Pedophilia (not this again)

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Just a short question really, based on the idea that, through therapy, pedophiles may be able to eliminate their sexual desires towards children. I know many on the left feel that therapy and the like are the right way, as do I in theory, as it seems like the most logical idea.

However, I was reading about the 'ex-gay movement' earlier, which consists of people 'cured' of homosexuality. This led me to look into 'correctional therapy' and the like for homosexuals wishing to be 'cured', and it turns out that the whole thing is a load of bullshit (I had no illusions in the opposite, don't worry). Obviously homosexuality is nothing to be 'cured' anyway as there's fuck all wrong with it, but these sick fucks who think that it does have to be cured led me to a theoretical dilemma on the subject of pedophiles.

Can pedophiles be 'corrected' any more than a homosexual can be 'turned' straight, a straight individual be 'turned' homosexual or any more than a sexually healthy individual be 'turned' into a pedophile?

I'd be interested to see studies on this, arguments as well as your own personal thoughts. It'd also be interesting to see the same argument applied to those who commit rape, as I believe that there are certain social aspects that lead to those who commit rape, so with that in mind I would imagine that its quite possible to reform rapists on a case by case basis, depending on the level of their problem. Can the same be said of pedophilia, however? Does pedophilia have social roots? If so, does all sexuality have social roots and can sexuality be 'corrected' as some nutjobs claims?

My mind is all over the place on this one. Is pedophilia a category of sexuality like homosexuality? Or is it an illness? How do you distinguish between what is human sexuality and what is an illness? Are all forms of sexuality in fact a product of the socialization of the individual, making the distinction between which sexualities are right and which are wrong a moral matter?

I understand the ethical implications for why pedophilia is wrong and I subscribe to that, but my question lies in the notion that pedophiles can be reformed into sexually healthy individuals and what scientific basis there is for such a recovery.

[Belleraphone]

Most pedophiles were sexually abused or had some major kind of trauma at one point in their life that causes them to find children attractive. Even if we cannot cure them of their desires, we can certainly teach them to control their urges. I do not think it is a sexual desire, the barbaric practice of castration to treat pedophilia was ineffective, many of them repeated thier crimes. Keep in mind that those that did not repeat their crimes probably were sexually attracted to a child, but they were most likley a well developed 16/17 year old and would still be attracted to a 25 year old woman. The ones that go after the prepubescents are not sexually attracted to them, I do think it is some form of an illness, but I don't think we should totally ostracize them from society.

One argument against what I just stated is the fact that well off members of Ancient Greece engaged in Pedastry, but this was more of a social custom, and they weren't exactly children, it was just a gay middle aged man hooking up with a gay younger male.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I'm watching a Louis Theroux documentary now (A Place for Pedophiles - it can be found online) in which he visits a correctional facility for pedophiles. Its not that far in but I've already gathered that the correctional element comes from a series of therapies about opening up about the pedophile's crimes, ongoing thoughts and how they reduce these thoughts.

So in shorter terms, the emphasis here seems to be on the repression of sexual urges/sexual behaviour. One guy said he masturbates less and this is considered an improvement. Are we really meant to believe that a pedophile's sexuality can be altered through sexual repression alone?

Still, only a few minutes in so I'll watch some more

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Most pedophiles were sexually abused or had some major kind of trauma at one point in their life that causes them to find children attractive. Even if we cannot cure them of their desires, we can certainly teach them to control their urges. I do not think it is a sexual desire, the barbaric practice of castration to treat pedophilia was ineffective, many of them repeated thier crimes. Keep in mind that those that did not repeat their crimes probably were sexually attracted to a child, but they were most likley a well developed 16/17 year old and would still be attracted to a 25 year old woman. The ones that go after the prepubescents are not sexually attracted to them, I do think it is some form of an illness, but I don't think we should totally ostracize them from society.

One argument against what I just stated is the fact that well off members of Ancient Greece engaged in Pedastry, but this was more of a social custom, and they weren't exactly children, it was just a gay middle aged man hooking up with a gay younger male.
Okay, this is the notion that pedophiles can be taught to control their desires. This is what I initially subscribed to but find sketchy - can anyone point out any studies on this? Stats? Etc etc

[00000000000]

It's a tough subject, no doubt. I always approach anything like this with the idea that irrespective of crimes committed or diabolical intentions, we are all human beings and should be treated as such (yes, even capitalists or fascist bastards). I've not read much on the subject of whether or not sexual attraction to children is inherent / genetic or something that occurs due to some outside influence (i.e. being a victim of abuse leads you to become an abuser).

Regardless of how or why they exist, I think pedophiles should be treated in the same way as the severely mentally ill; treatment / therapy should be used to try and root out their desires and impulses, but if that's not possible, keep them locked up so they can't offend again.
I know emotions run high re the treatment and punishment of pedophiles, especially for parents, but just as the left has historically been against the death penalty for murder and other crimes, I feel the same level of compassion and rationale should be employed here, however hard it is.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

It's a tough subject, no doubt. I always approach anything like this with the idea that irrespective of crimes committed or diabolical intentions, we are all human beings and should be treated as such (yes, even capitalists or fascist bastards). I've not read much on the subject of whether or not sexual attraction to children is inherent / genetic or something that occurs due to some outside influence (i.e. being a victim of abuse leads you to become an abuser).

Regardless of how or why they exist, I think pedophiles should be treated in the same way as the severely mentally ill; treatment / therapy should be used to try and root out their desires and impulses, but if that's not possible, keep them locked up so they can't offend again.
I know emotions run high re the treatment and punishment of pedophiles, especially for parents, but just as the left has historically been against the death penalty for murder and other crimes, I feel the same level of compassion and rationale should be employed here, however hard it is.
I agree generally on the ethical treatment of individuals who have committed a crime and also feel that treatment, in theory, is the most plausible option.

Very sceptical of it though. The scepticism is important if we regard the prospect of rehabilitating (assumed to be) reformed pedophiles into the community and the possible consequence of them re-offending. The documentary I mentioned before is looking at an individual that is believed to be reformed through sexually repressive therapy and it just doesn't seem convincing to me.

Perhaps pedophiles should be held in isolation until it can be determined whether they can be reformed or not. It seems irresponsible to me to release pedophiles without enough data to suggest that they are even capable of having their tendency to sexually abuse children reformed. I'd say the same for someone who has committed rape.

[Sasha]

we should look in to this matter scientifically & biologically.Not religiously.
Under age sex is not rare among children.Children are too much sexualised.Under age smoking is more harmful than under age sex.we have the legal age as 16, still we cant stop 14-15 old kids having sex in school toilets.First we must cleary understand the biological age limit.Then we can go for the treatment.Hundred years ago,in africa, asia men used to have brides aged between 11-16yrs.This was common practice.Have we jailed men for real crimes or fake crimes.?my grand ma told me she was 10 years old when she married my grand pa in 1921. my grand pa was 15 years.Am I paedophile's grand son.fucking nonsense...:rolleyes:

Pedophelia is about adults having a sexual attraction towards pre-pubescents (i.e. kids not teens), you are talking about consensual sex between teens and arranged marriage. Very oneteresting but nothing to do with the topic in hand, let's not muddle this discussion its already a minefield enough.

I'm going to allow this thread as long its a discussion about therapy, as soon as it turns into another thread about age of consent its going to be trashed.

@ o.p. here is I thought interesting expert advice on the subject: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=3347526

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Psycho already said it for me.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

It's simple- if you have sex with someone against his/her will that's illness, cause you're hurting the other person and you're perfectly aware of that. It also applies when the person involved is too young for an intercourse and by that I mean not aware of what's going on, scared, forced or manipulated. I'm not trying to say that when you turn 18 you magically become mature and ready for sex. Putting someone in jail for having sex with a 16 year old girl, who was perfectly conscious and consilient sounds kinda stupid to me. Pedophilia is not about someone wanting to have sex with an underage (which would mean basically that even if she's 18 tomorrow that's fine but after that I'm not anymore interested). It's about a sick desire of having sex in order to intimidate, humiliate, exploit someone naive and unconscious. While homosexuality is about two people consciously wanting to be close to each other, make love, both conscious and accordant, often in a long-term relationship. There is nothing wrong about it.
That's all understood but the question here is of what to do with convicted pedophiles that have offended, what the basis for therapy is and what evidence there is to suggest that this therapy works.

[Sasha]

So "will" is a very important thing here, because at young ages it can be manipulated. We don't give free will to toddlers, because they are still learning very basic ideas about self, language, and environment. They often want to do things against their parent's will, based on a lack of infirmation or knowledge. In doubt, they rely on their parents for the same reason. So "free will" is a difficult criteria at young ages.

Again, I'm not going to allow this thread to turn in another age of consent discussion, trashed all offtopic posts, final warning.

[citizen of industry]

Again, I'm not going to allow this thread to turn in another age of consent discussion, trashed all offtopic posts, final warning.

You can't debate the treatment until you define the crime. Probably why those pesky age of consent discussions keep popping up.

[PhoenixAsh]

You can't debate the treatment until you define the crime. Probably why those pesky age of consent discussions keep popping up.

Pedophelia is pretty well defined from a psychological perspective. This perspective focusses on the sexual behaviour and attraction and has nothing at all to do with age of consent.

Since consent is external to the induvidual it has nothing at all to do with wether or not somebody is a pedophile. Therefore there is absolutely no need whatsoever to be debating or bringing up AOC. So refrain from doing so... In fact wether or not somebody puts his sexual desires into practice is irrelevant for being a pedophile or not.

Especially since AOC advocacy is considered a crime in countries in Europe which will bring the law on any off us faster than you can blink. So again...


this is a final. the last one issued.

AOC discussion will not be tolerated.

Thread will be closed and users who bring it up will be infracted.

I do not wish to do this. So please keep the debate on the topic of treatment.

[danyboy27]

A real pedophile (not the ones who are merely emotionally troubled) will never be able to naturally control what he or she love. What can be done is to learn the people to control their sexual pulsion either trought intensive masturbation or medication.

For those who are unwilling or unable to control their sexual pulsion, the only thing left is perpetual incarceration, not to punish them but to protect them and protect society from them.

[Sasha]

You can't debate the treatment until you define the crime. Probably why those pesky age of consent discussions keep popping up.

It's pretty well defined As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary). The child must be at least five years younger in the case of adolescent pedophiles (16 or older) to be termed pedophilia.[1][2][3][4]
The term has a range of definitions, as found in psychiatry, psychology, the vernacular, and law enforcement. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) defines pedophilia as a "disorder of adult personality and behaviour" in which there is a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.[5] According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), pedophilia is a paraphilia in which a person has intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children and on which feelings they have either acted or which cause distress or interpersonal difficulty.[1] The current DSM-5 draft proposes to add hebephilia to the diagnostic criteria, and consequently to rename it to pedohebephilic disorder.[6]
In popular usage, pedophilia means any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse, often termed "pedophilic behavior."[2][7][8][9] For example, The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary states, "Pedophilia is the act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children."[10] This common use application also extends to the sexual interest in and abuse of pubescent or post-pubescent minors.[11][12] Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided because although people who commit child sexual abuse commonly exhibit the disorder,[7][13][14] some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia and these standards pertain to prepubescents.[11][15][16] Additionally, not all pedophiles actually commit such abuse.[16][17]

the problem is that this forum is filled with young horny males with a completely normal attraction to below legal age of consent but well in their puberty aged girls who can't stop themselves from trampling all over other topics in their haste to get a hall pass.

The o.p. is very clear in his question: if we agree that therapy is preferential over punishment is there any proof therapy is effective in this case (the sexual urges of adult towards pre-pubescents)
Let's discuss that.

[citizen of industry]

It's pretty well defined As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary). The child must be at least five years younger in the case of adolescent pedophiles (16 or older) to be termed pedophilia.[1][2][3][4]
The term has a range of definitions, as found in psychiatry, psychology, the vernacular, and law enforcement. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) defines pedophilia as a "disorder of adult personality and behaviour" in which there is a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.[5] According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), pedophilia is a paraphilia in which a person has intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children and on which feelings they have either acted or which cause distress or interpersonal difficulty.[1] The current DSM-5 draft proposes to add hebephilia to the diagnostic criteria, and consequently to rename it to pedohebephilic disorder.[6]
In popular usage, pedophilia means any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse, often termed "pedophilic behavior."[2][7][8][9] For example, The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary states, "Pedophilia is the act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children."[10] This common use application also extends to the sexual interest in and abuse of pubescent or post-pubescent minors.[11][12] Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided because although people who commit child sexual abuse commonly exhibit the disorder,[7][13][14] some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia and these standards pertain to prepubescents.[11][15][16] Additionally, not all pedophiles actually commit such abuse.[16][17]

the problem is that this forum is filled with young horny males with a completely normal attraction to below legal age of consent but well in their puberty aged girls who can't stop themselves from trampling all over other topics in their haste to get a hall pass.

The o.p. is very clear in his question: if we agree that therapy is preferential over punishment is there any proof therapy is effective in this case (the sexual urges of adult towards pre-pubescents)
Let's discuss that.


Not at all. My post you quoted was in response to another post defending "free will." My reply was that "free will" cannot be determined in young ages. You deleted the post I was replying to, then qouted me out of context.

[citizen of industry]

As for a "cure," I suspect the disease, much like drug addiction, has no "cure" and the treatment revolves around avoiding "triggers" and not "relapsing" but with much more monitoring and much more serious repurcussions. And in many cases probably institutionalization.

[Rafiq]

We can make pedophilia a less occuring phenomena.

If it is truly rooted in childhood past, it most likely was a result of molestation by adults in someones early life..

The bourgeois family structure breeds pedophiles

[Ostrinski]

How about we just shoot them all? Seems simpler.

[Ocean Seal]

The difference is that pedophilia is a pathology and homosexuality is not. Although perhaps in the future science could show that pedophilia is not strictly a pathology. I doubt this heavily because of the circumstances that surround an individual becoming a pedophile. Abuse sexual or physical generally create a pedophile there are other factors but generally a terrible childhood creates a sexual predator.

[danyboy27]

How about we just shoot them all? Seems simpler.

how about you shut the fuck up? seems simplier.

When all the tool you have is a hammer, every problem look like a nail.

But seriously why stop there? we could also kill the old people, the people we disagree with, somebody steal you something? kill him and get your stuff back!

[danyboy27]

The difference is that pedophilia is a pathology and homosexuality is not. Although perhaps in the future science could show that pedophilia is not strictly a pathology. I doubt this heavily because of the circumstances that surround an individual becoming a pedophile. Abuse sexual or physical generally create a pedophile there are other factors but generally a terrible childhood creates a sexual predator.

most pedophiles, or at least the idea we have of what a pedophile is are not exclusively attracted to children, most of them had some form of psychological trauma or are going trought rough time.

That being said, the real pedophiles, those who are exclusively attracted to children seem to have a pretty fucked up brain pattern, and unless you remove the brain the only option you have is to either teach him that its wrong, medicate him or incarcerate him to protect him and protect society.

[28350]

Perhaps pedophiles should be held in isolation until it can be determined whether they can be reformed or not.
There is no need to "reform" pedophiles per se, as their desires hurt no one but themselves. Just because someone is a pedophile does not make them an abuser of children, nor vice versa. Also, solitary confinement is psychologically damaging and arguably torture.


It seems irresponsible to me to release pedophiles without enough data to suggest that they are even capable of having their tendency to sexually abuse children reformed.Again, child abuse != pedophilia.


How about we just shoot them all? Seems simpler.
This is one of the most disgusting things I've read on this forum.

[#FF0000]

How about we just shoot them all? Seems simpler.

shut the fuck up

[Robespierre Richard]

Well, the whole point of legal justice, originally, was essentially to protect the offender from violence that could be inflicted onto him by the victims, by creating a standard of justice suitable for all parties and able to prevent more violence in society from retributions, blood feuds, etc. However, as justice moves from correction into rehabilitation, it is increasingly difficult to make it acceptable for the more heinous crimes. For example, in the cases of Anders Breivik and Varg Vikernes in Norway, there is no way those two could be rehabilitated into society, nor can society as a whole feel like justice has been accomplished. In the case of Breivik they seem to have judged him insane, which qualifies him to be confined to a mental hospital for the rest of his life rather than ever being released and face both public outrage and the anger of his victims. Similarly the USSR brought back the death penalty multiple times because it was unable to rehabilitate those who were condemned for treason.

In this general move to having only one life ruined instead of two as a result of a crime, however, judging the more heinous crimes is increasingly difficult. People who commit pedophilia and per-mediated murder for example are difficult to rehabilitate back into society as a) it is very difficult to rehabilitate them from that mentally and b) the anger of society and the primary victims and their families will remain, causing both division in the community and possible retribution, as well as the fear that the person would attack again.

Having said that, the best way to go about correcting and rehabilitating pedophilia is probably to do it in a mature fashion, rather than trying to find the most radical punishment out of moral bearings, emotion, and fear that your own children and relatives may become victims, as this is essentially as wrong as having the victims pick the punishment for the offender. This has already been done before with the death penalty in the United States, when it was found to be impractical. Similarly, it is impractical to have the many restrictions pedophiles have, such as informing everyone in their neighborhood that they are a pedophile/sex offender, because these things do nothing to rehabilitate them or really prevent them from performing sexual offenses again, as far as I know. There will always be small amounts of people who fall through the cracks, but this is why we have courts which can make examples of them, independently from the political system.

[Krano]

I think ive seen this thread somewhere before http://maoistrebelnews.wordpress.com/2010/09/19/revleft-is-a-bunch-of-pedophile-zionists/

[Os Cangaceiros]

There's a pretty fascinating documentary that was made during the early 90's called "ChickenHawk: Men Who Love Boys" (what a title, right). It's about NAMBLA and pedophiles, and I think it's an extremely interesting psychological portrait of some of the men who are pedophiles. Honestly some of them suffer from deep pathology, and I'm not saying that as one of the "urrrrgghhh burn the pedos alive!" types. One old guy has a normal, everyday conversation with a young boy, then asks the camera man if he noticed how the boy was flirting with him. :rolleyes:

Another interesting thing about the film was the "activist work" some did to make pedophilia "more acceptable" in the early 90's. We truly live in a different era now, I believe...I imagine if you approached people on the street today advocating pedophilia, there's a serious chance you'd get your ass kicked. It's obviously a very touchy issue. The gay community is shown in the film trying to disown the presence of NAMBLA in their pride parade, IIRC.

