wrong.

It seems we've reached a fundemental difference of opinion that cannot be resolved due to our outlooks on life. Quite frankly, I find your outlook to be disgusting, abhorrant, and downright frightening. People who wish to restrict the social freedoms of others in that way...I just don't understand it. I also cannot understand why you would not at least want to help paedophiles for the possible use they might bring to society. I was certain an argument like that might have at least some meaning to you. Apparently I was wrong.


I am quite aware of the unresolvability of our positions.

Arguments can be utterly wasted when one believes, as I do, that in certain cases the very act of arguing itself is a detestable act.

I am quite aware of the unresolvability of our positions.

Arguments can be utterly wasted when one believes, as I do, that in certain cases the very act of arguing itself is a detestable act.
Now that's quite an interesting position to take. It seems to me, though, that it states that your view is that you are absolutely right and no matter what evidence or other people say, that cannot be changed. That's not a good thing.

According to Mr. McLongLink there have been 492 'convicted pedophiles' during the entire time that the internet has existed, at least.

That's not that bad when you think about it.

BTW, murder is a crime, you want to kill pedophiles? You actively want to?
That's less of a crime then NOT wanting to rape children, but still finding them attractive in their own cute way?

Also, alot of pedophiles, from my experiences, actually like the kids as people. (These are non-criminal ones I mean) They treat them better, and they will protect them from potential threats, better than alot of parents I've seen.

I personally think violence is the worst crime in the world. Please, accept that the term pedophile does NOT mean 'one who rapes children'

You mean opinionated.

Or is ignorant a buzzword for those who disagree with your philosophy?

Let me be straightforward: tolerance towards a destestable thing equals complicity. Frankly, I consider 'tolerance' not something to be proud of.

Yes, it's a buzzword that people keep around for people who would murder the innocent for thought crimes. Ignorant. I think it's pretty damn kind considering you're recommending the eradication of about 30% of the population though you realize they've actually violated the rights of no one.

Now that's quite an interesting position to take. It seems to me, though, that it states that your view is that you are absolutely right and no matter what evidence or other people say, that cannot be changed. That's not a good thing.

Define 'good'.

Good is beyond changing - except that one might change it for worse.

Yes, it's a buzzword that people keep around for people who would murder the innocent for thought crimes. Ignorant. I think it's pretty damn kind considering you're recommending the eradication of about 30% of the population though you realize they've actually violated the rights of no one.



Within your context then, I pride myself on ignorance.

Better to be ignorant than to be guilty of the slightest stain of US style liberalism.

Define 'good'.

Good is beyond changing - except that one might change it for worse.
I speak of good in the general sense of the word. In essence, it's not acceptable. It's a ridiculous way of thinking. No one can be absolutely right all of the time. It is impossible. Only fools think they can be right all of the time. Are you a fool, Bog?

Within your context then, I pride myself on ignorance.

Better to be ignorant than to be guilty of the slightest stain of US style liberalism.

Ahhh, I get it now, This entire thing is a joke right?

I speak of good in the general sense of the word. In essence, it's not acceptable. It's a ridiculous way of thinking. No one can be absolutely right all of the time. It is impossible. Only fools think they can be right all of the time. Are you a fool, Bog?

I smell a strawman.

God can be right all the time.
What's more - He is.

Therefore, your statement is fallacious.

BogMarsh. If you saw a 15yo, and thought she was kinda hot, Would you then go and kill yourself? Or is it different when it's you?

BogMarsh. If you saw a 15yo, and thought she was kinda hot, Would you then go and kill yourself? Or is it different when it's you?


That does not exactly define a paedophile...

But I'll return the question with another one:
what steps have you personally taken to ensure that your sexuality is a study in conventional and orthodox morality?

I smell a strawman.

God can be right all the time.
What's more - He is.

Therefore, your statement is fallacious.
Wrong, sir, wrong!

I should have known I was arguing with a religious fundamentalist. There is no proof that any God or gods exist. Of course, similarly, there is no proof that they do NOT exist, but quite frankly, as far as I'm concerned, if you can't prove something exists, it doesn't exist. Thusly, your argument is rendered irrelevent.

Wrong, sir, wrong!

I should have known I was arguing with a religious fundamentalist. There is no proof that any God or gods exist. Of course, similarly, there is no proof that they do NOT exist, but quite frankly, as far as I'm concerned, if you can't prove something exists, it doesn't exist. Thusly, your argument is rendered irrelevent.


Wrong, sir, wrong!

Those who do not postulate God to start with,
are by definition in the wrong.

As if we needed further evidence after your confession of peadophilia...

Wrong, sir, wrong!

Those who do not postulate God to start with,
are by definition in the wrong.

As if we needed further evidence after your confession of peadophilia...
This is interesting. It would appear that you have indeed decided that you are absolutely right, and that no argument will sway you. I, quite frankly, don't feel like wasting my time arguing with people who act like that. I shall withdraw from this for now. Jocabia--and others--, good luck.

That does not exactly define a paedophile...

But I'll return the question with another one:
what steps have you personally taken to ensure that your sexuality is a study in conventional and orthodox morality?

Following the not-answering thing here, What is a 'conventional sexuality'? Considering that in the wild, animals are more likely to be outside the human norm for sexual practices.
As for orthodox, I'd have to say Being attracted to post-pubescent's as I am is orthodox. But that, to me, doesn't mean that anything else is wrong. MAYBE not evolutionarily the most appropriate, seeing as Pre-Pubescents can't have children, thus the actual act does not increase the chance of spreading your genes, the entire purpose of sex.

And again, who you're attracted to is not neccesarily who you'll do the deed with. Maybe the person doens't like you, maybe you wont for your own moral reasons, maybe they're the wrong gender considering the community you're in.

This is interesting. It would appear that you have indeed decided that you are absolutely right, and that no argument will sway you. I, quite frankly, don't feel like wasting my time arguing with people who act like that. I shall withdraw from this for now. Jocabia--and others--, good luck.


I do not need to be absolutely right - I merely require you to be an absolute wrong.
By being a peadophile, you qualify so at once.

Wrong, sir, wrong!

Those who do not postulate God to start with,
are by definition in the wrong.

As if we needed further evidence after your confession of peadophilia...
WOW.
To be honest, I wasn't quite expecting this.

For your sake, I will allow for the chance that god exists, and will argue as if it is so (As it very well may be).

Who put the idea into his head if not god.
What about all those priests who molest young boys (I know they're not representative, but neither are the molesters who are pedophiles)

I do not need to be absolutely right - I merely require you to be an absolute wrong.
By being a peadophile, you qualify so at once.