I think the film is out of print, but it's available to watch free on YouTube, if you are so inclined:

2l5Mc28GbEE

[#FF0000]

One old guy has a normal, everyday conversation with a young boy, then asks the camera man if he noticed how the boy was flirting with him. :rolleyes:

That's really interesting, I think, and it reminds me of this thing I read about how rapists talk about women, and how it's like they think women are tormenting them with their sexuality, or something, and how they think they're just responding to it (or defending themselves, in their minds?)

[Zav]

I find it fascinating that people literally wish death upon people who are either ill or have an odd sexuality. That's such a reactionary thought process.
Brospierre, get your sorry ass back to Stormfront.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

how about you shut the fuck up? seems simplier.

When all the tool you have is a hammer, every problem look like a nail.

But seriously why stop there? we could also kill the old people, the people we disagree with, somebody steal you something? kill him and get your stuff back!
I think the best way to deal with crimes of a sexual nature (i.e. rape, pedophillia, etc) is by executing the perpetrator.

[9]

I think the best way to deal with crimes of a sexual nature (i.e. rape, pedophillia, etc) is by executing the perpetrator.

Why? :bored:

[Sputnik_1]

That's how I see it: as long as you don't hurt anyone it's ok. If two people are concordant and conscious then I don't see what is the problem. Of course you don't magically turn sexually ready and conscious on the exact day of your 18th birthday. Pedophilia is not about the desire of having sex with an underage (cause it would mean that you loses your interest in having sex with another person on the day he/she turns 18), it's about a desire of intimidating, manipulating, humiliating, exploiting, raping someone who is not conscious or sexually mature. And that's sick, an illness that has somehow been projected on a person, because of his/her difficult past or such. Those people need help and a long psychological treatment. Homosexuality is about love or just simply sex between two people who both wants to be together, it's completely different. They were born this way, they are not hurting anyone and they are perfectly normal.

[Sputnik_1]

by the way, did you trash my first post? I'm not discussing the age consent in it :/ just mentioned it as it's important to what I'm trying to say.

[28350]

Why? :bored:

Organisation: Lorena Bobbit Fan Club

[Vanguard1917]

I'm watching a Louis Theroux documentary now (A Place for Pedophiles - it can be found online)

It can be found online by Googling 'A Place for Paedophiles'? A sequence of words i definitely want on my internet search history...

[Ostrinski]

how about you shut the fuck up? seems simplier.

When all the tool you have is a hammer, every problem look like a nail.

But seriously why stop there? we could also kill the old people, the people we disagree with, somebody steal you something? kill him and get your stuff back!We could. You don't think that anyone who questions the rule of the proletariat or steals from the proletariat should be executed?

[Ostrinski]

I find it fascinating that people literally wish death upon people who are either ill or have an odd sexuality. That's such a reactionary thought process.
Brospierre, get your sorry ass back to Stormfront.Liberals, liberals everywhere. What value or use do pedophiles have to the proletarian project? Where is the practicality in keeping these people around? I see you're an environmentalist too. Why don't you get your sorry ass back into the Green Party? This human rights fetish is ridiculous.

All pedophiles and rapists should be shot. I don't see why we need to complicate things.

[Sasha]

I think the best way to deal with crimes of a sexual nature (i.e. rape, pedophillia, etc) is by executing the perpetrator.

Sigh, Pedophelia does not equal sexual abuse, pedophelia is a sexual atraction to prebubescent children, not only do a lot (the sparse research points toward a majority) of pedophiles not act upon their atraction beyond kiddie porn (and even among them there are more than a few that make a conscious choice to only consume fictional porn/role playing adults because they detest abuse) more importantly the vast majority of sexual child abuse is not done by actual pedophiles but by sadists and opportunists.
Equaling pedophelia with sexual abuse is part of the problem, not the solution.

[Ostrinski]

Sigh, Pedophelia does not equal sexual abuse, pedophelia is a atraction to prebubescent children, not only do a lot (the sparse research points toward a vast majority) of pedophiles not act upon their atraction beyond kiddie porn (and even among them there are more than a few that make a conscious choice to only consume fictional porn/role playing adults because they detest abuse) more importantly the vast majority of sexual child abuse is not done by actual pedophiles but by sadists and opportunists.
Equaling pedophelia with sexual abuse is part of the problem, not the solution."Research" also shows that most pedophiles that get released from prison do the same shit again. Ergo, they can't be cured.

[Sasha]

"Research" also shows that most pedophiles that get released from prison do the same shit again. Ergo, they can't be cured.

A. Again, your talking about child abusers, not all of them by far are pedophiles. And most pedophiles do not abuse kids. Knee jerk talk about shooting all pedophiles will lead to prosecuting a lot of people who dont deserve it and missing a lot who do. (the catholic church for example doesnt as such has a pedophile problem, they have a forced celabicy meets access to children problem. Most child abusing priests are not pedophiles. And the most horific abuse is also not done by pedophiles but by sexual sadists).
B. all "criminals" released from prison show a majority reoffending pattern. Ergo that says jack shit about therapy and a lot about prison. I'm a prison abolishinist for a reason.
C. Only christian nut jobs claim they can cure people from sexual atractions, we can help people from crossing boundaries into abuse though.
An extend hand, a non judgemental approach and a understanding of the actual situation go a long way in that. Your attitude pushes more pedophiles towards sexual abuse, your part of the problem and if you where a decent person you would make a effort to recognise that.

[Hiero]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lpveh1xFDc

Check out this facility. They do not explain the legality of the situation, but as far as I can tell that after serving their prison sentance they go to this facility indefinitely.

[Decommissioner]

Liberals, liberals everywhere. What value or use do pedophiles have to the proletarian project? Where is the practicality in keeping these people around? I see you're an environmentalist too. Why don't you get your sorry ass back into the Green Party? This human rights fetish is ridiculous.

All pedophiles and rapists should be shot. I don't see why we need to complicate things.

Not meaning to derail, but what is this rhetoric about being "of use" to the proletariat? The proletariat will no longer exist under socialism, alongside the bourgeoisie. Further, no one is to be "of use" to anyone. I find your statement silly.

[Ostrinski]

A. Again, your talking about child abusers, not all of them by far are pedophiles. And most pedophiles do not abuse kids. Knee jerk talk about shooting all pedophiles will lead to prosecuting a lot of people who dont deserve it and missing a lot who do. (the catholic church for example doesnt as such has a pedophile problem, they have a forced celabicy meets access to children problem. Most child abusing priests are not pedophiles. And the most horific abuse is also not done by pedophiles but by sexual sadists).
OK you're right. I'll reduce what I said to offenders only. Nonetheless, I still think that any pedophile, catholic priest, sexual sadist, or socialist revolutionary that abuses children in this way should be executed.


B. all "criminals" released from prison show a majority reoffending pattern. Ergo that says jack shit about therapy and a lot about prison. I'm a prison abolishinist for a reason.
But most of the time it's in response to material conditions. Of course prison doesn't reform. But many offenders of sexual violence are sick and cannot be reformed, and there's no reason to take any chances.


C. Only christian nut jobs claim they can cure people from sexual atractions, we can help people from crossing boundaries into abuse though.
An extend hand, a non judgemental approach and a understanding of the actual situation go a long way in that. Your attitude pushes more pedophiles towards sexual abuse, your part of the problem and if you where a decent person you would make a effort to recognise that.
I disagree, and I don't see how my attitude increases the rate of sexual violence.

[Ostrinski]

Not meaning to derail, but what is this rhetoric about being "of use" to the proletariat? The proletariat will no longer exist under socialism, alongside the bourgeoisie. Further, no one is to be "of use" to anyone. I find your statement silly.I'm referring to the post-revolutionary situation in which the threat of counter-revolution is real, the bourgeoisie still lay claim to the means of production, and the class dictatorship of the proletariat is employed to dispel the threat. Obviously if you're not a Leninist then this post is meaningless and yes derails the thread.

[Sasha]

OK you're right. I'll reduce what I said to offenders only. Nonetheless, I still think that any pedophile, catholic priest, sexual sadist, or socialist revolutionary that abuses children in this way should be executed.


But most of the time it's in response to material conditions. Of course prison doesn't reform. But many offenders of sexual violence are sick and cannot be reformed, and there's no reason to take any chances.


I disagree, and I don't see how my attitude increases the rate of sexual violence.

Which all would be fine if you would base your positions on facts instead of (understandable yet still wrong) knee jerk moralist presumptions, which are again not helping.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lpveh1xFDc

Check out this facility. They do not explain the legality of the situation, but as far as I can tell that after serving their prison sentance they go to this facility indefinitely.

Arbitrary holding space.

Notice their usage of methods as reasons for keeping people there. Polygraph tests, for fuck's sake. A fucking useless quack method that cop scum use to get things their way.

Not to mention the actual treatment at the place seems to be of dubious nature, trying to cure their sexual urges isn't likely to go very far. The focus should obviously be on refraining from taking out those urges on children rather than that, something which has some chance of working. But then again, the place is obviously more a prison than a treatment institute - those mighty fences and guards - so their priority on constructive handling might be a bit off. Who knows, maybe they are kept there juts to protect them from all the Brospierre's of the world.

[dodger]

The good people, let us call ourselves that, strongly believe that once a Paedophile always a Paedophile. A system has to be found that works ie children are protected. Stranger danger is an ever present fear. The stark truth the majority of assaults are made by people known to victim and parents, or might even be a parent. Lie detector, yes full marks. People trained to spot behaviour that points to re offending. Any system put in place will be expensive and not 100%, no surprise. What that system must do is have the full confidence of the good people. Children must be safe to grow and wander ever far from their doors. We did as children. Today it is a sad tale where in order to protect, parents stifle kids by not allowing them freedom to wander abroad, explore. A strict license system is the only workable arrangement, at present. Behave or back you go......does not seem harsh to me..or others. The potential offender is after all in the driving seat....if he behaves he enjoys benefit of living amongst us. Chemical castration works for some...another method...for certain kinds of offenders. Useless for others. It's interesting that the subject arouses such passion. Even amongst those without children...we must be hard wired, to protect children, all children. So small wonder we act out our feelings against those that transgress. That aside we must build on any expertise built up in our own and other countries, fine tune any system put in place......and hope for the best.

Just googled paedophile after spellcheck flagged. "call police, get baseball bat and....!" I never bothered to bite, I think I know where that was going. Baseball bat ..could have been a cricket bat, rice flail or samurai sword...the call is universal protect young people. Many perverts are cunning resourceful, highly placed perhaps in places of trust or authority....or maybe a cousin or neighbour. We have to be no less resourceful and CLEVER.. We must be clever above all else....to give our young a worthwhile childhood, and our own peace of mind counts too.

[#FF0000]

We could. You don't think that anyone who questions the rule of the proletariat or steals from the proletariat should be executed?

http://i.imgur.com/10uKp.jpg

[#FF0000]

But most of the time it's in response to material conditions. Of course prison doesn't reform. But many offenders of sexual violence are sick and cannot be reformed, and there's no reason to take any chances.

i am really glad that you managed to figure out with certainty what psychologists have been trying to figure out and understand since psychology became a thing.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Which all would be fine if you would base your positions on facts instead of (understandable yet still wrong) knee jerk moralist presumptions, which are again not helping.
Yeah, I'm such a moralist. :rolleyes:
This is not a moralist/anti-moralist issue, this is an issue on whether sexual exploitation of any kind is okay or not. If I was a moralist, I would most likely have an issue with BDSM but I don't. It is clear from many of my stances that I am not a moralist, for fuck-sake I used to be a sex-worker.

[#FF0000]

This is not a moralist/anti-moralist issue, this is an issue on whether sexual exploitation of any kind is okay or not.

not executing people does not mean sexual exploitation (or anything else like that) is okay.

[danyboy27]

We could. You don't think that anyone who questions the rule of the proletariat or steals from the proletariat should be executed?

depend, do you think a guy who does not work who steal a loaf of bread should be executed?

[PhoenixAsh]

It is clear from this discussion that some informative input is needed:


A pedophile is somebody of age 16 years or older who has a primary sexual attraction to children aged 13 or younger. The age difference must be at least 5 years.
* so an 17 year old with a sexual interest in 12 year olds is NOT a pedophile
* likewise...a 20 year old with a sexual interest in 14 year olds is NOT a pedophile

Wether or not this sexual attraction translates in the collection of child porn/erotica or wether or not this attraction is acted upon is irrelevent. The sexual attraction needs to have persisted for at least 6 months. So if a particular child arouses you sexually at one point does NOT necessarilly make you a pedophile.

Hebephiles...s the proper term for those who are sexually attracted by children in early puberty.

Ephebephiles are those who are sexually attracted to late pubescent chrildren to the age of 18

Note that child molestation is often caused by people who do NOT qualify for any of the criteria of pedophilia but are caused by serious external problems:
- stress
- substance abuse
- marital problems
- psychological afflictions
- cultural factors

These facts need to be taklen into consideration to keep ANY debate about the subject on target and to the point.

Furthermore:

Pedophiles come in different categories. There are those who suffer from moral dillema, there are those who do not. There are those who put the attraction into practice and there are those who do not.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

not executing people does not mean sexual exploitation (or anything else like that) is okay.
Being against execution is a moralist stance.

[Hiero]

Notice their usage of methods as reasons for keeping people there. Polygraph tests, for fuck's sake. A fucking useless quack method that cop scum use to get things their way.

I believe that polygraph tests are not even used as a legal source. That is you can not use a poly graph test in most western societies to prove innocence or guilty charges. But that holding zone is extra-legal, it is a state sanctioned area of holding people without sentancing. They don't need scientific or any legal reasoning as it is extra legal.

[danyboy27]

I'm referring to the post-revolutionary situation in which the threat of counter-revolution is real, the bourgeoisie still lay claim to the means of production, and the class dictatorship of the proletariat is employed to dispel the threat. Obviously if you're not a Leninist then this post is meaningless and yes derails the thread.

The problem with killing is that its ireversible, if you wrongly put someone in jail, you can always free him later, if you kill him, its done and cant be changed.

Not to mention a dead person is never good to anything but doing fertilizer, someone alive can be reasoned with and perhaps be reformed. Stanley Tookie is a good exemple why its wrong to kill a human being. The guy was harmless in jail and even published kids books, spoke out against gang violence.

The guy obviously cant do that anymore, can he?

[danyboy27]

Being against execution is a moralist stance.

Yes and no, some people, including Hardocore ML would argues its a waste of a human being that could have been used for something more useful.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Yes and no, some people, including Hardocore ML would argues its a waste of a human being that could have been used for something more useful.
I'm not an ML at all. I am basically an ultra-feminist who opposes patriarchy and sexual exploitation/abuse in all forms and without mercy by any means necessary.

[Sasha]

Yeah, I'm such a moralist. :rolleyes:
This is not a moralist/anti-moralist issue, this is an issue on whether sexual exploitation of any kind is okay or not. If I was a moralist, I would most likely have an issue with BDSM but I don't. It is clear from many of my stances that I am not a moralist, for fuck-sake I used to be a sex-worker.

I called brospiere a moralist not you.
I completly agree that all sexual exploitation is wrong, I just disagree with equaling pedophelua with sexual abuse. Not al pedophiles abuse, not all abusers are pedophiles.
It's exactly the "all pedophiles are kiddie rapers that need to be stabbed to death with rusty screwdrivers" prevalent attitude that prevents pedophiles to seek help.
Stigma free research can go a long way to decrease the ammount of sexual abuse, people opsing this are part of the problem.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I called brospiere a moralist not you.
I completly agree that all sexual exploitation is wrong, I just disagree with equaling pedophelua with sexual abuse. Not al pedophiles abuse, not all abusers are pedophiles.
It's exactly the "all pedophiles are kiddie rapers that need to be stabbed to death with rusty screwdrivers" prevalent attitude that prevents pedophiles to seek help.
Stigma free research can go a long way to decrease the ammount of sexual abuse, people opsing this are part of the problem.
I was focusing on ones that do abuse. I believe in killing sexual abusers period.

[#FF0000]

Being against execution is a moralist stance.

1) So
2) no it isn't but good try i guess.


I believe in killing sexual abusers period.

How many mistakes would be acceptable, then.

Like a ratio. Is 10 wrongful executions to 1 good? 5 to 1? 2 to 1? What is the acceptable height for the stack of innocent bodies to criminal ones?

[Comrade J]

I was focusing on ones that do abuse. I believe in killing sexual abusers period.

And how many sexual abusers have you killed thus far, seeing as you so strongly believe in it? Or is it an abstract viewpoint without any real grounding in reality, and thus you expect somebody else to do the execution? Perhaps the state?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

And how many sexual abusers have you killed thus far, seeing as you so strongly believe in it? Or is it an abstract viewpoint without any real grounding in reality, and thus you expect somebody else to do the execution? Perhaps the state?
Oh, what a high road you take being so condescending. It is neither but an ideological view point based off a very personal and deep-seeded vendetta against sexual abusers. Ever since I was raped I have had this viewpoint.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

1) So
2) no it isn't but good try i guess.



How many mistakes would be acceptable, then.

Like a ratio. Is 10 wrongful executions to 1 good? 5 to 1? 2 to 1? What is the acceptable height for the stack of innocent bodies to criminal ones?
Yes, lets start questioning the legitimacy of claims from sexual abuse victims. That isn't paving the way for victim-blaming, right?:rolleyes:

[#FF0000]

Yes, lets start questioning the legitimacy of claims from sexual abuse victims. That isn't paving the way for victim-blaming, right?:rolleyes:

So does accusation = guilt automatically?

I mean I know where you're coming from, but it's not beyond reason that someone might accuse the wrong person, and for an innocent person to take the blame and then be executed. That's the reality of your position. So are you willing to accept the deaths of innocent people so that sexual predators can be killed?