You're proposing genetic cleansing and the murder of innocent people not just for being pedophiles, but anyone who would allow pedophiles to exist and you dare to decide who is absolutely wrong. Last I checked, designing the gene pool by killing the innocent is pretty distasteful to pretty much everyone on the planet.

Meanwhile, do you know what an ad hominem is? You've just failed on pretty much every level of debate. You can't address his argument so you dismiss it with a little slight of hand.

I do not need to be absolutely right - I merely require you to be an absolute wrong.
By being a peadophile, you qualify so at once.

Just stop now. To paraphrase, "By having an attraction that you yourself did not choose, you are wrong in every matter by default".

I would love to be as sure of myself as you evidently are, But I do my best to remain impartial in as many matters as possible, and look at peoples faces from more than one angle.

Following the not-answering thing here, What is a 'conventional sexuality'? Considering that in the wild, animals are more likely to be outside the human norm for sexual practices.
As for orthodox, I'd have to say Being attracted to post-pubescent's as I am is orthodox. But that, to me, doesn't mean that anything else is wrong. MAYBE not evolutionarily the most appropriate, seeing as Pre-Pubescents can't have children, thus the actual act does not increase the chance of spreading your genes, the entire purpose of sex.

And again, who you're attracted to is not neccesarily who you'll do the deed with. Maybe the person doens't like you, maybe you wont for your own moral reasons, maybe they're the wrong gender considering the community you're in.


The keywords here are Orthodoxy and Conventionality: which is to say: rigid adherence to the prevailing norms.

As an a propos: I do not even need the religious argument: it is enough to appeal to and conform to and adhere to conventionality.
For the obvious fact is that no society that goes against the grain of evolutionary desirability can exist for long.
A society that deviates is simply a society that stops to be.

( ;) Notice how I can stay neutral on homosexuality?
For it is clear enough that societies that do consider homosexuality as part of the convention can and do prosper. )

You're proposing genetic cleansing and the murder of innocent people not just for being pedophiles, but anyone who would allow pedophiles to exist and you dare to decide who is absolutely wrong. Last I checked, designing the gene pool by killing the innocent is pretty distasteful to pretty much everyone on the planet.

Let's turn it into a real party and get rid of everyone who disagrees with us. May I suggest we gain power in a country currently going through a depression, I can get one of those little moustaches.

Just stop now. To paraphrase, "By having an attraction that you yourself did not choose, you are wrong in every matter by default".

I would love to be as sure of myself as you evidently are, But I do my best to remain impartial in as many matters as possible, and look at peoples faces from more than one angle.

Do you remember James Earl Carter - and his opinions on adultery?

IF you have a wrong attraction - ask forgiveness and start to work on ridding yourself of it.

The keywords here are Orthodoxy and Conventionality: which is to say: rigid adherence to the prevailing norms.

As an a propos: I do not even need the religious argument: it is enough to appeal to and conform to and adhere to conventionality.
For the obvious fact is that no society that goes against the grain of evolutionary desirability can exist for long.
A society that deviates is simply a society that stops to be.

( ;) Notice how I can stay neutral on homosexuality?
For it is clear enough that societies that do consider homosexuality as part of the convention can and do prosper. )

If that is your argument, it's also clear enough that societies that do consider pedophilia can and do prosper. Do your history homework my friend. Sex with young boys was fairly well the norm in some ancient societies. Ever hear of the Roman Empire. How's your foot and that gunshot wound in it?

You're proposing genetic cleansing and the murder of innocent people not just for being pedophiles, but anyone who would allow pedophiles to exist and you dare to decide who is absolutely wrong. Last I checked, designing the gene pool by killing the innocent is pretty distasteful to pretty much everyone on the planet.

Meanwhile, do you know what an ad hominem is? You've just failed on pretty much every level of debate. You can't address his argument so you dismiss it with a little slight of hand.


Oh, I can do better.

Furthermiore: you seem to forget that a paedophile cannot be innocent, by definition, conventional morality, and by LAW.

Our poll reveals that 72% of our quite liberal audience is against paedophilia.
By democratic standards, you get outlawed as well.

There is no need to debate at all: it is merely a matter of imposing, followed by enforcing.

Do you remember James Earl Carter - and his opinions on adultery?

IF you have a wrong attraction - ask forgiveness and start to work on ridding yourself of it.

I'd say the same if you have murderous thoughts. Start now.

The keywords here are Orthodoxy and Conventionality: which is to say: rigid adherence to the prevailing norms.

As an a propos: I do not even need the religious argument: it is enough to appeal to and conform to and adhere to conventionality.
For the obvious fact is that no society that goes against the grain of evolutionary desirability can exist for long.
A society that deviates is simply a society that stops to be.

( ;) Notice how I can stay neutral on homosexuality?
For it is clear enough that societies that do consider homosexuality as part of the convention can and do prosper. )

Good job, but I do believe I didn't single it out as you did which in itself is a statement.

Do you remember when conventionality was sun-worship? Aren't you glad people went against the grain?

This world is a world of change my friend, The one thing that will never change is that change itself will occur. Assume, as you seem to do, that pedophiles must not have children of their own, as their prospective partners can't have children, Why is it that more are being born? Because normal parents can have a child that grows up to be pedophiliac. Random mutations would be rarer, so it must be part of humankind to be able to be predisposed that way.

just to be clear about paedophiles:

clarification (http://static.flickr.com/56/189507499_54674d39eb.jpg?v=0)

:D

Do you remember James Earl Carter - and his opinions on adultery?

IF you have a wrong attraction - ask forgiveness and start to work on ridding yourself of it.
I rarely resort to using emoticons, but the head-bashing one would seem to be appropriate right about now. Perhaps you didn't read that huge post I wrote earlier. I suggest you go back and read it again. And while you're at it, read the thread thoroughly, so you can avoid making the same arguments that have been made over and over and over again.

Oh, I can do better.

Our poll reveals that 72% of our quite liberal audience is against peadophilia.
By democratic standards, you get outlawed as well.

There is no need to debate at all: it is merely a matter of imposing, followed by enforcing.

I don't get outlawed. The poll doesn't suggest outlawing people who would make an argument that pedophiles are nearly always innocent of any crime. So you're little bastardization of evidence holds little sway.

Meanwhile, there are many ways to enforce that aren't murderous. Those aren't good enough for your bloodlust, huh?

I'd say the same if you have murderous thoughts. Start now.

But then again, whatever you said is said by a person who is opposed to prosecuting paedophiles.
Therefore, nothing that is said be you can be said to have gained value by having it said by you.

But then again, whatever you said is said by a person who is opposed to prosecuting paedophiles.
Therefore, nothing that is said be you can be said to have gained value by having it said by you.

More ad hominems, which equate to "I have no argument so I'll just call you a bad person."