Oh, what a high road you take being so condescending. It is neither but an ideological view point based off a very personal and deep-seeded vendetta against sexual abusers. Ever since I was raped I have had this viewpoint.

I can understand that -- I can't really imagine feeling any other way after experiencing something like that. But thinking and feeling are different things. Your feelings, though entirely justified, don't change the fact that any system of execution means that innocent people will die.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

So does accusation = guilt automatically?

I mean I know where you're coming from, but it's not beyond reason that someone might accuse the wrong person, and for an innocent person to take the blame and then be executed. That's the reality of your position. So are you willing to accept the deaths of innocent people so that sexual predators can be killed?



I can understand that -- I can't really imagine feeling any other way after experiencing something like that. But thinking and feeling are different things. Your feelings, though entirely justified, don't change the fact that any system of execution means that innocent people will die.
The reality is that everyone will die. That is one of the processes of life if you ever payed attention in science class.

As for specifically being killed, innocent people are killed all the time, always have been, always will be that is a reality of human society.

[#FF0000]

The reality is that everyone will die. That is one of the processes of life if you ever payed attention in science class.

There is a p. big difference between someone being killed and someone dying on their own.


As for specifically being killed, innocent people are killed all the time, always have been, always will be that is a reality of human society.how edgy. would you say this to the families of the four teens who were falsely convicted of rape in that Central Park case 20-30 years ago, had then been executed as you believe they should've been?

also is murder a-okay then

[Ostrinski]

Which all would be fine if you would base your positions on facts instead of (understandable yet still wrong) knee jerk moralist presumptions, which are again not helping.I don't see the moralism. It's not a matter of punishing them or being lenient toward them, it's a matter of ridding society of the phenomenon, which I don't really consider moralistic. Sex offenders have nothing to offer to the proletarian goal.

[#FF0000]

I don't see the moralism. It's not a matter of punishing them or being lenient toward them, it's a matter of ridding society of the phenomenon, which I don't really consider moralistic.

What number of wrongful executions is acceptable?

[#FF0000]

Why don't people like to answer that question? Brospierre was lurking this thread for awhile after I posted that and never responded

For people who like to talk about making people pay for what they do, I notice death penalty proponents sure do hate to own up to and face the realities of the positions they put forward.

[Ostrinski]

depend, do you think a guy who does not work who steal a loaf of bread should be executed?I was referring to the bourgeoisie, under the premise that the proletarian class dictatorship would have no unemployment.

[Ostrinski]

What number of wrongful executions is acceptable?idk a few I guess. The number doesn't change the misfortune of innocents being executed.

[Ostrinski]

Why don't people like to answer that question? Brospierre was lurking this thread for awhile after I posted that and never responded

For people who like to talk about making people pay for what they do, I notice death penalty proponents sure do hate to own up to and face the realities of the positions they put forward.What color boxers am I wearing?

[#FF0000]

I was referring to the bourgeoisie, under the premise that the proletarian class dictatorship would have no unemployment.

http://i.imgur.com/wNCcN.jpg


idk a few I guess. The number doesn't change the misfortune of innocents being executed.

So you're comfortable with "a few" innocent people executed for every guilty person executed?


What color boxers am I wearing?

Trick question: they're boxer-briefs, blue, and Hanes.

[Ostrinski]

So you're comfortable with "a few" innocent people executed for every guilty person executed?
I'm not "comfortable" with anyone innocent being executed.


Trick question: they're boxer-briefs, blue, and Hanes.
I'm freeballing atm, actually.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I'm not "comfortable" with anyone innocent being executed. I'm not comfortable, but it is a necessary evil in my eyes.



I'm freeballing atm, actually.
Ewwww, my ex used to do that and it annoyed the fuck out of me how he'd go commando.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

What number of wrongful executions is acceptable?
As many as it takes.


So you're comfortable with "a few" innocent people executed for every guilty person executed?
Well I feel it would more likely a few guilty people executed for every innocent person.

[Ostrinski]

I'm not comfortable, but it is a necessary evil in my eyes.That's what I meant.

[Lord Testicles]

As many as it takes.


Who or what would organise and decide who should be exicuted?

Also, you do realise that killing X amount of people just to get one sex abuser is a fucking disgusting proposition, right?

[#FF0000]

I'm not "comfortable" with anyone innocent being executed.

Then how can you be comfortable with capital punishment and execution?


As many as it takes.

I'm sure you'd take this same position if it were you or someone you cared about who'd be sent to the chair.


Well I feel it would more likely a few guilty people executed for every innocent person.So how many dead innocents is acceptable, then? One dead innocent person for every 2 or 3 or 4 guilty?


I'm not comfortable, but it is a necessary evil in my eyes.

What's necessary about it? Are we really so lacking in vision that we can't think of a better way to deal with people who hurt people than to kill them?

[Ostrinski]

Then how can you be comfortable with capital punishment and execution?
Innocent people wouldn't be knowingly executed. I don't understand what you're getting at.


What's necessary about it? Are we really so lacking in vision that we can't think of a better way to deal with people who hurt people than to kill them?We could all think of better ways, but execution is the most practical.

[Nox]

Also, you do realise that killing X amount of people just to get one sex abuser is a fucking disgusting proposition, right?

Killing a sexual abuser is a fucking disgusting proposition in itself.

I thought Communists were against the death penalty...

[Ostrinski]

Killing a sexual abuser is a fucking disgusting proposition in itself.
Why?


I thought Communists were against the death penalty...
rofl. You don't think any bourgeois will be executed?

[Nox]

You don't think any bourgeois will be executed?

That's different. I'm talking about in a Communist society, not during the revolution.

Btw, you can't really compare the bourgeoisie to paedophiles...

[Ostrinski]

That's different. I'm talking about in a Communist society, not during the revolution.
What will happen in far off communist society is up for speculation, and nothing more.


Btw, you can't really compare the bourgeoisie to paedophiles...They're both exploitative for one, something that communists are primarily against.

[Lord Testicles]

rofl. You don't think any bourgeois will be executed?

There is a difference between revolutionary violence and what is being discussed here.

[Rafiq]

I think the best way to deal with crimes of a sexual nature (i.e. rape, pedophillia, etc) is by executing the perpetrator.

How about the rape victim gets to beat the fuck out of the offender and then they're rehabilitated afterwords.

And I'm not saying this being a tankie.

If the victim dominates the offender with physical harm it will show the offender he's not in control.

[Rafiq]

Sigh, Pedophelia does not equal sexual abuse, pedophelia is a sexual atraction to prebubescent children, not only do a lot (the sparse research points toward a majority) of pedophiles not act upon their atraction beyond kiddie porn (and even among them there are more than a few that make a conscious choice to only consume fictional porn/role playing adults because they detest abuse) more importantly the vast majority of sexual child abuse is not done by actual pedophiles but by sadists and opportunists.
Equaling pedophelia with sexual abuse is part of the problem, not the solution.

You don't think kiddie porn is child abuse?

[Nox]

Brospierre, you can't be against the death penalty but advocate the death penalty for paedophiles...

If you're pro-death penalty then I think you should seriously reconsider.

[Rafiq]

Killing a sexual abuser is a fucking disgusting proposition in itself.

I thought Communists were against the death penalty...

Hell no we are not.

I mean as an end goal maybe but many will have to be executed for the revolution

[Nox]

Hell no we are not.

I mean as an end goal maybe but many will have to be executed for the revolution

Can you please tell me what the fucking point of executing paedophiles during the revolution is?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

How about the rape victim gets to beat the fuck out of the offender and then they're rehabilitated afterwords.

And I'm not saying this being a tankie.

If the victim dominates the offender with physical harm it will show the offender he's not in control.
I wish I had beaten the fuck out of the man who raped me

[Klaatu]

I don't know if this helps solve anything or not, but I read somewhere that male adult pedophiles tend to go after girls,
if they are within their family (or related) but they go after boys if they are NOT related to them in any way.

[Luís Henrique]

Not meaning to derail, but what is this rhetoric about being "of use" to the proletariat? The proletariat will no longer exist under socialism, alongside the bourgeoisie. Further, no one is to be "of use" to anyone. I find your statement silly.

It is not silly, it is outright bourgeois: the idea that people are tools for whatever, and should be treated accordingly.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

not executing people does not mean sexual exploitation (or anything else like that) is okay.

Apparently some people cannot figure the existence of anything that doesn't fit either the "it is completely OK" or the "it deserves the death penalty" categories...

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

The reality is that everyone will die. That is one of the processes of life if you ever payed attention in science class.

Sure, but if this justifies death penalty, it also justifies murder.


As for specifically being killed, innocent people are killed all the time, always have been, always will be that is a reality of human society.

And innocent people are raped all the time, always have been, always will be, that's a reality of human society... so, does this justify rape now?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

rofl. You don't think any bourgeois will be executed?

What does this have to do with penalties? Acts of war are acts of war, period. They have nothing to do with either justice or the normal functioning of a society.

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

Can you please tell me what the fucking point of executing paedophiles during the revolution is?

I didn't say pedophiles will be executed.. I said execution itself will be common.

[Ostrinski]

How about the rape victim gets to beat the fuck out of the offender and then they're rehabilitated afterwords.

And I'm not saying this being a tankie.

If the victim dominates the offender with physical harm it will show the offender he's not in control.Fair, but what if the victim wants to kill the offender? I see nothing in the way of that. The only way we can rehabilitate them is if we lock them up in some sort of labor camp. But then we'd still have to feed them.

[Franz Fanonipants]

stone cold crazies itt

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Sure, but if this justifies death penalty, it also justifies murder.I am not going to disagree with the idea that sexual abusers should be murdered.




And innocent people are raped all the time, always have been, always will be, that's a reality of human society... so, does this justify rape now?
No, not in my mind, I have (as I've already stated) a very personal vendetta on this issue, hence I believe that sexual abusers should be put to death. In my mind, every one of them that dies, makes the guy who raped me die a little more.

Luís Henrique[/QUOTE]

[Luís Henrique]

I have (as I've already stated) a very personal vendetta on this issue

Sorry for your personal experience, but, please, note that the world cannot and will not be governed by your personal feelings. It is not about you, it is about finding a decent way to live together. Death penalty is indecent, so it must be put away, as soon as possible.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

In my mind, every one of them that dies, makes the guy who raped me die a little more.

It seems that you won't let him actually die, you are systematically reviving him.

Luís Henrique

[#FF0000]

Innocent people wouldn't be knowingly executed. I don't understand what you're getting at.

Innocent people will die. That is what I'm getting at. And that is unacceptable.


We could all think of better ways, but execution is the most practical.

No it's not, actually, seeing as it takes tons of resources to execute people (mostly in making sure the right person is getting executed).

It's less costly to keep somone alive than to kill them, unless you're only concerned with producing a body so you can say "justice was served" whether the body is one of an innocent person or a guilty person.

[KR]

Yes, lets start questioning the legitimacy of claims from sexual abuse victims. That isn't paving the way for victim-blaming, right?:rolleyes:
What? Someone simply claiming that another person raped them should never be enough evidence to convict a person.

[KR]

rofl. You don't think any bourgeois will be executed?
I believe that the only deaths in the revolution should be the casualties that sadly takes place in combat, that includes both sides.

[PhoenixAsh]

Somehow this thread moved away from the discussion of the scientific basis of rehabilitation from sexual attraction, and more specifically the sexual attraction to pre-pubescent and early pubescent children....towards the notion of wether or not we should put people to death.

First and foremost...

The debate about the death penalty assumes some kind of crime has been committed. for which punishment is required. This only goes for a subset of the above mentioned groups since a large part of either group do not molest children or abuse them.

second...

There have been numerous cases in the past, and no doubt there will be in the future, in which children or parents for whatever reason have wrongly accused people who subsequently have been prosecuted for years and ended up with convictions. These people were innocent. In the case of the death penalty these people would have been executed on the basis of hype, scare and misinformation.

And third,

If we use the death penalty for abuse and sexual crimes then what kind of violation would warrant the death penalty and what not? If it is too broad then what is to stop a crime from escalating and moving beyond (in the case of child abuse) fondling (which is by far the largest group of sexual abuse in the cases where children are involved btw) into downright rape?

And if we are too specific aren't we overlooking the fact that trauma is extremely subjective and that fondling or simply being forced against your will can leave deep and extreme emotional scars just as deep and long lasting as the traumatic effects of an actual rape on some victims?

And yes...these questions are important since the only true motivation for a death penalty in peacetime civilian society is vengeance. No other argument in favor of it will hold up to scrutiny and rational thought. So lets be honest about this....the death penalty only exists for reasons of vengeance.

fourth

The fact of the matter is that most sex offenders can be rehabilitated and do not fall into recidivism. Not all. But indeed most and only a small group will actual fall back IF they get treatment....

http://www.vnews.com/sexcrimes/photos/sex-treatment.jpg


Now recidivism is horribly complex....and wether or not somebody re commits is also largely dependent on what exactly the initial crime in the first place.

So now we are going to extract the death penalty instantly glossing over the fact that somebody who commits a crime because of substance abuse, stress or other very treatable and cureable factors is rated the same as somebody who has deep anti/social tendencies ?


fifth....

So what purpose is served by killing a child abuser? What does this do for the kid? The kid may or may NOT even be aware of what is happening to the offender. May or may not have the emotional maturity to comprehend....but I can sure as hell guarantee that it will NOT in one fucking instance lessen the possible psychological trauma the kid is dealing with or is going to have to deal with resulting from the crime. So this is mostly done to make parents or family feel better and less guilty...I guess.


And last....


On the topic matter at hand. The vast majority of abuse cases involving children do NOT involve pedophiles....but actually involve adults who'se primary sexual attraction is other adults who for one reason or another "take it out on children".
And most often these are family members. Fathers, uncles, aunts, mothers...

So now what? Kill the kids family as well? In most cases the child still loves the parent/family member. In fact...that is something which heavilly contributes to the factor "opportunity" in these crimes. But it is none the less true.
Making it equally impossible btw for the victim to ever have a choice wether or not they want to face and stand up to the purpetraitor....a hugely important step in solving traumatic issues....

[Ostrinski]

Innocent people will die. That is what I'm getting at. And that is unacceptable.
Of course it is. But it's idealistic to think that the socialist revolution is some magic pathway to a place where innocent people don't die.


No it's not, actually, seeing as it takes tons of resources to execute people (mostly in making sure the right person is getting executed).

It's less costly to keep somone alive than to kill them, unless you're only concerned with producing a body so you can say "justice was served" whether the body is one of an innocent person or a guilty person.
I think it would cost more to have to be accountable for them. Feeding them and all that bullshit.

[Ostrinski]

I believe that the only deaths in the revolution should be the casualties that sadly takes place in combat, that includes both sides.Your idealism will not reflect the reality of the situation. There won't be nearly as many deaths during the revolution as after (unless you think some kind of people's war is possible in the west). You're naive if you think otherwise.

[PhoenixAsh]

"Fourteen studies have estimated the costs of capital punishment, including one study of the federal death penalty and 13 state- or county-level studies. Each study concludes that the presence of capital punishment results in additional costs. However, there is substantial variation in the cost estimates. Among the five studies that compare the cost of a death sentence with the cost of a capital-eligible case in which no death notice is filed, the average (additional) cost per case is $650,000, but the estimates range from about $100,000 to more than $1.7 million…

Cases receiving a death notice are approximately $517,000 more costly during the trial phase, $147,000 more costly during the penalty phase, and $201,000 more costly during the appellate phase than a capital eligible case where no death notice was filed…. On average, a death notice adds about $1,000,000 in costs over the duration of a case.”

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000



California could save $1 billion over five years by replacing the death penalty with permanent imprisonment.

California taxpayers pay $90,000 more per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular confinement


https://death.rdsecure.org/article.php?id=42

[PhoenixAsh]

Your idealism will not reflect the reality of the situation. There won't be nearly as many deaths during the revolution as after (unless you think some kind of people's war is possible in the west). You're naive if you think otherwise.

If there was a succesful revolution then there is no logical need to execute or kill anybody.

Unless you are saying that the revolution was a failure...and people needed to be forced and goated into the whole process of society building. And that simply means that there is another "burgeoisie" created.

[Os Cangaceiros]

"Fourteen studies have estimated the costs of capital punishment, including one study of the federal death penalty and 13 state- or county-level studies. Each study concludes that the presence of capital punishment results in additional costs. However, there is substantial variation in the cost estimates. Among the five studies that compare the cost of a death sentence with the cost of a capital-eligible case in which no death notice is filed, the average (additional) cost per case is $650,000, but the estimates range from about $100,000 to more than $1.7 million…

Cases receiving a death notice are approximately $517,000 more costly during the trial phase, $147,000 more costly during the penalty phase, and $201,000 more costly during the appellate phase than a capital eligible case where no death notice was filed…. On average, a death notice adds about $1,000,000 in costs over the duration of a case.”

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000



California could save $1 billion over five years by replacing the death penalty with permanent imprisonment.

California taxpayers pay $90,000 more per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular confinement


https://death.rdsecure.org/article.php?id=42

Yes, but I think that Brospierre shares the Chinese government's philosophy on capital punishment, not the USA's. :rolleyes:


Of course it is. But it's idealistic to think that the socialist revolution is some magic pathway to a place where innocent people don't die.

Killing innocent people through legal channels absolutely can be totally avoided. By, y'know, not having those channels exist.

[KR]

Your idealism will not reflect the reality of the situation. There won't be nearly as many deaths during the revolution as after (unless you think some kind of people's war is possible in the west). You're naive if you think otherwise.
Why would there be any deaths at all after the revolution?

[Nox]

Why would there be any deaths at all after the revolution?

Old age, heart failure, stroke, drowning...

Just a few I can think of ;)

[KR]

Old age, heart failure, stroke, drowning...

Just a few I can think of ;)
And post revolution we should off course also try to limit those kinds of deaths.

[Ostrinski]

"Fourteen studies have estimated the costs of capital punishment, including one study of the federal death penalty and 13 state- or county-level studies. Each study concludes that the presence of capital punishment results in additional costs. However, there is substantial variation in the cost estimates. Among the five studies that compare the cost of a death sentence with the cost of a capital-eligible case in which no death notice is filed, the average (additional) cost per case is $650,000, but the estimates range from about $100,000 to more than $1.7 million…

Cases receiving a death notice are approximately $517,000 more costly during the trial phase, $147,000 more costly during the penalty phase, and $201,000 more costly during the appellate phase than a capital eligible case where no death notice was filed…. On average, a death notice adds about $1,000,000 in costs over the duration of a case.”

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000



California could save $1 billion over five years by replacing the death penalty with permanent imprisonment.

California taxpayers pay $90,000 more per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular confinement


https://death.rdsecure.org/article.php?id=42If this is true then I stand corrected. I'd still like to see child abusers and rapists killed, though. Oh well.

[Nox]

I'd still like to see child abusers and rapists killed, though.

Then we might as well just kill anyone who commits any crime

[Rafiq]

Sorry for your personal experience, but, please, note that the world cannot and will not be governed by your personal feelings. It is not about you, it is about finding a decent way to live together. Death penalty is indecent, so it must be put away, as soon as possible.

Luís Henrique

I am sure majority of rape victims share her feelings.

She is trying to say that you are in no position to dismiss her suggestion as you have not been through what she has.

[Rafiq]

And post revolution we should off course also try to limit those kinds of deaths.

Take your head out of your ass, will you?

[#FF0000]

Of course it is. But it's idealistic to think that the socialist revolution is some magic pathway to a place where innocent people don't die.

No one's talking about a revolution though. We're talking about the death penalty in an established society.


I think it would cost more to have to be accountable for them. Feeding them and all that bullshit.

You can think that all you want but there've been multiple studies that show that you're wrong on this. Like I said, it's expensive because of the legal costs, which is completely necessary because you need at least pretend to try to execute the right person. Obviously I don't think "costs" would be a problem in a socialist society but it would still be a waste of resources.

[#FF0000]

If this is true then I stand corrected. I'd still like to see child abusers and rapists killed, though. Oh well.

"i just want to see bad people suffer and die but i am not like them because they did something wrong. really im not"

[9]

I think theres something really disgusting about supposed communists arguing for or against putting people to death on the basis of whether or not it costs less...

[#FF0000]

I think theres something really disgusting about supposed communists arguing for or against putting people to death on the basis of whether or not it costs less...

it is kinda fucked up how often i have to resort to that argument when "innocent people might die" and "killing is kind of fucking wrong" doesn't work.

[Rafiq]

I think theres something really disgusting about supposed communists arguing for or against putting people to death on the basis of whether or not it costs less...

Communism has nothing to do with this... Even though I stand opposed to capital punishment for pedos

[Nox]

Let me spell it out for you...

This is a C-O-M-U-M-I-N-S-I-T forum... You can't be pro death penalty lol

[9]

Communism has nothing to do with this...

Communism has nothing to do with what? :confused: I would say that arguing for or against the death penalty on the basis of whether keeping someone alive or putting them to death is more cost effective from the perspective of the capitalist state is a pretty bizarre argument for a 'communist' to make.

[Rafiq]

Communism has nothing to do with what? :confused: I would say that arguing for or against the death penalty on the basis of whether keeping someone alive or putting them to death is more cost effective from the perspective of the capitalist state is a pretty bizarre argument for a 'communist' to make.

I am pretty sure they were arguing about execution in a postrevolutionary society.

Where does it say that being against a death penalty is a qualification for being a communist?

[Nox]

Where does it say that being against a death penalty is a qualification for being a communist?

Where does it say being against homophobia is a qualification for being a communist?

[Rafiq]

Where does it say being against homophobia is a qualification for being a communist?

It doesn't. It just makes you a bigot.

Yes, you can be a communist and a bigot at the same time.

[Nox]

It doesn't. It just makes you a bigot.

Yes, you can be a communist and a bigot at the same time.

...Fair enough

[Ostrinski]

"i just want to see bad people suffer and die but i am not like them because they did something wrong. really im not"Eh? Forgive me Gandhi Incarnate, but your altruistic enlightenment doesn't resonate with me. Or is it your wizard-par mathematical brilliance that is flying over my head?

[Ostrinski]

I think theres something really disgusting about supposed communists arguing for or against putting people to death on the basis of whether or not it costs less...What the hell does this have to do with proletarian class rule, socialist mode of production, or the abolition of all existing property relations? Communism is not a moral code. I find it disgusting that people are apologizing for pedophiles but that's irrelevant.

[9]

What the hell does this have to do with proletarian class rule, socialist mode of production, or the abolition of all existing property relations? Communism is not a moral code.

I think the more pertinent question is what does executing people because it costs less than keeping them alive "have to do with proletarian class rule, socialist mode of production, or the abolition of all existing property relations".


I find it disgusting that people are apologizing for pedophiles but that's irrelevant.

I find you pretty disgusting, personally, but thats also irrelevant. :)

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Let me spell it out for you...

This is a C-O-M-U-M-I-N-S-I-T forum... You can't be pro death penalty lol
Because the purges in soviet Russia consisted of singing kumbaya and passing joints around, right?:rolleyes:

[Luís Henrique]

What the hell does this have to do with proletarian class rule, socialist mode of production, or the abolition of all existing property relations? Communism is not a moral code. I find it disgusting that people are apologizing for pedophiles but that's irrelevant.

Nobody is "apologizing for pedophiles". They are syckos, and when they act on their desires they are criminals and must be punished.

We are merely arguing against the death penalty. Two very different things.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Because the purges in soviet Russia consisted of singing kumbaya and passing joints around, right?:rolleyes:

Psst... don't tell anyone, but the purges in "soviet" Russia were directed against communists...

Luís Henrique

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

it is kinda fucked up how often i have to resort to that argument when "innocent people might die" and "killing is kind of fucking wrong" doesn't work.
Goddamnit! I hate hippies! Go cry to a liberal pacifist site.

[Ostrinski]

I think the more pertinent question is what does executing people because it costs less than keeping them alive "have to do with proletarian class rule, socialist mode of production, or the abolition of all existing property relations".It doesn't


I find you pretty disgusting, personally, but thats also irrelevant. :)I'm sorry that's the case. I think you're a pretty good poster.

[#FF0000]

What the hell does this have to do with proletarian class rule, socialist mode of production, or the abolition of all existing property relations? Communism is not a moral code. I find it disgusting that people are apologizing for pedophiles but that's irrelevant.

Good thing literally nobody is "apologizing for pedophiles". We're just telling you that the death penalty is fucking stupid.


Eh? Forgive me Gandhi Incarnate, but your altruistic enlightenment doesn't resonate with me. Or is it your wizard-par mathematical brilliance that is flying over my head?

its okay i know its really hard to argue when your entire position is based on literally nothing.

listen if you're a socialist because command and conquer made it look really cool and tuff that's fine but the rest of us are here because capitalism and class society brutalizes us every single day and we want to see an end to it. and that should include putting an end to pumping people full of electricity and death cocktails for (maybe) hurting another person.

you're forward thinking enough to strive for a stateless, classless society that spans the globe but not enough to think of a way of dealing with people who hurt people outside of locking them in cages and killing them.

[#FF0000]

Goddamnit! I hate hippies! Go cry to a liberal pacifist site.

outstanding argument please try addressing my points next time though

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Psst... don't tell anyone, but the purges in "soviet" Russia were directed against communists...

Luís Henrique
Psst... Don't tell anyone, but the death penalty existed under Lenin too... And my favorite revolutionary, Pancho Villa, was fond of the use of firing squads.

[#FF0000]

Psst... Don't tell anyone, but the death penalty existed under Lenin too... And my favorite revolutionary, Pancho Villa, was fond of the use of firing squads.

Death penalty for what, under Lenin?

And I think there's a large difference between the society Pancho Villa lived in and an established and stable socialist society.

[Luís Henrique]

I am sure majority of rape victims share her feelings.

Possibly. Isn't it common lore that most child abusers have been abused themselves when children? So, if we are going the sentimental way, why don't we pity the poor abusers who were themselves abused too?

And I stand for the dictatorship of the proletariat, not for the dictatorship of rape victims. Their say has no more value than any other people's.


She is trying to say that you are in no position to dismiss her suggestion as you have not been through what she has.Being a victim of rape doesn't make anyone more of a citizen than anyone else. I am in a position to dismiss her (or anyone else's) suggestion because I can see where her suggestion leads: into more power to the bourgeois State, into vigilante justice, into more murderous criminals (if you are going to be shot for rape, you might as well kill your victim, as it is not going to result in a heavier punishment), into more difficulty for rape victims to actually get their tormentors punished, etc. These are the arguments that count.

Luís Henrique

[9]

Goddamnit! I hate hippies! Go cry to a liberal pacifist site.

Yes, because only liberal pacifist hippies are opposed to state sanctioned murder and insane ideas about retributive justice...



I'm sorry that's the case. I think you're a pretty good poster.

er... thanks.. :crying:

[Ostrinski]

listen if you're a socialist because command and conquer made it look really cool and tuff that's fineI don't understand the appeal of video games. Haven't played any since I was a lad.


but the rest of us are here because capitalism and class society brutalizes us every single day and we want to see an end to it.I take issue with this. You don't know anything about me or my life.


and that should include putting an end to pumping people full of electricity and death cocktails for (maybe) hurting another person.Never advocated this excess. I'm not even sure what a "death cocktail" would entail.


you're forward thinking enough to strive for a stateless, classless society that spans the globe but not enough to think of a way of dealing with people who hurt people outside of locking them in cages and killing them.I already admitted I was wrong after hindsight20/20 posted what I thought was a healthy argument. My personal desire to see sexual offenders killed should be of no relevance after that.

[#FF0000]

I take issue with this. You don't know anything about me or my life.

No but I know what you just try to defend.


Never advocated this excess. I'm not even sure what a "death cocktail" would entail.That's lethal injection, brobro. A mix of anesthetic and paralyzing agent and poison that's supposed to be painless but HEH who knows.

[Firebrand]

OK here is the main reason that the death penalty is wrong

If someone willingly chooses to hurt or kill another human being there must be something fundamentally wrong with them. The problem might be to do with the brutalization of society, it might be due to messed up brain chemistry, it might be due to all sorts of things but fundamentally they are ill. There is something broken inside their heads that allows them to hurt other people.

If this is so then when they hurt or kill other people they are not responsible for their actions. They have been led by their biology or their upbringing or both to do things that hurt others.

If this is so then the whole concept of punishment falls apart. It isn't right to punish people for things they are not responsible for. However if we do not punish people for hurting others since they are not responsible for their illness, we are left with some people who have proven themselves to be damaged in ways that cause them to hurt others.
We cannot justify letting these people loose to continue hurting others so we should lock them up for the protection of others. If rehabilitation is possible it should be attempted, and any people who have been rehabilitated then released should be kept under close watch to make sure they really have changed.
The rule should always be that sentances are the minimum required to keep them from hurting others. Execution is therefore excessive, since life imprisonment has the same effect in keeping offenders separate from potential victims.

From a vengence perspective it might be better to just say that the offender has to undergo what the victim underwent. So rapists would be raped, murderers murdered etc. But that begs the question, who is to carry out these sentances and should we not be worried by the kind of person who chooses retibutive murder and retributive rape as their profession. It's my opinion that killing people even murderers is not something most people can do in cold blood and that anyone who could do that in cold blood over and over again is really the sort of person you would want locked up not roaming the streets.

[El Chuncho]

But seriously why stop there? we could also kill the old people, the people we disagree with, somebody steal you something? kill him and get your stuff back!

You cannot compare harmful criminals to old people and those we simply do not agree with. :rolleyes: We should not kill paedophiles (though the comment was meant more in jest), however, I'd not waste tears crying for their plight and most who have been abused by paedophiles wouldn't either, regardless of whether the paedophiles were abused or not. I care more about victims of paedophilia first and foremost; the ''plight'' of paedophiles is an afterthought.


most pedophiles, or at least the idea we have of what a pedophile is are not exclusively attracted to children

Citation needed.


most of them had some form of psychological trauma

That might be true but it is not conclusively proven.


or are going trought rough time.

And that certainly isn't a legitimate reason to abuse or want to abuse children. I go through rough times but I never consider harming children sexually to relieve my tension.


That being said, the real pedophiles, those who are exclusively attracted to children seem to have a pretty fucked up brain pattern, and unless you remove the brain the only option you have is to either teach him that its wrong, medicate him or incarcerate him to protect him and protect society.

I am not sure what a true paedophile is as the previous groups of paedophiles seem the same to me (except you say they are not exclusively paedophiles). However, I agree with your last comment.


I find it fascinating that people literally wish death upon people who are either ill or have an odd sexuality. That's such a reactionary thought process.

Painting paedophiles as victims is very reactionary. :rolleyes: Paedophilia is more than an ''odd'' sexuality; it is a potentially harmful one, especially is not controlled by the state.



Brospierre, get your sorry ass back to Stormfront.

Why? So he can insult the closet paedophiles that lurk there? It is not like Neo-Nazis have commonly been found to be child abusers, right...


Homosexuality is about love or just simply sex between two people who both wants to be together, it's completely different. They were born this way, they are not hurting anyone and they are perfectly normal.

Indeed and the fact that some are comparing homosexuality to paedophilia is rather disgusting and reactionary. Homosexuality is a normal sexual preference, a fetish about wanting to coerce innocent children into sex is not.


Sigh, Pedophelia does not equal sexual abuse, pedophelia is a sexual atraction to prebubescent children

That is as may be. However, paedophilia means that they fetishize the coersion of children, who are not old enough for sexual contact, into having sexual contact. It is a potential harmful erotomania because when they do act on their fetish, they are truly dangerous to the well being of our children.


(the sparse research points toward a majority)

Sources, please. Sounds like nonsense to me, but I'd accept it if you can find a valid source, Psycho.


not only do a lot (the sparse research points toward a majority) of pedophiles not act upon their atraction beyond kiddie porn

Child pornography is harmful to children. If they act upon their fetish they are aiding the sexual torture of children by child pornographers. In other words, they are child abusers by association.


more importantly the vast majority of sexual child abuse is not done by actual pedophiles but by sadists and opportunists.

I think you'll find that those sadists and opportunists are paedophiles, hence they sexually abuse children. :rolleyes:


A. Again, your talking about child abusers, not all of them by far are pedophiles.

No, he is talking about paedophiles who sexually abuse children. Only paedophiles sexually abuse children; to claim otherwise is completely absurd twaddle. No non-paedophile would sexually abuse a child because doing so would make them paedophiles.


Most child abusing priests are not pedophiles. And the most horific abuse is also not done by pedophiles but by sexual sadists

Those sexual sadists are paedophiles, hence they get sexual gratification from sexually abusing children. You could argue that not all paedophiles sexually abuse children, but to argue that not all sexual child-abusers are paedophiles is nonsense, laughable, pitiable and reactionary (and I hate throwing the ''R'' word around).



Yeah, I'm such a moralist. :rolleyes:
This is not a moralist/anti-moralist issue, this is an issue on whether sexual exploitation of any kind is okay or not. If I was a moralist, I would most likely have an issue with BDSM but I don't. It is clear from many of my stances that I am not a moralist, for fuck-sake I used to be a sex-worker.

Depends on what you mean by morality. Morality could just be defined as human etiquette. Treating humans, well, humanely is obviously preferable to treating humans inhumanely, because of the laws of cause and effect (e.g. if you punch a person in the face, they'll feel pain and thus they will suffer). Therefore it would be moral to be against exploitation.

BDSM only hurts people technically. The bottoms in BDSM relationships, however, are not truly being hurt, paradoxically because they want to be hurt in the first place. They are receiving no harm, only want they expect in a consensual relationship. Thus you can believe in morality without being against any form of consensual sex.

Sexual contact with those under the age of 13 (and I am not saying you should have sexual contact with 13 year olds in the first place...but that depends on what the law is in your country) is never truly consensual. Therefore, going by the law of morality that I defined above, it would be immoral to support paedophilic abuse.

[El Chuncho]

Who or what would organise and decide who should be exicuted?

Well, I presume that would fall upon the legal system and the workers within it. Oh, I forgot, many anarchists here do not want courts or a police force...



What does this have to do with penalties? Acts of war are acts of war, period. They have nothing to do with either justice or the normal functioning of a society.

If victims of paedophilia declare a war against paedophilia, would you find it justifiable? Acts of war are, after all, acts of war.


What? Someone simply claiming that another person raped them should never be enough evidence to convict a person.

That is not how the legal system works. You do not get conviction based on a simply allegation; there are such things are investigations, juries etc.


but the rest of us are here because capitalism and class society brutalizes us every single day and we want to see an end to it.

Nah, some are here because they are middle-class students who want to seem cool and tough. Sad but true.


Psst... Don't tell anyone, but the death penalty existed under Lenin too... And my favorite revolutionary, Pancho Villa, was fond of the use of firing squads.

Indeed. And Lenin and Pancho Villa were certainly great men. Executions have a place in revolutions. Killing is a sad fact of fighting for freedom.

[Agnapostate]

Pedophilia can be aptly described as a mental illness, and is listed as a paraphilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).



Right Orbitofrontal Tumor With Pedophilia Symptom and Constructional Apraxia Sign (http://archneur.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/60/3/437): "The patient displayed impulsive sexual behavior with pedophilia, marked constructional apraxia, and agraphia. The behavioral symptoms and constructional deficits, including agraphia, resolved following tumor resection...For patients with acquired sociopathy and paraphilia, an orbitofrontal localization requires consideration. This case further illustrates that constructional apraxia can arise from right prefrontal lobe dysfunction. Agraphia may represent a manifestation of constructional apraxia in the absence of aphasia and ideomotor apraxia."