I'm opposed to prosecuting anyone innocent of a crime. You're proposing murder, gleefully proposing. Do you really want to start putting people to death who propose or think about committing crimes? I'm pretty sure that people who propose murder would be right at the top of that list, no?

Irony, thy name is BogMarsh.

But then again, whatever you said is said by a person who is opposed to prosecuting paedophiles.
Therefore, nothing that is said be you can be said to have gained value by having it said by you.


Most pedophiles are avidly against child molestation. The majority supporting the prosecution of child molesters.

Wait wait wait, your argument. because someone disagrees with you, their veiwpoint is by neccesity worthless and their arguments meaningless.

If you treat people like that, that's how people will treat you.

Good job, but I do believe I didn't single it out as you did which in itself is a statement.

Do you remember when conventionality was sun-worship? Aren't you glad people went against the grain?

This world is a world of change my friend, The one thing that will never change is that change itself will occur. Assume, as you seem to do, that pedophiles must not have children of their own, as their prospective partners can't have children, Why is it that more are being born? Because normal parents can have a child that grows up to be pedophiliac. Random mutations would be rarer, so it must be part of humankind to be able to be predisposed that way.

When was sunworship convention - and where?

Why did it die out?

When do bad mutations fail to die out?
Usually, among the human race, when we fool ourselves into inaction.

More ad hominems, which equate to "I have no argument so I'll just call you a bad person."

I'm opposed to prosecuting anyone innocent of a crime. You're proposing murder, gleefully proposing. Do you really want to start putting people to death who propose or think about committing crimes? I'm pretty sure that people who propose murder would be right at the top of that list, no?

Irony, thy name is BogMarsh.

To make it plain and simple: I intend to outlaw whatever is NOT a study in orthodoxy, conformity and conventionality.

Most pedophiles are avidly against child molestation. The majority supporting the prosecution of child molesters.

Wait wait wait, your argument. because someone disagrees with you, their veiwpoint is by neccesity worthless and their arguments meaningless.

If you treat people like that, that's how people will treat you.


The argument is not wrong because it disagrees with me - the argument is wrong because it fails to adhere rigidly to existing norms of right and wrong.

If I were to deviate from strict conventionalism, I'd be just as wrong.

When was sunworship convention - and where?

Why did it die out?

When do bad mutations fail to die out?
Usually, among the human race, when we fool ourselves into inaction.

1. Rome, Our holiest of days, the day you go to church, Is still named after the sun in homage to their god.

2. Because A leader wanted to be popular.

At the first occurence of it, it would have died out according to you, only through familiarity is there ever inaction.

1. Rome, Our holiest of days, the day you go to church, Is still named after the sun in homage to their god.

2. Because A leader wanted to be popular.

At the first occurence of it, it would have died out according to you, only through familiarity is there ever inaction.


I'd say that assumption 2 is wrong.

When was sunworship convention - and where?

.

I think you are missing his point.

Why did it die out?



Commons sense


When do bad mutations fail to die out?
Usually, among the human race, when we fool ourselves into inaction

You can't stop ppl procreating. It is up to them not to have children if their mutation is genetic.

...
Tolerance is a great thing. It has helped us to dissolve the boundaries between white and coloured people; why shouldn't it do the same in this situation?...

okay, I have to be honest here. I think comparing society's rejection of pedophiles with racism is dishonest argument. pedophiles aren't "just like me but with a different color". they're people who prefer sex with other people who are too young to consent and too weak to inforce refusal.

I don't want any boundaries dissolved between pedophiles and my kids or my nieces and nephews - or between pedophiles and anybody else's kids. I want more boundaries, not fewer. I don't even want the boundaries getting a bit soft around the edges. if I'm walking down the street with my family, I don't want some kiddie-fiddler checking out my kids and wondering how to get into bed with them. I don't want that happening to any child.

if life in prison is the only way to stop them, I'm for it.

any parents here who think different?

To make it plain and simple: I intend to outlaw whatever is NOT a study in orthodoxy, conformity and conventionality.

And put them to death. Say the whole thing. You would if you could eradicate everyone who does not support exactly what you believe by putting them to death. Is that not what you're saying?

To make it plain and simple: I intend to outlaw whatever is NOT a study in orthodoxy, conformity and conventionality.

You intend to make the world stagnant. Nothing would change, Except for nature, without new medicines, the world will die. But new medicines are not conventional, what is conventional is the old medicines, which themselves weren't at one point.

Name something 'conventional' or 'orthodox' that has always been that way.

I'd say that assumption 2 is wrong.


I'd say its dead on. Go back over history of various religions even cultures and you'll fine that many in power or to gain power have falsified claims of deity.

I'd say that assumption 2 is wrong.
Actually, it's not. Most sun veneration in cultures across the world involved leaders of one form or another. One of the most well-known would be the Pharoes of Egypt. Various Mayan and Aztec leaders were also venerated in the same way.

That said, in most cases, it was also indirectly related, as opposed to be direct. So, while they are right, they are not as right as they might think, if that makes any sense.

The argument is not wrong because it disagrees with me - the argument is wrong because it fails to adhere rigidly to existing norms of right and wrong.

If I were to deviate from strict conventionalism, I'd be just as wrong.

The existing norms of right and wrong do very much consider cleansing the gene pool in the way you're claiming quite far down the spectrum towards wrong, like somewhere around genocide. I am speaking out against it. You are not JUST as wrong. You're just wrong.

I don't want any boundaries dissolved between pedophiles and my kids or my nieces and nephews - or between pedophiles and anybody else's kids. I want more boundaries, not fewer. I don't even want the boundaries getting a bit soft around the edges. if I'm walking down the street with my family, I don't want some kiddie-fiddler checking out my kids and wondering how to get into bed with them. I don't want that happening to any child.

if life in prison is the only way to stop them, I'm for it.

any parents here who think different?



So a pedophile is someone who fiddles with kids. And think of how to get into bed with kids that they see. Not every kid, just any kid.

Another person that is calling child molesters, one of the most twisted groups of people I can think of, Pedophiles.

Our poll reveals that 72% of our quite liberal audience is against paedophilia.

You should know NS courtesy by now. State your sources or have that statement ignored by all.

You should know NS courtesy by now. State your sources or have that statement ignored by all.

Check the poll.
It's on the frontpage of the forum.

Using orthodox and conventionalism is not the best idea.
Everything that is currently either/both has become that when people realised the previous views were 'wrong'. How often are things changed? It's happened more than once for everything so far, and I find it hard to believe that it wont change again.

So a pedophile is someone who fiddles with kids. And think of how to get into bed with kids that they see. Not every kid, just any kid.

Another person that is calling child molesters, one of the most twisted groups of people I can think of, Pedophiles.


Wrong again:

If you watch kiddieporn - which includes the cartoon-stuff - or even have it on your computer - you are guilty of paedophilia, and eminently jailable.

See, we can even get a nice reward from the UK Gov't when we merely report our suspicions.

And with the continuous influx of culturally conservative SC judges in the US, the US will go the same way.

Using orthodox and conventionalism is not the best idea.
Everything that is currently either/both has become that when people realised the previous views were 'wrong'. How often are things changed? It's happened more than once for everything so far, and I find it hard to believe that it wont change again.


I am quite sure you realise as well as I do that the content of orthodoxy and conventionality itself DOES change over time.
The change itself in no way alters the validity of the orthodoxy, conformity and conventionality-test.

Wrong again:

If you watch kiddieporn - which includes the cartoon-stuff - or even have it on your computer - you are guilty of paedophilia, and eminently jailable.

See, we can even get a nice reward from the UK Gov't when we merely report our suspicions.

And with the continuous influx of culturally conservative SC judges in the US, the US will go the same way.

Which doesn't actually disagree with my statement I'm afraid.

I said that being a Pedophile does NOT mean that you have ever touched a child, intend to, or even think of ways that you could.

You say i'm wrong, and talk about something else I'm afraid.
As for the 'cartoon-stuff' That depends on your country.

The existing norms of right and wrong do very much consider cleansing the gene pool in the way you're claiming quite far down the spectrum towards wrong, like somewhere around genocide. I am speaking out against it. You are not JUST as wrong. You're just wrong.

But then again, whatever you say has the curse of being said by an enemy of Orthodoxy, so whatever you say is suspect, and must be disregarded pending better evidence.

I am quite sure you realise as well as I do that the content of orthodoxy and conventionality itself DOES change over time.
The change itself in no way alters the validity of the orthodoxy, conformity and conventionality-test.

Go back to a time when it was considered fine to have sex with what is now an underage person. Would you still find it wrong?

Which doesn't actually disagree with my statement I'm afraid.

I said that being a Pedophile does NOT mean that you have ever touched a child, intend to, or even think of ways that you could.

You say i'm wrong, and talk about something else I'm afraid.
As for the 'cartoon-stuff' That depends on your country.

*shrug* What it does mean is that the slightest HINT of peadophilia constitutes sufficient legal evidence to convict and lock up.

You don't actually have to touch a child to be guilty:
to have a saved story on your PC about it is sufficient grounds for a jailterm under existant laws.

But then again, whatever you say has the curse of being said by an enemy of Orthodoxy, so whatever you say is suspect, and must be disregarded pending better evidence.

Anyone providing any sort of evidence will be an 'enemy of orthodoxy' and you will thusly disregard said evidence.

There is no way for us to make you even consider a different viewpoint may not be wrong. We can't argue if you wont listen. How can you be so interesting in this subject without wanting to hear what anyone has to say on it.

If what you want is for a group of people to agree with you, as opposed to discuss the matter, Go to church, or whatever is your equivelant, and talk there. There's plenty like you, and it will keep you happy.

But then again, whatever you say has the curse of being said by an enemy of Orthodoxy, so whatever you say is suspect, and must be disregarded pending better evidence.

Logical fallacy. Sorry, that doesn't pass for an argument. Actually, it's evidence that you are unwilling to examine your views because they won't stand up against evidence. How sad.

Go back to a time when it was considered fine to have sex with what is now an underage person. Would you still find it wrong?

Not really.

While I proudly admit to being quite arrogant, I'm not sufficiently arrogant enough to convict anyone under standards that did not actually exist at the time of the alleged offense.

Logical fallacy. Sorry, that doesn't pass for an argument. Actually, it's evidence that you are unwilling to examine your views because they won't stand up against evidence. How sad.

Need a hanky for your tearstained visage?

Have I not been plain enough?
To consider suspect' evidence', even in merely a debate, strikes me as detestable per se.

Let me re-iterate: I'd gladly send you to jail.

*shrug* What it does mean is that the slightest HINT of peadophilia constitutes sufficient legal evidence to convict and lock up.

You don't actually have to touch a child to be guilty:
to have a saved story on your PC about it is sufficient grounds for a jailterm under existant laws.
Most countries it isn't against the law to have a story.

Also, I'm trying to find the poll. All I could find was this http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=489731

Surely that's not what you mean.

Q. Pedophilia - no better, worse or different from homosexuality/heterosexuality?
1. No! Its just another sexual preference, you mean-spirited bigoted homophobe!
2. Yes! Pedophilia is by definition an impulse to harm children, whether acted on or not.
3. I'm too weak to take a stand on this issue.



The question and the answers dont match. Plus this poll was taken by 500 people. 500 people who do not represent any sort of average. I'm afraid this poll has no scientific value.

Need a hanky for your tearstained visage?

Have I not been plain enough?
To consider suspect' evidence', even in merely a debate, strikes me as detestable per se.

Let me re-iterate: I'd gladly send you to jail.

'Suspect evidence' Is evidence that is against your viewpoint, and suspect only because of assumptions you've made about someone's character Because they don't agree with you.

I could, by your rules, consider all you say as suspect, because of an assumption I make about you.

Not really.

While I proudly admit to being quite arrogant, I'm not sufficiently arrogant enough to convict anyone under standards that did not actually exist at the time of the alleged offense.

Let's say, unlikely as it is, That alot of people 'stepped out of the closet' and admitted they were actually fine with it, And it became a social norm (Not molestation, but attraction). A: Would you be fine with anyone being attracted then, and B: Would you want people previously convicted on liking children taken out of jail?

If this is just too hard a situation to imagine, I will accept you using a metaphorical situation that has happened.

'Suspect evidence' Is evidence that is against your viewpoint, and suspect only because of assumptions you've made about someone's character Because they don't agree with you.

I could, by your rules, consider all you say as suspect, because of an assumption I make about you.

You forget that I would not be bothered if you did.

Repeat for the month August:

I deal with/counsel people who cannot and do not distinguish between 'the machine place' where they work and 'the machine place' where they gamble their money away. ( If I were to press them they might state that getting the coins in the machine place and then leaving them again in the machine place is entirely normal. )

Rationality has very little meaning in the real world - since most people are not rational.

You forget that I would not be bothered if you did.

Repeat for the month August:

I deal with/counsel people who cannot and do not distinguish between 'the machine place' where they work and 'the machine place' where they gamble their money away. ( If I were to press them they might state that getting the coins in the machine place and then leaving them again in the machine place is entirely normal. )

Rationality has very little meaning in the real world - since most people are not rational.