Retrospective Self-Reports of Childhood Accidents Causing Unconsciousness in Phallometrically Diagnosed Pedophiles (http://www.springerlink.com/content/q51l1j12x75832p2/): "The present study investigated whether head injuries in childhood might increase the risk of pedophilia in males. The subjects were 1206 patients referred to a clinical sexology service for assessment of their erotic preferences. These were classified, on the basis of phallometric test results, as pedophilic (n = 413) or nonpedophilic (n = 793). Information regarding early head injuries, other signs of possible neurodevelopmental problems, and parental histories of psychiatric treatment were collected with self-administered questionnaires. The results showed that childhood accidents that resulted in unconsciousness were associated with pedophilia and with lower levels of intelligence and education. These associations were statistically significant for accidents that occurred before the age of 6, but not for accidents that occurred between the ages of 6 and 12. These results are compatible with the hypothesis that neurodevelopmental perturbations in early childhood may increase the risk of pedophilia. They are also, however, compatible with the alternative explanation that prior neurodevelopmental problems lead to accident-proneness and head injury, on the one hand, and to pedophilia, on the other, and that head injury has no causal influence on pedophilia. A secondary finding was that the pedophiles were more likely to report that their mothers had undergone psychiatric treatment. This finding suggests that pedophilia may be influenced by genetic factors, which are manifested in women as an increased risk of psychiatric problems, and in their sons, as an increased risk of erotic interest in children."

There are possibly forms of treatment that can eliminate or reduce sexual attraction to children, rather than imprisonment or institutionalization of pedophiles.


A Case of Late-Onset Pedophilia and Response to Sertraline (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1911163/): "After a couple of weeks of inpatient stay, Mr. A corroborated his sexual attraction to young girls and recognized that this was a potential problem for him in the village. He fulfilled DSM-IV-TR criteria for pedophilia.1 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1911163/#i1523-5998-9-3-235b-b1) He was started on sertraline, 50 mg/day, which was increased to 100 mg/day after 3 weeks. He also became engaged in individual counseling, which initially involved establishing a therapeutic alliance and gaining the patient's confidence. With this regimen and increased supervision, Mr. A had a significant behavioral improvement with no reports of similar incidents during the next 1 year of follow-up and reported a decrease in desire on a visual analogue scale."

[Luís Henrique]

If victims of paedophilia declare a war against paedophilia, would you find it justifiable? Acts of war are, after all, acts of war.

I mean war as in "war", confrontation between armies, not like these petty bourgeois fooleries about "war on drugs", "war on crime", etc.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Goddamnit! I hate hippies! Go cry to a liberal pacifist site.

Yeah, we really are in need of more macho warmongering, that's our problem.

Luís Henrique

[danyboy27]

I was referring to the bourgeoisie, under the premise that the proletarian class dictatorship would have no unemployment.

But the premise is flawed, you will never be able to have full employement even in a communistic or socialist system Unless you shove it down the throat of peoples with a gun. Wouldnt you agree that a system ruled by extreme force and coercion would be verry far from the ideal of what communism is precisely about?

[danyboy27]

You cannot compare harmful criminals to old people and those we simply do not agree with. :rolleyes: We should not kill paedophiles (though the comment was meant more in jest), however, I'd not waste tears crying for their plight and most who have been abused by paedophiles wouldn't either, regardless of whether the paedophiles were abused or not. I care more about victims of paedophilia first and foremost; the ''plight'' of paedophiles is an afterthought.
.
I sure can. One of the argument i hear a lot about the execution of pedophile is how wasteful it is to have these sorry excuse for human being sucking our ''ressources''. Like the fascist did, one could also argues that the invalids, those who ''cannot work'' are also a burden of society beccause of the tremendous ressources they make us waste to keep them alive.
The real problem with institutional mass killing is not putting the machine at work, the real challenge is not to get used to it.

also, pedophilia is a PSYCHIATRIC DISORDER, meaning that those who have it are mostly sick people.

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

also, studies have shown that some pedophiles have some strange brain pattern.
Causes and biological associations

Although what causes pedophilia is not yet known, beginning in 2002, researchers began reporting a series of findings linking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_%28statistics%29) pedophilia with brain structure and function: Pedophilic (and hebephilic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia)) men have lower IQs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ),[75] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-Blanchard2007-74)[76] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-Cantor2004-75)[77] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-Cantor2005-76) poorer scores on memory tests,[76] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-Cantor2004-75) greater rates of non-right-handedness,[75] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-Blanchard2007-74)[76] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-Cantor2004-75)[78] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-77)[79] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-78) greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences,[80] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-79) lesser physical height,[81] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-80) greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness,[63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-Blanchard2002-62)[82] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-81) and several differences in MRI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRI)-detected brain structures.[83] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-Cantor2008-82)[84] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-83)[85] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-84) They report that their findings suggest that there are one or more neurological characteristics present at birth that cause or increase the likelihood of being pedophilic. Evidence of familial transmittability "suggests, but does not prove that genetic factors are responsible" for the development of pedophilia.[86] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-85)
Another study, using structural MRI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRI), shows that male pedophiles have a lower volume of white matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_matter) than a control group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control).[83] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-Cantor2008-82)
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMRI)) has shown that child molesters diagnosed with pedophilia have reduced activation of the hypothalamus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothalamus) as compared with non-pedophilic persons when viewing sexually arousing pictures of adults.[87] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-86) A 2008 functional neuroimaging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroimaging) study notes that central processing of sexual stimuli in heterosexual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosexual) "paedophile forensic inpatients" may be altered by a disturbance in the prefrontal networks, which "may be associated with stimulus-controlled behaviours, such as sexual compulsive behaviours." The findings may also suggest "a dysfunction at the cognitive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive) stage of sexual arousal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_arousal) processing."[88] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-87)
Blanchard, Cantor, and Robichaud (2006) reviewed the research that attempted to identify hormonal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone) aspects of pedophiles.[62] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-Blanchard2006-61) They concluded that there is some evidence that pedophilic men have less testosterone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone) than controls, but that the research is of poor quality and that it is difficult to draw any firm conclusion from it.
A study analyzing the sexual fantasies of 200 heterosexual men by using the Wilson Sex Fantasy Questionnaire exam, determined that males with a pronounced degree of paraphilic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia) interest (including pedophilia) had a greater number of older brothers, a high 2D:4D digit ratio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_ratio) (which would indicate excessive prenatal estrogen exposure), and an elevated probability of being left-handed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-handedness), suggesting that disturbed hemispheric brain lateralization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function) may play a role in deviant attractions.[89] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-88)

[El Chuncho]

I mean war as in "war", confrontation between armies, not like these petty bourgeois fooleries about "war on drugs", "war on crime", etc

''War'' is a little relative. Most people in the western world (sadly) consider revolutionary freedom fighters to just be terrorists and not soldiers fighting a real war.

It could be argued that a revolutionary group, as a secondary goal, fighting against active paedophiles (those that abuse children) are fighting them in a war to protect their communities?. Some would agree that it is justified because the protection of children is important. It could argued that killing active paedophiles in a revolutionary conflict is a legitimate action because it gives the people a message that the revolutionaries what to protect families, the community and children from harm; imagine how you would feel if you were fighting a war against capitalists, only to find that your child had been raped by different enemies. ''War on drugs'' or ''war on crime'' is not the same thing as revolutionaries going after active paedos. The INLA used to kill drug-dealers in their war, because drug-dealers were harmful to the community they were fighting for and wished to protect.

Now, I am not saying that I agree with what I mentioned above, however, I think it is a bit absurd to compare revolutionaries fighting to protect proletariat communities to the absurd and insincere ''crusades'' of capitalist nations.

[El Chuncho]

I sure can.

Maybe you can...but you shouldn't. :rolleyes:



Like the fascist did, one could also argues that the invalids, those who ''cannot work'' are also a burden of society beccause of the tremendous ressources they make us waste to keep them alive.

Invalids are not harming people whereas active paedophiles are harming children. There is a huge difference right there.



also, pedophilia is a PSYCHIATRIC DISORDER, meaning that those who have it are mostly sick people.

I never disagreed with you in my post and who said I was arguing for the death penalty for paedophiles? I just object to you putting them in the same category as old people and invalids.





also, studies have shown that some pedophiles have some strange brain pattern.

I don't doubt it.

[Luís Henrique]

It could be argued that a revolutionary group, as a secondary goal, fighting against active paedophiles (those that abuse children) are fighting them in a war to protect their communities?

Nope. That's just vigilante justice dressed in red, not a war at all. Pedophiles don't have an army, they don't have a unified command, they don't struggle for any objective. They are just common criminals. There is and there can be no "war" against them, that's just bourgeois militaristic empty rhetoric.

Luís Henrique

[Princess Luna]

No, he is talking about paedophiles who sexually abuse children. Only paedophiles sexually abuse children; to claim otherwise is completely absurd twaddle. No non-paedophile would sexually abuse a child because doing so would make them paedophiles.



Those sexual sadists are paedophiles, hence they get sexual gratification from sexually abusing children. You could argue that not all paedophiles sexually abuse children, but to argue that not all sexual child-abusers are paedophiles is nonsense, laughable, pitiable and reactionary (and I hate throwing the ''R'' word around

Following your logic all prison rapists are homosexual, most child molesters target children not because they are attracted to them, but because they are attracted to the idea of rape, they choose children because children are easier targets. They are no more pedophiles, then prison rapists are homosexual. Which isn't to say pedophiles don't ever abuse children, most of the "costumers" of child prostitution are most likely pedophiles. But when you here a news report about a child who was raped and murdered, it was most likely a sadist not a pedophile who did it.

[black magick hustla]

all this hysterics about pedophilia and rape and boneheads going off about how much they would like adorning the the streets with pedophile and rapist heads on pikes are rooted on an unhealthy fixation with sex, intercouse, etc. i don't see how rape is worse than someone shooting someone for a bag of heroin.

[28350]

However, paedophilia means that they fetishize the coersion of children
No, it means they are attracted to children. I am sure there are those who also have coercive fantasies, but that doesn't mean all pedophiles "fetishize the coercion of children." I once dated someone who was asexual. I found her very sexually attractive. That doesn't mean I wanted to rape her.


Sexual contact with those under the age of 13 is never truly consensual.
Citation needed.

[KR]

That is not how the legal system works. You do not get conviction based on a simply allegation; there are such things are investigations, juries etc.
But it was suggested that that is how the legal system should work in the post that i responded to.

[Rafiq]

And I stand for the dictatorship of the proletariat, not for the dictatorship of rape victims. Their say has no more value than any other people's.

Being a victim of rape doesn't make anyone more of a citizen than anyone else. I am in a position to dismiss her (or anyone else's) suggestion because I can see where her suggestion leads: into more power to the bourgeois State, into vigilante justice, into more murderous criminals (if you are going to be shot for rape, you might as well kill your victim, as it is not going to result in a heavier punishment), into more difficulty for rape victims to actually get their tormentors punished, etc. These are the arguments that count.

Luís Henrique

She was speaking about execution in a post revolutionary society. Not within the framework of the bourgeois-legal system.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Yeah, we really are in need of more macho warmongering, that's our problem.

Luís Henrique
Yeah, because I'm soooooo macho, right? :rolleyes:
Yeah, I've been accused of being prissy, irritable, spoiled and I've been described as a *****, a whore and a slut; but macho is a new one I have not heard before. Honestly, I would understand if someone called me a shameless, heartless ***** because even though it's offensive, it's at least based in truth.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Depends on what you mean by morality. Morality could just be defined as human etiquette. Treating humans, well, humanely is obviously preferable to treating humans inhumanely, because of the laws of cause and effect (e.g. if you punch a person in the face, they'll feel pain and thus they will suffer). Therefore it would be moral to be against exploitation.

BDSM only hurts people technically. The bottoms in BDSM relationships, however, are not truly being hurt, paradoxically because they want to be hurt in the first place. They are receiving no harm, only want they expect in a consensual relationship. Thus you can believe in morality without being against any form of consensual sex.

Sexual contact with those under the age of 13 (and I am not saying you should have sexual contact with 13 year olds in the first place...but that depends on what the law is in your country) is never truly consensual. Therefore, going by the law of morality that I defined above, it would be immoral to support paedophilic abuse.
You can be opposed to child abuse for various reasons. For me it isn't a moral thing. I have a very personal vendetta against anyone who commits sexual abuse, period.

[28350]

You can be opposed to child abuse for various reasons. For me it isn't a moral thing. I have a very personal vendetta against anyone who commits sexual abuse, period.

You seem more interested in punishing child abusers than in preventing child abuse.

[Luís Henrique]

She was speaking about execution in a post revolutionary society. Not within the framework of the bourgeois-legal system.

She wasn't. Nowhere she makes that clause.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Yeah, because I'm soooooo macho, right? :rolleyes:

Yeah, you do sound like it. Violence is the solution of all problems, isn't it? That's macho bullshit, sorry.


Yeah, I've been accused of being prissy, irritable, spoiled and I've been described as a *****, a whore and a slut; but macho is a new one I have not heard before. Honestly, I would understand if someone called me a shameless, heartless ***** because even though it's offensive, it's at least based in truth.

There is a first time for everything.

Stop making wild claims about retributive violence, and you won't have to be called on it again.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

People wrongly accused of rape, exhonerated only after serving many years in jail:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/news/250.php

People who would now be dead (to great satisfaction of actual perpretators) if the imbeciles here had it their way.

Luís Henrique

(250 people, 60% of them Black Americans, 21% of them under 21 y/o at time of conviction, served in average 13 years in jail for something they didn't do, convicted on confessions extracted under threats of death penalty, on snitch testimony, on false charges, etc.)

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Yeah, you do sound like it. Violence is the solution of all problems, isn't it? That's macho bullshit, sorry.

Where did I ever address it as "the solution of all problems" I clearly believe in different solutions for different problems.

If I trip and fall for example, the solution is to get up and treat any wounds and move on with my life.

But with the situation of Lorena and John Bobbit for example, I think Lorena's solution was the right one.


There is a first time for everything.

Stop making wild claims about retributive violence, and you won't have to be called on it again.

I keep on remembering "The Offending Article" by The Poison Girls for some reason while reading this.


Luís Henrique
So you've said...

[danyboy27]

retributive violence never resolved anything.

Killing a rapist will never make it up for all the pain and suffering the victim endured. It will of course make the victim feel better, but it wont last and the problems caused by the abuse will remain.

the victims of sexual abuse should receive the best care possible to recover, and the rapists should be put away and if possible reabilitated, if not kept locked in for an infinite amount of time.

Of course it would be easier to play the retribution card and just kill anyone who is accused of rape but it would kill several innocents in the process and leave a shitload of rapist roaming free beccause the wrong guy would be killed instead.

Bourgeois or not, a justice system can fail and convict the wrong guy.
I remember a case we had several years ago, a guy was put in jail beccause the victim wrongly identified him.

Fortunately we dont have the death penality here so, while purging his 20 year sentence the victim was starting to have doubts about his testimony and a fews year after they let the guy go and eventually they catched the real rapist.

Retributive justice is both flawed and inhumane, it let real criminals in liberty and it allow innocents to be murdered, not to mention it make the population used to have the governement killing peoples, its a can of worm you really dont want to open.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

retributive violence never resolved anything.

Killing a rapist will never make it up for all the pain and suffering the victim endured. It will of course make the victim feel better, but it wont last and the problems caused by the abuse will remain.

the victims of sexual abuse should receive the best care possible to recover, and the rapists should be put away and if possible reabilitated, if not kept locked in for an infinite amount of time.

Of course it would be easier to play the retribution card and just kill anyone who is accused of rape but it would kill several innocents in the process and leave a shitload of rapist roaming free beccause the wrong guy would be killed instead.

Bourgeois or not, a justice system can fail and convict the wrong guy.
I remember a case we had several years ago, a guy was put in jail beccause the victim wrongly identified him.

Fortunately we dont have the death penality here so, while purging his 20 year sentence the victim was starting to have doubts about his testimony and a fews year after they let the guy go and eventually they catched the real rapist.

Retributive justice is both flawed and inhumane, it let real criminals in liberty and it allow innocents to be murdered, not to mention it make the population used to have the governement killing peoples, its a can of worm you really dont want to open.
Fair enough you have a legitimate point on this which is why I never want to be a decision maker. I'm way too governed by my own emotions. I've clearly stated that before many a time.

[Firebrand]

If anyone here supports capital punishment all I can say is
Remember Joe Hill

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

If anyone here supports capital punishment all I can say is
Remember Joe Hill
As far as I know, Joe Hill never committed a sex crime.

[Firebrand]

As far as I know, Joe Hill never committed a sex crime.

He never committed the crime he was alleged to have commited is my point. But they executed him anyway, because they wanted him gone. You don't think they could trump up sex crime charges if they wanted to. If they really wanted to get rid of someone i'm sure they could find some way to implicate them in sex crimes.

[Yazman]

Where did I ever address it as "the solution of all problems" I clearly believe in different solutions for different problems.

If I trip and fall for example, the solution is to get up and treat any wounds and move on with my life.

But with the situation of Lorena and John Bobbit for example, I think Lorena's solution was the right one.


I keep on remembering "The Offending Article" by The Poison Girls for some reason while reading this.


So you've said...

I can't believe you're advocating retributive violence here. There is no crime, imo, that justifies the violation of another person's body, and I will never support any society that has a legal system that condones it.

Furthermore, call the prevailing system a "bourgeois legal system" if you must, but I still expect there to be rule of law in a post-revolutionary society. I don't expect that to change. Perhaps elements of it may change, but one thing is for sure - I don't want to live in a society where codes of conduct between humans are abolished entirely, particularly as I don't see a woman cutting off another man's penis as justice, and I don't see anything like it as being just.

On the contrary, it is unjust. People who do commit extremely unethical acts should of course be subject to punishment, but that punishment should be given out by society, and not by random psychos who mutilate other human beings.

Retributive violence is a horrible thing that should be discouraged and should never be allowed. It doesn't improve the lot of either person in any way, it doesn't provide justice, and it merely strips away the humanity of both the violent and the victim.

I do not ever condone treating any human being as subhuman, which is what you're doing when you just lop off body parts. Regardless of whether they committed a crime or not. They still get their dignity and I won't support somebody who advocates taking it away.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I can't believe you're advocating retributive violence here. There is no crime, imo, that justifies the violation of another person's body, and I will never support any society that has a legal system that condones it.