Ah, the defense for being unwilling to consider any evidence against your position. People who are interested in being right consider evidence. All evidence on its merits. You claim that you are unwilling to examine all evidence or even most evidence. The logical conclusion. Being right is not something you're interested in.

You forget that I would not be bothered if you did.

By treat what you say as suspect, I mean the way you do, as in totally ignore every meaning of everything you say. In which case I'd just be ignoring you. However I prefer trying to talk to people about issues that mean things. If you'd rather it that way however, I won't quote you, or aim posts at you, And I would like the same courtesy back.

Let's say, unlikely as it is, That alot of people 'stepped out of the closet' and admitted they were actually fine with it, And it became a social norm (Not molestation, but attraction). A: Would you be fine with anyone being attracted then, and B: Would you want people previously convicted on liking children taken out of jail?

If this is just too hard a situation to imagine, I will accept you using a metaphorical situation that has happened.

Oh, I'm thinking you wish to postulate a society in which I live, but whose conventionality were to change to a point that I'd be uncomfortable with?

In that case, I'd pick up my bags and leave.


Considering B: I'm thinking that jails can only function within the Conformity/Orthodoxy/Conventionality Context - so I'd be more worried if people who were deemed no longer guilty under COC were to remain IN jail.
For the question we'd then have to ask is: where does it end?
COC is flexible. If it were absolute, I'd be unhappy with it.

Ah, the defense for being unwilling to consider any evidence against your position. People who are interested in being right consider evidence. All evidence on its merits. You claim that you are unwilling to examine all evidence or even most evidence. The logical conclusion. Being right is not something you're interested in.


Why should In wish to consider evidence coming from you?
Have I not made it plain that you are just the sort of person who should never be given an opportunity to be heard or seen?

In your sense, I am indeed not interested in being right.

Why should In wish to consider evidence coming from you?
Have I not made it plain that you are just the sort of person who should never be given an opportunity to be heard or seen?

In your sense, I am indeed not interested in being right.

Never heard or seen why? Because I view the innocent as innocent? Because I disagree with you? I've made it quite clear that I view pedophilia as a sickness, but that I don't believe that people should be jailed for being ill, but instead given therapy. You've made it clear that people who are sick should be killed instead. Yet, I shouldn't be heard or seen? That would be amusing if it wasn't so sick.

Oh, I'm thinking you wish to postulate a society in which I live, but whose conventionality were to change to a point that I'd be uncomfortable with?

In that case, I'd pick up my bags and leave.

COC is flexible. If it were absolute, I'd be unhappy with it.

COC is flexible, it can change entirely. If it were to change in a predictable way, something that has happened before. Infact more extreme changes have happened. You would leave. However you are happy that it's flexible.
You make conflicting posts

By treat what you say as suspect, I mean the way you do, as in totally ignore every meaning of everything you say. In which case I'd just be ignoring you. However I prefer trying to talk to people about issues that mean things. If you'd rather it that way however, I won't quote you, or aim posts at you, And I would like the same courtesy back.

Dreadfully sorry, but you are not Jocaiba.

He is exactly the kind of person who IMHO should be in a psychiatric jail.
Wishing someone into a jail precludes any form of courtesy.

Why should In wish to consider evidence coming from you?
Have I not made it plain that you are just the sort of person who should never be given an opportunity to be heard or seen?

In your sense, I am indeed not interested in being right.


Lets say, that somehow you had a really twisted point of view and didn't notice. Ala Hitler.

Should people that disagree with you then be silenced?

COC is flexible, it can change entirely. If it were to change in a predictable way, something that has happened before. Infact more extreme changes have happened. You would leave. However you are happy that it's flexible.
You make conflicting posts

Sorry. Do you value consistency as an absolute? I have no wish for an umbrella when the sun shines - and no wish for a bare head when it rains.

Lets say, that somehow you had a really twisted point of view and didn't notice. Ala Hitler.

Should people that disagree with you then be silenced?

Strawman + Godwinson.

You lose.

Dreadfully sorry, but you are not Jocaiba.

He is exactly the kind of person who IMHO should be in a psychiatric jail.
Wishing someone into a jail precludes any form of courtesy.

I may as well take that as a compliment. But I still feel it's wrong to jail people who have not harmed anyone, aren't going to harm anyone, and can actually be productive in a society.

Dreadfully sorry, but you are not Jocaiba.

He is exactly the kind of person who IMHO should be in a psychiatric jail.
Wishing someone into a jail precludes any form of courtesy.

Says the guy proposing genetic cleansing for thought crime. Ha.

Strawman + Godwinson.

You lose.

You are proposing policies Hitler proposed. Godwin can only be invoked if their is not direct connection. It's not Godwin to notice that you are proposing genetic cleansing and jailing anyone who doesn't think the way YOU think they should.

Strawman + Godwinson.

You lose.

Strawman being what, that you could possibly be wrong and not know? I feel that's a possibility, how can you argue things that have not yet happened without projecting a little.

Godwinson, that king? You obviously know more about him than I do because it means nothing to me. You offering him as an alternative to Hitler? If not I've missed the reference entirely.

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.

It's been done illegaly. It still disgusts me.

Hmm...never been done. Good idea. Still disgusts me.

Wow. You are unbelievable. But now that you mention it. You disgust me.

I may as well take that as a compliment. But I still feel it's wrong to jail people who have not harmed anyone, aren't going to harm anyone, and can actually be productive in a society.

Why? Jocabia is quite goodlooking.

Why? Jocabia is quite goodlooking.

I assume the post I was replying to was implying that (s)he thinks higher of me than (s)he thinks of you. Which according to my view of you is at least a light compliment :)

Strawman being what, that you could possibly be wrong and not know? I feel that's a possibility, how can you argue things that have not yet happened without projecting a little.

Godwinson, that king? You obviously know more about him than I do because it means nothing to me. You offering him as an alternative to Hitler? If not I've missed the reference entirely.

He means Godwin. Sorry, it's not his fault. He's too busy ignoring evidence to learn stuff like this properly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

He's suggesting that you fulfilled the law rather than the fact that his ideologies actually have a very real comparison to Hitler. Basically, he just dismissed your arguments because he didn't feel like addressing him. Careful, he's going to be proposing you be jailed soon.

It's been done illegaly. It still disgusts me.

Hmm...never been done. Good idea. Still disgusts me.

Wow. You are unbelievable. But now that you mention it. You disgust me.

Legally in alot of countries still.

I feel that takes it too real. Far too easy for people with addictive personalities to lose control of their view on reality. Ever seen EQ/WoW Addicts, it means more to them than 'real life'. I think it has the possibility of increasing the problem.

That, in my opinion, would be the worst thing ever. I am strongly against changing ones mind in any such way.

Godwin's law makes alot of sense. And I now do see hte relevance. Personally I agree with it.

However the statement would go with alot of historical figures. Including Dr. Sigmund Freud.

I assume the post I was replying to was implying that (s)he thinks higher of me than (s)he thinks of you. Which according to my view of you is at least a light compliment :)

Consider the scale you are being measured on where the defending the innocent earns you a place in a psychiatric prison.

Strawman being what, that you could possibly be wrong and not know? I feel that's a possibility, how can you argue things that have not yet happened without projecting a little.

Godwinson, that king? You obviously know more about him than I do because it means nothing to me. You offering him as an alternative to Hitler? If not I've missed the reference entirely.


Godwinson is one of those internet-rules.
The first person to mention you-know-who or the X-th Empire loses.

I'm assuming you know what a strawman is.

But I'll give you a better example, a Hitler-lite:

Let us say I went mad, and went out to proclaim that zionism is objectionable.
In that case, you should put me in jail. Without delay.

Consider the scale you are being measured on where the defending the innocent earns you a place in a psychiatric prison.

Now I feel like checking how many pages ago it turned into a flame war.

I like how I said it, because it assumes that (s)he (Sorry, I still dont know) is being nice to me, and not particularly mean to you, Whilst stating that I don't consider you particularly bad :).

If I take his/her point of view (Where the comment was coming from) the sclae puts doing something evil as earning jail-time. Even though I don't agree with what's bad and what's not bad, I will accept everything how it's meant.

Now I feel like checking how many pages ago it turned into a flame war.

I like how I said it, because it assumes that (s)he (Sorry, I still dont know) is being nice to me, and not particularly mean to you, Whilst stating that I don't consider you particularly bad :).

If I take his/her point of view (Where the comment was coming from) the sclae puts doing something evil as earning jail-time. Even though I don't agree with what's bad and what's not bad, I will accept everything how it's meant.

As far as I'm concerned, the open enmity between me and Jocaiba goes back to februari.
When he suggested trimming freedom of expression so that muslims might not be angered over danish cartoons.
May Jocaiba rot in jail for all eternity.

Godwinson is one of those internet-rules.
The first person to mention you-know-who or the X-th Empire loses.

I'm assuming you know what a strawman is.

But I'll give you a better example, a Hitler-lite:

Let us say I went mad, and went out to proclaim that zionism is objectionable.
In that case, you should put me in jail. Without delay.

Godwin. Godwin. And that is not what the law states.

"Godwin's Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt."

Godwin's complaint is in the overuse, not the appropriate use of the comparison.

You are supporting jailing me for no crime at all, other than disagreeing with jailing innocent people, because you don't agree with me. You are proposing killing innocent people because you want to purify the gene pool. Again, there are a number of ways where the comparison is dead on.

As far as I'm concerned, the open enmity between me and Jocaiba goes back to februari.
When he suggested trimming freedom of expression so that muslims might not be angered over danish cartoons.
May Jocaiba rot in jail for all eternity.

No, he didn't. Jocabia proposed that people should recognize the consequences of what they say, not that the law should deny them complete freedom of expression.

Meanwhile, does anyone else notice the irony of saying that anyone who opposes freedom of expression should be jailed for expressing their ideas?

You've exposed why you support cartoons like that. You want to eradicate Muslims as well. We're aware. It has nothing to do with freedom of expression or you wouldn't be proposing jailing me for expressing my views.

In fact, aren't you actively proposing killing people for thought crime?

Godwinson is one of those internet-rules.
The first person to mention you-know-who or the X-th Empire loses.

I'm assuming you know what a strawman is.

But I'll give you a better example, a Hitler-lite:

Let us say I went mad, and went out to proclaim that zionism is objectionable.
In that case, you should put me in jail. Without delay.

And if you honestly thought that zionism is objectionable, you wouldn't want to be jailed, in this hypothetical scenario. You would defend your view as strongly as you are defending your current view. You would believe it just as firmly. However, if you softened a little, and decided to look at their view, do you think you would realise that maybe it isn't so bad?

Pre-emptive replies;
If you answer yes you think you'd realise: Could you try it here and see if it makes a difference to your view, Is a thought-crime really a crime?
If you answer no: Then it is moot to have this discussion with you, as we look at it from multiple perspectives and do our best to make fair judgement, wether it truely is - in the eyes of god - or not, but you are unwilling to try the same.

Tell ya what. How about, we don't prosecute them in this life. Because if it is bad, they'll burn in hell for eternity. And if it isn't, then it would be wrong to prosecute them. ~Hopeful~

Edit: Oh, Godwin's law is about referring to Hitler/Nazi's unneccesarily. It was a suitable example and would have served it's purpose well.

Tell ya what. How about, we don't prosecute them in this life. Because if it is bad, they'll burn in hell for eternity. And if it isn't, then it would be wrong to prosecute them. ~Hopeful~

You mean allow God to decide what is and isn't evil? *gasp* Heresy.

For the record, I fully agree with this. We spend a lot of time pretending to know the will of God, but if we're even remotely correct at any given time the will of God must change about every fifty years or so in strong ways. I suspect that the 'will of God' is just a mask for the power that some people seek to destroy the people who disagree with them.

And there is no enmity between myself and BogMarsh. There is only a person who hates Muslims (read his sig) who is mad because he couldn't give a decent reason why people shouldn't consider the consequences of their actions when publishing hateful cartoons. So he changed it to I was trying to outlaw such practice rather than encourage people to be more responsible and he has behaved in a progressively aggressive manner toward me ever since. It's a he by the way. I have no ill-will toward him, but I am starting to worry about the level this complex of his has reached. Seriously? Psychiatric prison? Rot in jail for all eternity? Who dreams up this nonsense?

Let's not bring muslims into this. I think they reacted badly, but it was bad of the cartoonists to do. (Btw, moderate islam practices means the moderate things, stoning people wouldn't be included in that)

On this topic, I don't like people telling me what god wants me to do. As far as I'm concerned He (For want of a better pronoun) has told me Himself, and it involves an afterlife where He, and only He, passes judgement upon those. I live how I feel I should. And it does not include molesting children, I expect that doing so would get you put into some form of hell, But I can't be certain. However to play it safe, I do NOT try to impose my will on others in any way. It's up to them to interpret Yahweh's instructions how they want, and if they do bad, well, victims who do as Iehovah imply will live an afterlife better than most others.