Furthermore, call the prevailing system a "bourgeois legal system" if you must, but I still expect there to be rule of law in a post-revolutionary society. I don't expect that to change. Perhaps elements of it may change, but one thing is for sure - I don't want to live in a society where codes of conduct between humans are abolished entirely, particularly as I don't see a woman cutting off another man's penis as justice, and I don't see anything like it as being just.

On the contrary, it is unjust. People who do commit extremely unethical acts should of course be subject to punishment, but that punishment should be given out by society, and not by random psychos who mutilate other human beings.

Retributive violence is a horrible thing that should be discouraged and should never be allowed. It doesn't improve the lot of either person in any way, it doesn't provide justice, and it merely strips away the humanity of both the violent and the victim.

I do not ever condone treating any human being as subhuman, which is what you're doing when you just lop off body parts. Regardless of whether they committed a crime or not. They still get their dignity and I won't support somebody who advocates taking it away.
Lorena Bobbit was actually committing an act of self defense. John Bobbit (her husband) was abusing her and raping her. She attacked the thing he was hurting her with, there is no question in my mind that she was justified. So if defending yourself from rape make you a psycho than maybe being a "psycho" is the right thing.

[Luís Henrique]

Lorena Bobbit was actually committing an act of self defense.

No she wasn't. The idiot was asleep, darnit.


John Bobbit (her husband) was abusing her and raping her.

And she should have divorced him and filled a police complaint about his behaviour, not necessarily in that order - instead of living with him for four years.


She attacked the thing he was hurting her with, there is no question in my mind that she was justified. So if defending yourself from rape make you a psycho than maybe being a "psycho" is the right thing.

She wasn't defending herself. Rape was over, the rapist was asleep, she could have simply left and sought for her rights. Self-defence does not include going after the perpretator after the crime is over; that's revenge, vendetta, retribution, and while it certainly should be weighed in favour of her, it cannot exculpate the crime.

She herself knew she was wrong, which is the reason she went to police and told them where she had thrown away the dick's dick.

Luís Henrique

[Joseph S.]

The only therapy that cold cure these sick mind's is ....................
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zQTKY_ydRvo/TtGyE3X-uRI/AAAAAAAAA3I/Kp17aMluh58/s1600/noose.JPG
Just my honeste opinion based on the things that have happened to me in my childhood.

[PhoenixAsh]

The outcome of the Lorena Bobbit assault case was a not guilty verdict due to temporary insanity caused by the years of abuse. I tend to agree with this verdict allthough I think the insanity classification is a technical and very double edged one.

Wether or not she was justified in taking that action is a different matter but I think it is pretty damned obvious given the situation that the act was quite understandable as years of abuse are known to be a major cause for PTSD and other strees related disorders in which can cause acute stress responses and overwhelming anger.

[Yazman]

The outcome of the Lorena Bobbit assault case was a not guilty verdict due to temporary insanity caused by the years of abuse. I tend to agree with this verdict allthough I think the insanity classification is a technical and very double edged one.

Whether or not she was justified in taking that action is a different matter but I think it is pretty damned obvious given the situation that the act was quite understandable as years of abuse are known to be a major cause for PTSD and other strees related disorders in which can cause acute stress responses and overwhelming anger.

There's a difference between saying it's understandable and saying it's justifiable - Esperanza seems to think that it's justifiable and as she said, "the right solution", when the court determined, and even Lorena's defense, seemed to admit it was unjustifiable, but mitigated by mental illness. I can understand this. Especially with the judgment that she was mentally ill and had to undergo treatment etc.

It isn't the right course of action though nor is it justifiable or acceptable behaviour. It isn't justifiable, and on an aside I certainly don't condone genital mutilation. A mentally ill woman committed a crime and was not innocent but not guilty due to her mental illness. It still wasn't the right course of action though, hence the entire point of the mentally ill verdict.

[Sputnik_1]

I've been abused as a child but I'm mature enough to separate feelings from reason and I wouldn't use what happened to me as an argument pro death penalty. I'm strongly against it and I think that seeing it as an only way to deal with people who have deep psychological problems is superficial and doesn't help society at all. Statistics show that the increased size of penalty doesn't make decrease criminality. Problems can't be solved in such a superficial way, especially if we are talking about socialist progressive society.
Do I hate the person that did that to me? Yes, I do, really bad. I know his parents and so my parents do. I've even told them about what happened (even if it was basically squeezed out of me cause I didn't want to talk about it) but the only thing they did was to make me avoid meeting him ever again. I grew up and nonetheless my personal feelings on the topic I don't support any kind of executions or such drastic "solutions". First of all it's pointless. I've heard once someone (I don't remember who, but I'm pretty sure it was a right wing celebrity or something) saying "I do support death penalty, the bastard should learn the lesson for the future". With all her/his stupidity she/he perfectly expressed how ridiculous and useless death penalty is.

[#FF0000]

The only therapy that cold cure these sick mind's is.......

Just my honeste opinion based on the things that have happened to me in my childhood.

well i mean

have you read any of this thread at all?

[PhoenixAsh]

There's a difference between saying it's understandable and saying it's justifiable - Esperanza seems to think that it's justifiable and as she said, "the right solution", when the court determined, and even Lorena's defense, seemed to admit it was unjustifiable, but mitigated by mental illness. I can understand this. Especially with the judgment that she was mentally ill and had to undergo treatment etc.

It isn't the right course of action though nor is it justifiable or acceptable behaviour. It isn't justifiable, and on an aside I certainly don't condone genital mutilation. A mentally ill woman committed a crime and was not innocent but not guilty due to her mental illness. It still wasn't the right course of action though, hence the entire point of the mentally ill verdict.

That is just it. I think she didn't act because she was mentally ill but because she was in a perpetual threatening situation from which she could not escape. I think she did act in self defence eventhough the event itself was over.

That is just how the psychological cycle of abuse works....victims can not always get out or see a way to get out. So it isn's as simple as saying: she could have left.

No...she couldn't. That is the whole point of why abusive relationships last so long. Victims can not get out of it. They are usually completely broken to a point that they are often in an open cage.

A verdict of mental insanity or being mentally ill glosses over that.

[KR]

Lorena Bobbit was actually committing an act of self defense. John Bobbit (her husband) was abusing her and raping her. She attacked the thing he was hurting her with, there is no question in my mind that she was justified. So if defending yourself from rape make you a psycho than maybe being a "psycho" is the right thing.
It's only self-defense if your defending yourself from an actual attack happening at the moment. It's not self-defense if you punish someone for past attacks.

[Seth]

They have no place around children.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

It's only self-defense if your defending yourself from an actual attack happening at the moment. It's not self-defense if you punish someone for past attacks.
In abusive relationships, the attack is never over even if he stops. It's physical violence but it is a form of psychological control where the victim is broken and is for lack of better words receiving a permanent assault. Take it from someone who knows first hand on the receiving end, what hindsight20/20 said is extremely accurate, there is no simply walking out of it. I would still be with my abuser to this day if someone hadn't intervened. But I can't help but to think, what about those who nobody intervenes for? Being trapped in that situation Lorena's actions sure look more than reasonable to someone who knows what it's like to be trapped in that. It's either fight back the way Lorena did (which takes courage, believe me) just deal with it, or commit suicide.

My ex had me trained like a dog and controlled every aspect of my life. He beat me many times, forced me into sexual situations I was for lack of strong enough words not comfortable with, but once I got my taste of freedom from that, I felt more confused and scared than anything else. I will in all likelihood never fully adjust to being free of that abusive relationship. There will always be a part of me that will desire to run back to him. It's like stockholm syndrome, but in situations like mine it is referred to by some as beaten wife syndrome. It is not uncommon amongst battered women. Now that I've gone on a tangent and strayed way from the original topic, I feel I should avoid this thread period because there are too many triggers.

[#FF0000]

Good thing Lorena Bobbit was found innocent anyway.


They have no place around children.


no kidding

[Yazman]

Good thing Lorena Bobbit was found innocent anyway.



no kidding

She wasn't found innocent, she was found not guilty due to mitigating circumstances. She did commit a crime, but it was mitigated by her mental illness.

[KR]

In abusive relationships, the attack is never over even if he stops. It's physical violence but it is a form of psychological control where the victim is broken and is for lack of better words receiving a permanent assault. Take it from someone who knows first hand on the receiving end, what hindsight20/20 said is extremely accurate, there is no simply walking out of it. I would still be with my abuser to this day if someone hadn't intervened. But I can't help but to think, what about those who nobody intervenes for? Being trapped in that situation Lorena's actions sure look more than reasonable to someone who knows what it's like to be trapped in that. It's either fight back the way Lorena did (which takes courage, believe me) just deal with it, or commit suicide.

My ex had me trained like a dog and controlled every aspect of my life. He beat me many times, forced me into sexual situations I was for lack of strong enough words not comfortable with, but once I got my taste of freedom from that, I felt more confused and scared than anything else. I will in all likelihood never fully adjust to being free of that abusive relationship. There will always be a part of me that will desire to run back to him. It's like stockholm syndrome, but in situations like mine it is referred to by some as beaten wife syndrome. It is not uncommon amongst battered women. Now that I've gone on a tangent and strayed way from the original topic, I feel I should avoid this thread period because there are too many triggers.
Too abstract to call it self defense.

[The Insurrection]

I think what this thread proves is that victims should not be in charge of a punitive justice system.

The idea that we should just murder as many people as it takes to rid the world of a sex abuser demonstrates that the person offering it has lost all sense of reason and perspective, and should not be part of the decision making process.

I don't think anyone has said it yet, but in my view the reason the death penalty is unjustified is because 'retribution' as a societal dynamic makes no rational or ethical sense. Retribution is a very archiaic, biblical and base reaction to anti-social behaviour, whether it's as serious as sexual abuse or being drunk and disorderly. Any future communist society should be looking towards creating societal and intra-human dynamics that progress human behaviour and interactions, not maintain systems that neither benefit the victim, the perpetrator or society as a whole. And I say this because any abuse victim knows that just killing the individual is a momentary feeling of satisfaction. It does nothing to address the feelings of inadequacy, anger, shame and fear that are associated with experiencing something like that. It doesn't help the perpetrator or society understand the motives and conditions that drive someone to behave like this and because of that we cannot move towards finding ways to actually stop these thing from happening - because that should be our objective, right? We want an end to paedophilia and other sex abuse? Or at least treat it.

Also, 'retribution' sets up a society that doesn't think and that relies primarily on feeling and emotion, rather than on experience and reason. It teaches younger generations that doing what feels right is how they should behave and react to situations that anger them. I don't see anything positive about that.

[GallowsBird]

Btw, you can't really compare the bourgeoisie to paedophiles...

Why can't you? Firstly, what about Paedophiles who are bourgeois, or are all Paedos automatically Leftist now? Secondly there is a good case that abuse of children by Paedophiles mirrors the abuse of the proleteriat by the bourgeois classes. Both are getting gratification from the exploitation of a (traditionally) weaker class who most of the time do not have the power to stop it (unlike us workers and peasants of the world however children are, sadly, not likely to organise against their exploitation). So yes, you can compare them.

[GallowsBird]

Incidentally I doubt as mass purge of anyone in sight is the best way to go, while at the same time I think it is valid to execute people (as sad as it is to take a life) in certain circumstances. If the death penalty is enforced for rapists etcetera then we'd have to be as sure as possible (I doubt you can ever be 100% positive) that the person is guilty of the crime (i.e. of being a counter-revolutionary).

But how can we deal with Paedophilia? If it is an illness then would we have to institutionalise active Paedophiles? Or do we let them be free in society while they are being "cured" and if that is the case wouldn't they still be a danger (as they are a danger just as criminally insane people are)?

On one hand you have a faction that says to execute them (and I am not completely against that if we had good enough safeguards) and one faction who are saying to "cure" them. But what about preventing Paedophile abuse? Both are "after the fact" solutions. Most Paedophiles will not come forward and say "I am a Paedophile, cure me" many don't even see it as an illness or crime.

[Yazman]

Why can't you? Firstly, what about Paedophiles who are bourgeois, or are all Paedos automatically Leftist now? Secondly there is a good case that abuse of children by Paedophiles mirrors the abuse of the proleteriat by the bourgeois classes. Both are getting gratification from the exploitation of a (traditionally) weaker class who most of the time do not have the power to stop it (unlike us workers and peasants of the world however children are, sadly, not likely to organise against their exploitation). So yes, you can compare them.

This is only true if you have a conspiratorial view of capitalism. Most bourgies are not conspiring to oppress workers for gratification or their own pleasure, it's just a result of power relations and a market economy.

It's a pretty poor analogy, and somewhat inappropriate.

[dodger]

A society that does not protect it's weakest members is not civilized. What ever it takes to protect children must be undertaken. That would be my no1 priority. That would start with monitoring adults who had contact with children ....police checks. From teachers to youth workers to swimming instructors. A paedophile at the end of jail time should be sent to a secure unit, where that person could be assessed for release. Contingent on a favourable review a license could be issued and further monitoring. Otherwise that person should stay in a place ,whereby, he is in no danger to children.That is remains under lock and key. The paedophile is always in the driving seat, if he undertakes seriously to refrain from assaults on children his freedom will be attained..This system must be clear and transparent to him and all. It does not come cheap, but a price on children's safety, can we really put a price on that? There might be a case for allowing a prisoner to volunteer for a programme before his sentence has finished. I say it again the child's safety is paramount. Parents and relatives of children also deserve consideration by the state. Respected. I cannot conceive of any alternative, as things stand.

We abolished the death penalty in 1964, I see no reason to bring it back. Plenty of reasons to continue without it. HARD CASES make BAD LAW. An old English law saying, true today as when first uttered.

[El Chuncho]

It's only self-defense if your defending yourself from an actual attack happening at the moment. It's not self-defense if you punish someone for past attacks.

Easy for most people who were not abused to say. But many people who suffered any form of abuse have scars for the rest of their life and it is almost like they are being attacked each time they remember it.

[El Chuncho]

It's a pretty poor analogy, and somewhat inappropriate.

You can compare active paedophiles with companies like United Fruit Company, who knowingly exploit people for commercial and political gain. The analogy is inappropriate pretty much because you do not believe that the bourgeoisie is knowingly guilty of oppressing the workers and others. That is true in some cases and not all, so a more correct analogy (and one that my comrade meant) is active paedophiles (and I include anyone with child pornography as such) and the self-aware capitalists.


Why can't you? Firstly, what about Paedophiles who are bourgeois, or are all Paedos automatically Leftist now?

Of course they are comrade!:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7469180.stm

:laugh:

[El Chuncho]

Nope. That's just vigilante justice dressed in red, not a war at all. Pedophiles don't have an army, they don't have a unified command, they don't struggle for any objective. They are just common criminals. There is and there can be no "war" against them, that's just bourgeois militaristic empty rhetoric.

Luís Henrique

We are talking about padophile rings so that claim is mostly bullshit. You can argue that they do not have an army (although Dunblane is a great reminder that paedophiles are not all just sexual predators, but some are murderers too) or unified command, but they do. Paedophile rings are run much like cells and thus they do have a leader and are unified. To claim otherwise is nonsense.

[El Chuncho]

Following your logic all prison rapists are homosexual

Nope, man is by nature bisexual. Society pigeon holes people into specific sexualities. The prison rapists are attracted to men because women are denied to them, so they revert to being are bisexual. Take out the rape and it is quite natural... you cannot do that with paedophilia.


most child molesters target children not because they are attracted to them

Bullshit. They are attracted to children. They do not love children, but they are attracted to them.


but because they are attracted to the idea of rape, they choose children because children are easier targets.

There is some truth to that but not because they aren't attracted to children but because they are attracted to adults and children. Children are an easier option for them.


Which isn't to say pedophiles don't ever abuse children, most of the "costumers" of child prostitution are most likely pedophiles.

Most who ''consume'' child pornography are paedos? Most? MOST? Who else, in your mind, would ''consume'' child pornography?


But when you here a news report about a child who was raped and murdered, it was most likely a sadist not a pedophile who did it.

No, they are sadistic paedophiles.

[GallowsBird]

This is only true if you have a conspiratorial view of capitalism. Most bourgies are not conspiring to oppress workers for gratification or their own pleasure, it's just a result of power relations and a market economy.



I didn't say that the Bourgeoisie were "conspiring" to oppress the worker for "gratification" but they are getting gratification from the oppression of the proletariat. Or do they just sit in their mansions depressed all day, using their paper money as hankies... I doubt it somehow. Try harder next time.


It's a pretty poor analogy, and somewhat inappropriate.

Poor? Maybe... though I don't think so. Inappropriate? I thought we were supposed to be against moralising, comrade! :rolleyes:

[Luís Henrique]

Easy for most people who were not abused to say. But many people who suffered any form of abuse have scars for the rest of their life and it is almost like they are being attacked each time they remember it.

... and so they should be able to kill anyone who reminds them of it, and get away with self-defence?

Sorry, but this is utter savagery, and won't happen, either in late capitalism or in socialism.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

We are talking about padophile rings so that claim is mostly bullshit.

You may be talking about it now, but otherwise this distinction hadn't been made yet.

Paedophile rings anyway are similar to other criminal organisations, which is what they are. They are not political organisations. You can't argue for a war against the Mafia, unless you are a hard core reactionary - and even then only if you are seriously deluded on how to conduct the defence of unequality and exploitation. So how would you rationally argue for a "war" against paedophiles?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Good thing Lorena Bobbit was found innocent anyway.

Thanks for her lawyiers pursuing the correct defence, instead of going after delusions of "self-defence", which would have made her way directly into jail.

Luís Henrique

[El Chuncho]

... and so they should be able to kill anyone who reminds them of it, and get away with self-defence?

When did I say I agree with it? I, however, do not put paedophiles at the top of my priorities; I care more about the victims of active paedophiles, aka children who wouldn't have a normal life because of them.

If paedophilia is an illness, they should be institutionalized, but they should never be treated as ''safe'' or put in the same category as homosexuals (even though they can be homosexuals...or bisexuals or heterosexuals!).