Let's not bring muslims into this. I think they reacted badly, but it was bad of the cartoonists to do. (Btw, moderate islam practices means the moderate things, stoning people wouldn't be included in that)

On this topic, I don't like people telling me what god wants me to do. As far as I'm concerned He (For want of a better pronoun) has told me Himself, and it involves an afterlife where He, and only He, passes judgement upon those. I live how I feel I should. And it does not include molesting children, I expect that doing so would get you put into some form of hell, But I can't be certain. However to play it safe, I do NOT try to impose my will on others in any way. It's up to them to interpret Yahweh's instructions how they want, and if they do bad, well, victims who do as Iehovah imply will live an afterlife better than most others.

I agree with that mostly. My molester was a thirteen-year-old girl who had herself been molested and whose parents refused any treatment she needed. I know she actually molested another child after me. She deserves to be imprisoned, and would likely continue offending all her life given the opportunity, but it's a difficult for me to imagine an eternity of punishment for someone for whom life was so stacked against her. She was just a child herself when it happened and she was a victim who desperately needed to be healed but instead was left to fester.

I know not what God intends for others, only what He instructs me to do. However, I can't condemn that little girl to eternal damnation as angry as her actions make me. I simply can't. It's too cruel and not befitting the circumstances. I can however gladly prevent her from ever offending again by separating her from all children for as long as she is on this world.

I agree with that mostly. My molester was a thirteen-year-old girl who had herself been molested and whose parents refused any treatment she needed.

Sad to hear that. My story depends on your view of things. I see it as raped at 13ish (Mostly repressed, so I can't be certain) by someone the same age as me. I said no, Attempted stopping. However another viewpoint, that I occasionly lapse into (You'll know when that is because it is not very pretty) is that if it really was rape, I would have tried harder to stop it, and I should have done more to prevent it.

But yes, at least two people here who have been in this situation, or similar, feel that it's not our choice what should happen.

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. I just can't do revenge, if it was revenge worthy, it'll end up sorted.


Edit: And with that, I'm off to bed.

Hiya folks.

As the new resident pedophile (some of us prefer Minor Attracted Adult, or MAA, not that you'll likely care) I thought I should go ahead and weigh in on the subject. I've already 'come out' as it were over in the UN during a discussion of child porn, so some of you may have run across my posts there.

In any case, I'll go ahead and do the same thing here that I did there, and that's open myself up to questions. I've read thru a lot of the posts in this thread. Some of it was really amusing, some scary, and some just made me shake my head in wonder. As I'm short on time this morning I won't bother to start off refuting and educating and so I'll just open up the floor to you folks. Have a question you always wondered about? Have a statistic you've questioned? What about all those facts concerning pedophiles you've accepted as gospel? Well trot em out and I'll do my best to answer as honestly as I can.

I imagine this will generate a lot of flames, but I accept that. Some people can't help but act childishly (clever, that, hmm?). Again, I'll try to dispel some myths later on an answer any questions anyone has. Let's call this 'Ask a Perv'.

Suvyamara'] Let's call this 'Ask a Perv'.
Make a new thread about it. This one has gotten to big.

That does not exactly define a paedophile...

But I'll return the question with another one:
what steps have you personally taken to ensure that your sexuality is a study in conventional and orthodox morality?
Wrong, sir, wrong!

Those who do not postulate God to start with,
are by definition in the wrong.

As if we needed further evidence after your confession of peadophilia...
Am I the only one who suspects this guy is too over the top to be serius? I start to wonder if he might be a pedophile trying to make the oposition look bad.

Suvyamara']Hiya folks.

As the new resident pedophile (some of us prefer Minor Attracted Adult, or MAA, not that you'll likely care) I thought I should go ahead and weigh in on the subject. I've already 'come out' as it were over in the UN during a discussion of child porn, so some of you may have run across my posts there.

In any case, I'll go ahead and do the same thing here that I did there, and that's open myself up to questions. I've read thru a lot of the posts in this thread. Some of it was really amusing, some scary, and some just made me shake my head in wonder. As I'm short on time this morning I won't bother to start off refuting and educating and so I'll just open up the floor to you folks. Have a question you always wondered about? Have a statistic you've questioned? What about all those facts concerning pedophiles you've accepted as gospel? Well trot em out and I'll do my best to answer as honestly as I can.

I imagine this will generate a lot of flames, but I accept that. Some people can't help but act childishly (clever, that, hmm?). Again, I'll try to dispel some myths later on an answer any questions anyone has. Let's call this 'Ask a Perv'.
Nice idea. Considering the size of this thread, however, I recommend you create another one instead.

Am I the only one who suspects this guy is too over the top to be serius? I start to wonder if he might be a pedophile trying to make the oposition look bad.
He does seem a bit CaT esque.
But I don't think he's trolling, I think he really believes that crap he's spouting.
I am so glad I've been ignoring him so far.

He does seem a bit CaT esque.
But I don't think he's trolling, I think he really believes that crap he's spouting.
I am so glad I've been ignoring him so far.
Frankly, I cannot understand how people like him--if he really is that way--can believe the way they do. It's just so utterly opposite of my way of thinking that it just...it just makes no sense at all. Why would you want to be absolutely stubborn and resistant to change, condemn all who do not meet your standards of absolutely benign, ordinary, orthodox, and whatever else have you to prison/death? Why would you want to be utterly close-minded to anything and everything different from you? I just don't get it.

I do believe he ought to read 1984 before he starts trying to implement his little thoughtcrime idea.

I do believe he ought to read 1984 before he starts trying to implement his little thoughtcrime idea.


I've read it.
Whose ideas?
Which thoughts?

Nice idea. Considering the size of this thread, however, I recommend you create another one instead.

Actually, I did that. They deleted it saying that such posts were not allowed.

Suvyamara']Actually, I did that. They deleted it saying that such posts were not allowed.

And rightfully so. Stop using these forums to justify your sick predilictions.

And rightfully so. Stop using these forums to justify your sick predilictions.
And covering it up as minor age differences tangled up in age of consent laws...like we're really talking about a 20 year old having sex with a 17 year old. No, sorry, pedophiles like the sexually immature, that's the whole point...so let's be clear...this is about having sex with children, defined as between the ages of 'newborn' to 'still pre-pubescent'.

And covering it up as minor age differences tangled up in age of consent laws...like we're really talking about a 20 year old having sex with a 17 year old. No, sorry, pedophiles like the sexually immature, that's the whole point...so let's be clear...this is about having sex with children, defined as between the ages of 'newborn' to 'still pre-pubescent'.

Hell, Sin, we're talking about a guy who's admitted on these forums to diddling a 14-year-old boy. He should be glad he's got the anonymity of the Internet to protect him.

Hell, Sin, we're talking about a guy who's admitted on these forums to diddling a 14-year-old boy. He should be glad he's got the anonymity of the Internet to protect him.
Oh yes, but he really feels sorry for us for our ignorance and our outright rejection of his sexual preferences. Poor, misguided, bigoted us.