Sorry, but this is utter savagery, and won't happen, either in late capitalism or in socialism.

Many would say the same about violent revolution, yet many here advocate to the point of denouncing the likes of Gandhi (I agree with armed struggle but even I would not do that) for being a pacifist. You shouldn't declare a moral absolute (''utter savagery''). You just disagree with it.

[El Chuncho]

Paedophile rings anyway are similar to other criminal organisations, which is what they are. They are not political organisations. You can't argue for a war against the Mafia, unless you are a hard core reactionary

Reactionary this, reactionary that. What about paedophile rings cum political parties who advocate ''paedophile'' rights. To claim that paedophile rings can only be criminal without any form of political ring is nonsense. You have certain RAANists who advocate paedophile rights, you know. Again, I am not saying that I advocate a ''war'' against paedophiles, I just do not call those who do ''reactionaries'' especially if they actually do more for the revolution than spotty teenagers behind computer screens. And having one thing that you disprove of doesn't make someone a reactionary in the first place, it just makes them faulted. Are you an Anarchist, a Left-Communits? Anyway, it does not matter. Would you say that some with identical beliefs to you except that they advocate a war against paedophiles is a reactionary? If you do, then I feel sorry for you.

And you can argue for a war against the mafia, as they often prop up capitalist regimes like in Cuba. Claiming that people who fight war against the mafia are ''reactionaries'' is pretty low, and to use your terminology, pretty ''inappropriate''. OK, I think anyone who makes paedophile ''rights'' a high priority is a reactionary.


- and even then only if you are seriously deluded on how to conduct the defence of unequality and exploitation. So how would you rationally argue for a "war" against paedophiles?

I would not argue for a war on paedophiles, however, I have already given reasons to why some do. Most workers are also family men and women with children, they'd sleep happier if they knew that the socialists who are fighting alongside them protect their children from paedophiles. You'll not find many workers or peasants who'll agree with the neo-liberal stance - putting the rights of paedophiles near the top of the priority list, whinging about their rights, justifying and supporting their rights to ''consume'' child pornography etc. - on paedophilia often touted on this forum. And I'd hate to live in a society where paedophiles are given free reign to access child pornography and who are treated as victims.

[El Chuncho]

Thanks for her lawyiers pursuing the correct defence, instead of going after delusions of "self-defence", which would have made her way directly into jail.

She was being abused and raped for years! It was more than a ''delusion'', my friend.

And at least she didn't rape or fantasize about raping innocent children. She hurt a man who was violating her physically and mentally almost everyday.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

http://ru.memegenerator.net/cache/instances/400x/12/12611/12913750.jpg

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

ahahahah socialist hardmen (women) are coming on strong tonight.

You're all absolutely hilarious

i don't know whats better, newcomer brospierre jumping at any chance to establish his socialist hardman creditinals in a thread that realy has little to do with it,

or esperanaza deciding that if you dont wannna kill rapists, u arent against rape enough

but then the usual suspect, rafqit, had to swoop in, informng us that after decades of groundbreaking psycological research, it will teach rapists a lesson if once caught get beaten up by their victims.

[El Chuncho]

http://ru.memegenerator.net/cache/instances/400x/12/12611/12913750.jpg

Is this a self-portrait, Gangsterio? :confused:

Because that is actually how I imagine all the supposed ''leftists'' who make victims out of paedophile, rather than fighting for the rights of the real victims. Namely those children who will not have a real life due to the abuse they receive from active paedos.

[The Insurrection]

Because that is actually how I imagine all the supposed ''leftists'' who make victims out of paedophile, rather than fighting for the rights of the real victims. Namely those children who will not have a real life due to the abuse they receive from active paedos.

What is the purpose of this conflation? Aside from your ridiculous assertion that people are trying to turn paedophiles into victims, how does it follow that people who don't agree with the methods you are espousing are somehow not "fighting for the rights of the real victims"? I genuinely don't understand how you are making this argument in any serious way.

The entier basis of your argument and the one you are defending lacks any sense of sophistication. This, for example: "Most workers are also family men and women with children, they'd sleep happier if they knew that the socialists who are fighting alongside them protect their children from paedophiles." Most abuse against children comes from a family member and predominantly by white men in all sorts of class positions...

The reason I mention that quote is because it epitomizes the lack of nuance and subtlety to the arguments being positioned here. This issue isn't black and white. It's mutli-faceted and relies on society to engage actively with all of the elements. We want to resolve paedophilia and to do that it means understanding it. Executing people and beating them up aren't a method of achieving that - in fact, they aren't a method of achieving anything except mutilation and death.

Making this argument is not trying to turn paedophiles into victims, it's simply addressing the issue differently. I want my children to be safe. I want the children in my community to be safe also. But I don't see how violence and death are in any way a method of achieving that, other than some momentary satisfaction and of course setting up a societal dynamic for dealing with anti-social behaviour that is predicated on emotion, rather than reason. This is not something I want my children or the children in my community to grow up learning - that they can use violence because someone did something that makes them feel angry. I want them to learn to think and engage, even when the thing they are thinking about and engaging with is highly distasteful. Because in a post-revolutionary society, it must be knowledge, experience and reason that we understand and accomplish progress, not emotion, force and violence.

I want science and those who are experts to understand paedophilia; to find progressive solutions for dealing with it and to help treat it, so that we have a rounder, healthier and rational society.

What is contentious about that position?

[danyboy27]

Is this a self-portrait, Gangsterio? :confused:

Because that is actually how I imagine all the supposed ''leftists'' who make victims out of paedophile, rather than fighting for the rights of the real victims. Namely those children who will not have a real life due to the abuse they receive from active paedos.

No one here is arguing that the people who where abused are not victims.

And yes, a lot of pedophiles where victims of abuse in childhood, and now become abuser themselves beccause of that.

also, nobody here is arguing that pedo should be running wild in society abusing childrens non-stop.

So far the real debate is about the sentence the pedo should receive, namely the death penality, enprisonnement, reabilitation.

[danyboy27]

I personally dont know why are we even arguing about it anyway.

-Punitive justice dosnt work, if it was the case, the U.S would probably the safest place on earth.

-death penality kill innocent peoples so its out of the question.

So, the only real reasonable option would be to reabilitate those we can, keep a watchful eye on them, and put the hard cases in a permanent detention facility to protect the outside world from them, and them from the outside world, that the most viable and safe option we have.

Also, greater ressources should be given to victims of pedo to help them deal with any psychological and physical trauma.

Beyond that and extend our knowledge on the subject there is really nothing else we can do.

[Ostrinski]

ahahahah socialist hardmen (women) are coming on strong tonight.

You're all absolutely hilarious

i don't know whats better, newcomer brospierre jumping at any chance to establish his socialist hardman creditinals in a thread that realy has little to do with it,

or esperanaza deciding that if you dont wannna kill rapists, u arent against rape enough

but then the usual suspect, rafqit, had to swoop in, informng us that after decades of groundbreaking psycological research, it will teach rapists a lesson if once caught get beaten up by their victims.what seems to be the problem officer?

[Luís Henrique]

If paedophilia is an illness, they should be institutionalized, but they should never be treated as ''safe'' or put in the same category as homosexuals (even though they can be homosexuals...or bisexuals or heterosexuals!).

Indeed, and I quit being a moderator in these forums because I outright banned a paedophile who dared suggest his ilk was an "oppressed minority" like gays or Blacks, which generated a series of accusations of "authoritarianism". Since I got no support from the admins, I resigned. So my credentials in such an issue are quite good enough.

What you seem to confuse is the fact that paedophiles are common criminals who should be dealt with as common criminals, not as a political enemy, with the idea that paedophyllia is somehow OK. Or the fact that the death penalty isn't a good idea at all with the idea that not having a death penalty for paedophiles somehow equates a greenlight for them. Both are strawmen.


all the supposed ''leftists'' who make victims out of paedophile, rather than fighting for the rights of the real victims

What is the issue with being a victim? Being a victim is just that, being a victim. It doesn't justify your acts, it doesn't give you any moral superiority against others, it doesn't give you any extra rights.

Paedophiles are quite often victims themselves - of abuse when they were children, which may be the cause of their pathology, and of insane repressive laws or vigilante justice when they are caught on crime. This doesn't give any justification for their acts, nor it should. Why would other insane or criminal actions by their victims receive any extra consideration?

And there is also the issue of people falsely accused of rape, which certainly are victims too. Does this give them any excuse for acting in a criminal way against those who victimised them? If someone is falsely accused of rape, does this gives them the "right" to kill the perjuror? No? Then exactly how being a victim of rape gives anyone the "right" to kill the rapist - aside the widely recognised exceptions of self defence or insanity?

Luís Henrique

[El Chuncho]

What is the purpose of this conflation?

As a rebuttal to a worthless image post against members who are generally just making their views known...and yet are being called reactionaries. I'd think that would be obvious. :rolleyes:


Aside from your ridiculous assertion that people are trying to turn paedophiles into victims, how does it follow that people who don't agree with the methods you are espousing are somehow not "fighting for the rights of the real victims"?

What methods am I espousing? :rolleyes:


And many people on Revleft do make them into victims, hence hardly anyone arguing for tolerance for paedophiles have actually mentioned how hard the victims have it.



Most abuse against children comes from a family member and predominantly by white men in all sorts of class positions...

Irrelevant. Most family members do not abuse the children within their family...or any other family. So all workers and their families are paedos now? :lol: That was a very worthless statement.


Executing people and beating them up aren't a method of achieving that - in fact, they aren't a method of achieving anything except mutilation and death.

I never argued for them. :rolleyes: I just do not think that those who do argue for them are reactionaries as I know their reasoning.


I want science and those who are experts to understand paedophilia; to find progressive solutions for dealing with it and to help treat it, so that we have a rounder, healthier and rational society.

Good luck with that! ;)

:rolleyes:


What is contentious about that position?

Nothing ideally, though I think your view that we can treat paedophilia is naive at best. Am I saying that people should not try to scientifically try to find a way to treat paedophilia? No, I just think it is one of those things that cannot be treated, which would mean that active paedophiles would have to be institutionalized.

[GallowsBird]

And there is also the issue of people falsely accused of rape, which certainly are victims too.

I wouldn't argue with this statement, someone close to me was once accused falsely (as was proven, thank god) of molesting a child. I have been accused of crimes I didn't commit as well (nothing as bad as sexual sadism though) so I know the feeling.


Does this give them any excuse for acting in a criminal way against those who victimised them? If someone is falsely accused of rape, does this gives them the "right" to kill the perjuror?Not kill, though I would be tempted to give them a seeing to to be honest. I still hold resentment for the scumbags who accused me and someone else of a crime that didn't belong to them. Though when I am thinking rationally I can see that accusing someone of something is not the same as forcing a sexual organ into someone else. However, I do think accusing someone of rape makes a mockery of the system and is a very, very bad thing to do.


No?Probably not.


Then exactly how being a victim of rape gives anyone the "right" to kill the rapist - aside the widely recognised exceptions of self defence or insanity?Has anyone said the victim themselves should kill the Paedo, aka by lynching them rather than having the legal system deal with it. I guess it depends where you stand on the death penalty which is a whole different kettle of fish.

Likewise I doubt anyone saying Paedophiles should be executed thinks the claims of the victim shouldn't be investigated, though at the moment (in the UK) many victims of Rape don't report it for fear of being automatically suspect and treated as an offender. I think you need a balance really when investigating such matters.


Luís HenriqueGallowsBird - Big Bopper of The Fifth Dimension!:cool:

[El Chuncho]

Indeed, and I quit being a moderator in these forums because I outright banned a paedophile who dared suggest his ilk was an "oppressed minority" like gays or Blacks, which generated a series of accusations of "authoritarianism". Since I got no support from the admins, I resigned. So my credentials in such an issue are quite good enough.

Good for you. I'd admit that if that is true - and I see no reason to why it should not be so - that I have been a little harsh to you personally.


What you seem to confuse is the fact that paedophiles are common criminals who should be dealt with as common criminals, not as a political enemy, with the idea that paedophyllia is somehow OK.

How would that make paedophilia somehow OK? :confused:

Anyway, I am not confusing anything, just giving reasons to why people would fight paedophiles. I generally believe them to be harmful criminals (unless the abstain from abuse and child pornography) and that they should be treated as such.


Or the fact that the death penalty isn't a good idea at all with the idea that not having a death penalty for paedophiles somehow equates a greenlight for them. Both are strawmen.

I only agree with executions during revolutions; e.g. of high-ranking political enemies.



What is the issue with being a victim? Being a victim is just that, being a victim. It doesn't justify your acts, it doesn't give you any moral superiority against others, it doesn't give you any extra rights.

I never said it gives people justification. However, there is a different to being an abused child, who would not likely function normally (and in many cases abstains from sexual contact and even non-sexual physical contact), and a paedophile who took away a child's innocence. Many would say me stating that is ''old fashioned'', well if it is then I am not ashamed for being a little old fashioned in this regards; childhood innocence is real and active paedophiles defile it. Making excuses for them (who says most were abused as children? There is no evidence for that even if they claimed it) clouds the issue of protecting children. Children come firs, followed by victims who were grown up. Paedophiles come after them. My only issue is that the rights of paedophiles should not be made into as much of a priority as it quite clearly has been on Revleft.


Paedophiles are quite often victims themselves - of abuse when they were children, which may be the cause of their pathology

They may be. But then, they might not be. Just because a paedophile makes that claim after being caught it does not mean it is true. I am sure some were abused, but not all.


and of insane repressive laws or vigilante justice when they are caught on crime.

Again, I'll not shed tears over people who have abused children meeting up with vigilantes. I might not agree with them, but they might be good revolutionaries (as stated holding some difference of opinions does not make them reactionary or cappie). As some vigilantes are revolutionaries such as the INLA.


This doesn't give any justification for their acts, nor it should. Why would other insane or criminal actions by their victims receive any extra consideration?

Because they were victimized horrible when children and are only out for revenge rather to harm other innocent people such as children. I am not saying it is justified but they should receive extra consideration.


And there is also the issue of people falsely accused of rape, which certainly are victims too.

Yes they are, but that is not part of the points I was making. I am talking about proven paedophiles. I am not talking about lynching, say, an eccentric unwashed old man who lives alone and tries to commune with his dead wife! Or an ''ugly'' guy who smiles at children.


Does this give them any excuse for acting in a criminal way against those who victimised them?

No, but they should be treated with more sensitivity than those who have just abused people.


If someone is falsely accused of rape, does this gives them the "right" to kill the perjuror? No?

I never said it did.


Then exactly how being a victim of rape gives anyone the "right" to kill the rapist - aside the widely recognised exceptions of self defence or insanity?

I never said it did, again. But they should be treated with special sensitivity due to the traumatic nature of their defilement.

[Joseph S.]

well i mean

have you read any of this thread at all?
yes i have, how ever i just give my opinion.
Think about it the same guy who abused me abuses your children 2.
So not only my life is ruend but also the life of your child.
I hate these people just as much as i hate ignorant nazi's, cal me a fascist for it tbh i coldent care less.
If i cold just make one wich it wold be no child is aloud to suffer from anny form of abuse.
And tbh i couldn't care less if some child molesters have to die in making that wish a realty.

[The Insurrection]

As a rebuttal to a worthless image post against members who are generally just making their views known...and yet are being called reactionaries. I'd think that would be obvious. :rolleyes:

I am asking you what the purpose of conflating people who propose progressive views towards sex abuse with not fighting for "real victims" is. Why are you doing that?


What methods am I espousing? :rolleyes:You are arguing that we should care more about what the "real victims" want above that of the abusers, even when those views are completely without perspective and irrational. If you are not then condemning capital punishment and the idea of extra-judicial punishment, what are you doing?


And many people on Revleft do make them into victims, hence hardly anyone arguing for tolerance for paedophiles have actually mentioned how hard the victims have it.That's not addressing my criticism. You are accusing people who think that more progressive methods of rehabilitation for paedophiles, which ignores the views of the victims (because those views are irrational) are not fighting for "real victims". I want you to explain how that follows.


Irrelevant.Irrelevant to what? It's certainly not irrelevant to the point that I'm making, which is basically that you have no real understanding of the subject you're talking about.


Most family members do not abuse the children within their family...or any other family.No, but the point is you're setting up paedophilia as this thing that exists outside of the working class. It's not a question of the working class defending themselves against paedophilia. Paedophila exists in working class communities. It's not something outside of it.


So all workers and their families are paedos now? :lol: That was a very worthless statement.If you have managed to take that from what I said then you're clearly shouldn't be participating in this discussion.


I never argued for them. :rolleyes:Stop defending them then...


I just do not think that those who do argue for them are reactionaries as I know their reasoning. What is the difference between advocating and defending reactionary methods for dealing with social problems and being a reactionary? If there is a difference it's very subtle. Being a victim doesn't stop you from having/being reactionary [views]


Good luck with that! ;)

:rolleyes:I don't really get your point. Are you implying that what I said isn't possible?


I think your view that we can treat paedophilia is naive at best.It's a view supported by the experts and in fact flies in the face of actual practice.


I just think it is one of those things that cannot be treatedWhat is the basis for this assertion? What biological, psychological and/or medical expertise do you have? I'm assuming you've studied these subjects academically and arrived at your conclusions based on indepth and extensive research? Perhaps you would like to share it with us. I would certainly be very interested to know how you have come to this absolute view of what is and is not possible.

[El Chuncho]

I am asking you what the purpose of conflating people who propose progressive views towards sex abuse with not fighting for "real victims" is. Why are you doing that?

Because it is the truth and not just a conflation. Will that satisfy you? I think that making paedophile ''rights'' a major priority is not progressive and a little ridiculous and insensitive to the real victims...and yes they are the real victims because they were innocent children who were defiled against their will.


You are arguing that we should care more about what the "real victims" want above that of the abusers, even when those views are completely without perspective and irrational. If you are not then condemning capital punishment and the idea of extra-judicial punishment, what are you doing?

Laughable. I am arguing against prioritizing the ''rights'' of paedophiles, as I have said before, and making them into victims when they clearly are not.