I'll say it again, since the other thread was deleted...I am tolerant of many things (regardless of what some might think here...my arguing with you does not constitute intolerance by the way), but there are three things I really draw the line at. Out and out racism, out and out homophobia, and pedophilia. I do not believe these things merit any sort of tolerance.

Oh yes, but he really feels sorry for us for our ignorance and our outright rejection of his sexual preferences. Poor, misguided, bigoted us.

I'll say it again, since the other thread was deleted...I am tolerant of many things (regardless of what some might think here...my arguing with you does not constitute intolerance by the way), but there are three things I really draw the line at. Out and out racism, out and out homophobia, and pedophilia. I do not believe these things merit any sort of tolerance.

Yeah, it's society that's wrong, not him. We're wrong for not accepting his desire to stick his dick in a little boy. You're right, Sin. No tolerance.

I really wish people like him were banned from these forums, but unfortunately we have to allow them to continue to try to justify their sick perversion in threads like these.

Yeah, it's society that's wrong, not him. We're wrong for not accepting his desire to stick his dick in a little boy. You're right, Sin. No tolerance.

I really wish people like him were banned from these forums, but unfortunately we have to allow them to continue to try to justify their sick perversion in threads like these.


Gah. I agree.

The anonimity of the web must be lifted, to ensure that Government can monitor each and every poster.

The anonimity of the web must be lifted, to ensure that Government can monitor each and every poster.

No, thats a bad idea.

I really wish people like him were banned from these forums, but unfortunately we have to allow them to continue to try to justify their sick perversion in threads like these.
And I would much rather have our speech be as free as possible … for everyone weather I agree with them or not.

And that’s coming from a victim of childhood abuse

Gah. I agree.

The anonimity of the web must be lifted, to ensure that Government can monitor each and every poster.
Bullshit not only is that a horrid idea it is absolutely unfeasible.

No, thats a bad idea.


Why so? It's good - we shall thus drive more paedophiles out of cyberspace, and with some luck, into jails for the rest of their lives.

Why so? It's good - we shall thus drive more paedophiles out of cyberspace, and with some luck, into jails for the rest of their lives.

You don't do that by invading everyones privacy.

No Shit. Of course, pedos are people. So are murderers, rapists, serial killers, genocidal war criminals. None of these were done by monkeys or snakes. They were all people.
I cant believe this stupid thread is still going. If in the future, we find some sort of pedo gene, all babies carrieing this gene must be aborted/terminated and hence this characteristic eventually bread out of humans.
Until that day, pedos should be locked up to mental instututes or jails.
End of discussion.

Bullshit not only is that a horrid idea it is absolutely unfeasible.

Actually, the Internet is not as anonymous as one might believe.

While it might take a warrant, it's probably not too hard to determine where your machine is located (after all, the server keeps IP logs).

And that narrows down the list of people who could be posting from that machine. Especially if it's in your apartment, and you are the only one there with an Internet account.

Gah. I agree.

The anonimity of the web must be lifted, to ensure that Government can monitor each and every poster.
No.

But we could ban him. I know it's a question of free speech, but free speech is restricted here anyway. If this forum truly is PG-13, and new threads like these are being deleted, then perhaps this should NOT be allowed to be a place for pedophiles to have their say.

No.

But we could ban him. I know it's a question of free speech, but free speech is restricted here anyway. If this forum truly is PG-13, and new threads like these are being deleted, then perhaps this should NOT be allowed to be a place for pedophiles to have their say.


I'll accept that.

No Shit. Of course, pedos are people. So are murderers, rapists, serial killers, genocidal war criminals. None of these were done by monkeys or snakes. They were all people.
I cant believe this stupid thread is still going. If in the future, we find some sort of pedo gene, all babies carrieing this gene must be aborted/terminated and hence this characteristic eventually bread out of humans.
Until that day, pedos should be locked up to mental instututes or jails.
End of discussion.
Na, open it back up.

So, in mental institutions or jails, if they commit a crime? Or just for thought crimes?

Gah. I agree.

The anonimity of the web must be lifted, to ensure that Government can monitor each and every poster.


Yeah, way to twist what I said, pedo apologist.

Yeah, way to twist what I said, pedo apologist.
Has he been? I'm not reading through 100 pages.

No.

But we could ban him. I know it's a question of free speech, but free speech is restricted here anyway. If this forum truly is PG-13, and new threads like these are being deleted, then perhaps this should NOT be allowed to be a place for pedophiles to have their say.

People have threads vaporized for "ask a", which is comparatively harmless (when compared to pedophilia).

People are deated for content that isn't suitable for young minors.

I believe that if someone posts a pro-pedophilia post (even within another thread), they should get an immediate permanent forumban.

Yeah, way to twist what I said, pedo apologist.


I don't apologise for them at all. Period.

Each and every instance of that lot being outside of Jail is an instance of failing Government Oversight.

Has he been? I'm not reading through 100 pages.

Rails against me everytime I post something anti-pedophilia, so yeah.

Actually, the Internet is not as anonymous as one might believe.

While it might take a warrant, it's probably not too hard to determine where your machine is located (after all, the server keeps IP logs).

And that narrows down the list of people who could be posting from that machine. Especially if it's in your apartment, and you are the only one there with an Internet account.
Theoretically if the user is a complete idiot… you think I post from my own IP even now? HA

The current layout of the internet it is just way to easy to proxy server bounce it is just not an issue. While you can apply and track down a user SOMETIMES by tracing the bounces in the end the process to track down where traffic is coming from is intensive … to do that to all users of the internet would be completely unfeasible especially when you have to deal with other countries

The US may bully local ISP’s into giving up their records of address holders at rare times trying to force an overseas company gets significantly more difficult.

I did not say it was not possible but feasible is a completely different beast

People have threads vaporized for "ask a", which is comparatively harmless (when compared to pedophilia).

People are deated for content that isn't suitable for young minors.

I believe that if someone posts a pro-pedophilia post (even within another thread), they should get an immediate permanent forumban.
I agree with you.

By the way, how many outed pedophiles have we attracted? I know that DSN is DEAT, but we have the Five Castes, and this new fellow...any others?

Remember when NS got accused of harbouring racism? I'm amazed we haven't yet been accused of harbouring pedophiles.

First things first, we need to decide what pedophilia is. If it is an impulse to harm children, then yes measures should be taken.

If it is just a sexual attraction, we can't then lock up every pedophile when not every pedophile would ever want to harm a child.

Rails against me everytime I post something anti-pedophilia, so yeah.
I've seen him accused of trolling in this regard...I can't tell if that is ridiculously heavy sarcasm or just outright stupidity, and I'm not familiar enough with his posts to know if this is just his normal posting style.