That's not addressing my criticism. You are accusing people who think that more progressive methods of rehabilitation for paedophiles, which ignores the views of the victims (because those views are irrational) are not fighting for "real victims". I want you to explain how that follows.

I already have. Paedophiles are not victims, abused children are. End of story. Instead of ranting and raving about ''poor, victimized'' paedophile we should put their ''plight'' on the back-burner.

And I must say that whilst my posting style is not perfect, you have one of the strangest, most confused and disordered style of interrogation.


Irrelevant to what? It's certainly not irrelevant to the point that I'm making, which is basically that you have no real understanding of the subject you're talking about.

What evidence do you have to support that? I think you'll find that I do, hence I do not ridiculously make paedophiles into these poor, downtrodden victims in society.


No, but the point is you're setting up paedophilia as this thing that exists outside of the working class. It's not a question of the working class defending themselves against paedophilia. Paedophila exists in working class communities. It's not something outside of it.

What? Paedophilia exists outside of the working class, idiot. Is multi-millionaire William Goad a member of the working class, now?

And besides, not every member of the working-class are paedophiles, in fact the vast majority are not. Your post is laughable nonsense.


If you have managed to take that from what I said then you're clearly shouldn't be participating in this discussion.

Don't say comments like ''It's not a question of the working class defending themselves against paedophilia. Paedophila exists in working class communities''. Not every member of the working-class are paedophiles and not every paedophile is from the working-class, therefore your post is irrelevant nonsense.

[/QUOTE]Stop defending them then...[/QUOTE]

Why? I am entitled to my opinions and my opinion is that they are not reactionaries. I do however think you are, again my opinion. Stop defending paedophiles (and don't say that you are not when you clearly are!).


What is the difference between advocating and defending reactionary methods for dealing with social problems and being a reactionary?

A huge difference. I don't have to agree with something to understand where it is coming from, nor do I have to agree with people like you who claim that those who want to execute paedophiles are reactionaries. I don't think they are, just as I think YOU are.

I have defending the rights of many people to have their own views and beliefs without supporting them. I am not a Muslim, yet I defended liberal Muslims against reactionary nonsense said against them. If you cannot understand that, I am sorry.



If there is a difference it's very subtle. Being a victim doesn't stop you from having/being reactionary [views]

Nor does being an anarchist.




I don't really get your point.

That is your problem. :rolleyes:


Are you implying that what I said isn't possible?

Do I have to spell it out. Y. E. S. I think paedophilia is something that you cannot cure and never will be able to. I am not a damn utopian who thinks that everything will be perfect when society progresses; paedophiles will still exist and be a problem no matter how perfect society is.


It's a view supported by the experts and in fact flies in the face of actual practice.

And I care what your ''experts'' believe, why? I do not think they are correct. At best I think they are naive optimists.


What is the basis for this assertion? What biological, psychological and/or medical expertise do you have?

Qualifications in psychology. A few more studies (which I have been putting off for personal reasons) and I'd be a practicing psychologist. :rolleyes:


I'm assuming you've studied these subjects academically and arrived at your conclusions based on indepth and extensive research?

Yes.


Perhaps you would like to share it with us.

I wouldn't share saliva with you if you were thirsting in the desert.


I would certainly be very interested to know how you have come to this absolute view of what is and is not possible.

Because I am not a dipshit? :confused: Why should I post anything of mine here that might give away who I am online? What a joke. :laugh:

[Decolonize The Left]

I already have. Paedophiles are not victims, abused children are. End of story.

And there we have it! Oh... wait....

What if.... just saying.... a pedophile was actually an abused child in their own right? How does your ridiculous, absolutist, black and white view reconcile this totally reasonable, and very probable, scenario?

Wait I got it! The pedophile isn't the victim, but they were the victim, but they aren't now, so they can't be, but they were, so they are, but.... ugh.

It's time to recognize that villains are often victims and often the attitudes and actions of people result from traumatic experiences they had as children. So it's no so clear cut as all pedophiles ought to be shot, and all innocent children ought to be drowned in love continuously for all eternity. Everyone was a child once...

- August

[The Insurrection]

Because it is the truth and not just a conflation.[ Will that satisfy you? I think that making paedophile ''rights'' a major priority is not progressive and a little ridiculous and insensitive to the real victims...and yes they are the real victims because they were innocent children who were defiled against their will.

You have now twisted the parameters of this discussion because you are unable to defend your point of view. It's no longer about simply rejecting the notion of rehabilitation, it is about people defending paedophile "rights". It is clearly more convenient for your argument to construct a further strawman. I'm sorry, but you're not convincing at all. This verbiage isn't developing this discussion, its just making you appear more desperate than you have previously appeared.

No one has argued for "paedophile rights" (what does that even mean?). What is being argued is that killing them or mutilating them isn't a solution to dealing with it.


Laughable. I am arguing against prioritizing the ''rights'' of paedophiles, as I have said before, and making them into victims when they clearly are not. Yet no one here has made any argument that paedophile's "rights" (whatever they are) should be prioritised.


I already have. Paedophiles are not victims, abused children are. End of story. Instead of ranting and raving about ''poor, victimized'' paedophile we should put their ''plight'' on the back-burner. In order to explain why you are conflating you have constructed a strawman argument. In order to actually engage with what people are really saying you'd have to admit that your initial reaction and point-of-view was redundant. Because you are clearly incapable of admitting that you are wrong you have constructed this imaginary opinion that no one in this thread has positioned.

But in any case, I reject this binary attitude. It's not a question of picking and choosing which "plight" we focus on or prioritise. There is room in society to deal with both issues.


And I must say that whilst my posting style is not perfect, you have one of the strangest, most confused and disordered style of interrogation. Yes, I'm sure being asked to qualify your opinions does seem strange do you.


What evidence do you have to support that?This thread.


I think you'll find that I do, hence I do not ridiculously make paedophiles into these poor, downtrodden victims in society. But neither has anyone else...


What? Paedophilia exists outside of the working class, idiot. Is multi-millionaire William Goad a member of the working class, now? Fucking dipshit. Just because you aren't capable at adequately qualifying the things you say doesn't mean you should flame people.

Clearly you have failed to grapple with the point I'm making. I will try again though. By saying "Most workers are also family men and women with children, they'd sleep happier if they knew that the socialists who are fighting alongside them protect their children from paedophiles" you set up paedophilia as a detached phenomenon and move the discourse away from understanding it as an individual and intra-human issue. These kinds of views crate a siege mentality that doesn't benefit our understanding.


And besides, not every member of the working-class are paedophiles, in fact the vast majority are not. Your post is laughable nonsense.I can see why my post would be laughable nonsense if in fact I was saying that every member of the working class are paedophilies, but since I am evidently not saying that I think you should try and engage a bit better.


Don't say dumb-ass comments like ''It's not a question of the working class defending themselves against paedophilia. Paedophila exists in working class communities''. Not every member of the working-class are paedophiles and not every paedophile is from the working-class, therefore your post is irrelevant nonsense. You still haven't explained what that post is irrelevant to?

As I have said above (and two other times in this thread) your attitude creates a situation where paedophilia is seen as an outside phenomenon that the working class as some homogeneous force (which obviously they're not) have to batter-down-the-hatches against. Paedophilia isn't something that happens to monsters that come into our communities and snatch our children. They are often the very people you are suggesting need to create a siege mentality in order to defend themselves in the first place.

That as an attitude isn't productive. It's not focusing on how paedophilia effects humans; how it forms and exists in individuals and in our families and our communities. You're simply creating a reaction rather than an understanding.


Why? I am entitled to my opinions and my opinion is that they are not reactionaries.You said that you didn't argue for capital punishment and mutilation, so I said stop defending them and now you are contradicting what you said by seemingly arguing for them.


I do however think you are. Stop defending paedophiles (and don't say that you are not when you clearly are!).What am I defending them from exactly?


A huge difference.Such as what?


I don't have to agree with something to understand where it is coming from, nor do I have to agree with idiots like you who claim that people who want to execute paedophiles are reactionaries. I don't think they are, just as I think YOU are.You haven't actually explained how advocating and defending reactionary ideas is different to being a reactionary.


I have defending the rights of many people to have their own views and beliefs without supporting them. I am not a Muslim, yet I defended liberal Muslims against reactionary nonsense said against them. If you cannot understand that, I am sorry. But a liberal Muslim is reactionary whether you support them or not.


Nor does being an anarchist. Oh, good one.


That is your problem. :rolleyes:Yes it is my problem, but since this is a discussion forum where you are trying to clarify opinions you've made for the purposes of a discussion your engaging in, it makes little sense to then refuse to clarify yourself when asked...


Do I have to spell it out. Y. E. S. I think paedophilia is something that you cannot cure and never will be able to. I am not a damn utopian. Is it utopian to believe that people can be cured of bipolar? Is it utopian to believe that people can be cured of schizophrenia? People have dedicated their lives to finding ways to treat symptoms and help patients overcome their disability. Why should this be different for paedophiles?


And I care what your ''experts'' believe, why?Well, because apparently you're a psychologist, so I would imagine you'd care a great deal, since they are part of the field you allegedly study in...


I do not think they are correct. At best think they are naive optimists. "Naive optimist" is your professional conclusion is it? Very thorough.


Qualifications in psychology. A few more studies (which I have been putting off for personal reasons) and I'd be a practicing psychologist. :rolleyes:I am not a psychologist but I have friends who have done a BSc in the subject, work in the sector and a very close friend who is about to start his PhD in Clinical Psychology and has a job as an assistant clinical psychologist. I'm sorry, but you do not present yourself as someone who has any knowledge of this subject. I know very well that to become a qualified psychologist you must have completed an extensive amount of practical work.

You come across as aggressive, combative, incapable of taking criticism and immature. None of those things are 'qualities' (if you can call them that) which people would want in a person working with mental health patients.

And I think trying to claim that all you need some a "few more studies" to become a practicing psychologist is just a bit ridiculous. A few studies? What does that even mean?


Yes.Point towards some texts that I can read then. By anyone.


I wouldn't share saliva with you if you were thirsting in the desert. Does this seem like the attitude of someone who is a "few studies" away from being a practicing psychologist?

I think not.


Because I am not a dipshit? :confused: Why should I post anything of mine here that might give away who I am online? What a joke. :laugh:No one is asking you to give away your identity. All I am asking is for you to present some evidence for you assertions.

[dodger]

And there we have it! Oh... wait....

What if.... just saying.... a pedophile was actually an abused child in their own right? How does your ridiculous, absolutist, black and white view reconcile this totally reasonable, and very probable, scenario?

Wait I got it! The pedophile isn't the victim, but they were the victim, but they aren't now, so they can't be, but they were, so they are, but.... ugh.

It's time to recognize that villains are often victims and often the attitudes and actions of people result from traumatic experiences they had as children. So it's no so clear cut as all pedophiles ought to be shot, and all innocent children ought to be drowned in love continuously for all eternity. Everyone was a child once...



- August

August if the word victim is causing confusion , why not change it to prey. Victims were originally sacrifices on altars in pagan rituals. Prey seems more apt. The state and society at large must protect children, prevent them from becoming prey. If we allow ourselves to wander from those ideas, we are not dealing with the subject. Certainly we must find the means to prevent Paedophiles attacking children, or at least re-offending. There are programmes and new methods going on all around the world. Police detection is finding new methods, monitoring the net etc. The work is so vile that police are rotated because images of crimes are so distressing. With this type of crime there is only one prey that is the child. I posted a few thoughts earlier. What do others think is the way forward?

[Decolonize The Left]

August if the word victim is causing confusion , why not change it to prey. Victims were originally sacrifices on altars in pagan rituals. Prey seems more apt. The state and society at large must protect children, prevent them from becoming prey. If we allow ourselves to wander from those ideas, we are not dealing with the subject. Certainly we must find the means to prevent Paedophiles attacking children, or at least re-offending. There are programmes and new methods going on all around the world. Police detection is finding new methods, monitoring the net etc. The work is so vile that police are rotated because images of crimes are so distressing. With this type of crime there is only one prey that is the child. I posted a few thoughts earlier. What do others think is the way forward?

Good god you need to relax and lay off the obscene moralizing (think of the children!!! the children!!!). I'm going to respond in simple terms and I ask that you take me at my simple word.

This is no laughing matter - no one here is claiming that it is. No one here is claiming that pedophiles ought to roam the streets, be free to exercise their every will, etc... no one.
I personally know quite a few people who have been abused, I am very close to one of them, so I don't take this issue very fucking lightly. Ok?

What I am saying is that there is no clear line between victim and abuser as often pedophiles were victims themselves. Make sense?

I am also saying that an Orwellian world where every movement of every suspicious person is monitored by the police is ridiculous.

So what I'm saying is this:
The problem isn't some dude in a trench coat nabbing kids off the street and abusing them for months in a shed in the woods.
The problem is a society which:
- belittles the opinions of young people, including children
- demonizes their objections
- encourages their parents to remain distanced from their emotional issues
- encourages the objectification and fetishization of youth
- neglects and/or imprisons rather than rehabilitates
- reinforces familial puritanical authoritarian dominance
- encourages the suppression of feelings

And these are just some of the problems. Now stop crusading against the black guy on cocaine waiting outside your window to kidnap your white children and accept that shit is really fucked up and you aren't going to fix it by burning 2-10 people on the cross each year.

Shit.

- August

[Joseph S.]

August if the word victim is causing confusion , why not change it to prey. Victims were originally sacrifices on altars in pagan rituals. Prey seems more apt.
So i was a pray and that POS was just playing a form of scavenger hunt????
http://www.hitupmyspot.com/STFU/stfu2.jpg

[El Chuncho]

And there we have it! Oh... wait....

What if.... just saying.... a pedophile was actually an abused child in their own right? How does your ridiculous, absolutist, black and white view reconcile this totally reasonable, and very probable, scenario?

Lets put it this way. When I was a kid, I was punched in the face. So when I grew up I looked for random innocent people to punch in the face too. Don't worry I am the victim.


Wait I got it! The pedophile isn't the victim, but they were the victim, but they aren't now, so they can't be, but they were, so they are, but.... ugh.

No the paedophile who was abused was a victim, but not in the case of paedophilia they committed. Being abused as a child is no excuse to abuse children when you become an adult and most abused children do not grow up into paedophiles. Most paedophiles were not abused children, either.


So it's no so clear cut as all pedophiles ought to be shot

I never said they should be. :confused:


and all innocent children ought to be drowned in love continuously for all eternity.

Yeah, because they grow into adults and eventually die. :rolleyes: But sorry, all innocent children should be treated with love and care. What a thing to say... :glare:


Everyone was a child once...

Not everyone was an abused child.

[GallowsBird]

Now stop crusading against the black guy on cocaine waiting outside your window to kidnap your white children and accept that shit is really fucked up and you aren't going to fix it by burning 2-10 people on the cross each year.

WTF?? Who has mentioned skin colour? Why does everything have to be about "race" on RevLeft? :confused:

And people here wonder why the site is a laughingstock to many, many Leftist circles.:rolleyes:

[dodger]

So i was a pray and that POS was just playing a form of scavenger hunt????
http://www.hitupmyspot.com/STFU/stfu2.jpg

Joseph, that was obviously a question , not mere rhetoric(4 question marks). I am at a loss how to respond to you. I think I shall take your hint and shut the fuck up.

[El Chuncho]

You have now twisted the parameters of this discussion because you are unable to defend your point of view.

Nope, I am quite able to defend my point of view, which is what I am doing.


It's no longer about simply rejecting the notion of rehabilitation, it is about people defending paedophile "rights".

Rehabilitation (more than likely impossible) comes under rights. :rolleyes:


It is clearly more convenient for your argument to construct a further strawman.

I have constructed no strawmen.


I'm sorry, but you're not convincing at all.

I do not find your disjointed nonsense convincing at all, either.


This verbiage isn't developing this discussion, its just making you appear more desperate than you have previously appeared.

I am not desperate at all. Outside of Revleft I know that I am not a minority in my views of paedophiles, so all is good. :cool:


No one has argued for "paedophile rights" (what does that even mean?).

You seriously do not know what that means? Really?


:drool:


What is being argued is that killing them or mutilating them isn't a solution to dealing with it.

Again, I never said that should happen. :rolleyes:


Yet no one here has made any argument that paedophile's "rights" (whatever they are) should be prioritised.

Yet it is a priority on Revleft. It quite clearly is. Paedophilia is just a big issue here that you have had countless arguments about paedophilia, people accuse the site (unfairly in the most part) of being a den of paedophile and you have had many people defending child pornography. It quite clearly is a major issue on Revleft.


In order to explain why you are conflating you have constructed a strawman argument. In order to actually engage with what people are really saying you'd have to admit that your initial reaction and point-of-view was redundant. Because you are clearly incapable of admitting that you are wrong you have constructed this imaginary opinion that no one in this thread has positioned.

:confused:

No I haven't. Please follow my posts. I think paedophiles should be incarcerated or institutionalized, not mutilated or executed. Others here have said that they should be executed, I am defending their position because it is not something I despises, just moderately disagree with and find it sickening that many are calling them reactionaries (not really surprising here) just for holding that one view.


But in any case, I reject this binary attitude. It's not a question of picking and choosing which "plight" we focus on or prioritise.

Yes there is. You cannot just focus propaganda and manpower on every issue. Eventually you can come to many issues and deal with them. But shall we not just win a revolution first before focusing on paedophile criminals?



Yes, I'm sure being asked to qualify your opinions does seem strange do you.

No, it just seems disjointed and ridiculously interrogational as if you are frothing at the mouth and getting worked up. Why do you not qualify your opinion, by the way.


This thread.

That is not evidence. Find evidence that I have no real understanding of the issue. You can't, that was merely just your opinion.


But neither has anyone else...

Hmmm, yes they have. This whole thread has mostly been one of either defending them and treated them on the same level as the aged, the worker or the disabled. That is making them into downtrodden victims of society and is utterly ridiculous.


Just because you aren't capable at adequately qualifying the things you say doesn't mean you should flame people.

You have not qualified anything you have said. The burden of proof is on you, but I'll come to that later.


Clearly you have failed to grapple with the point I'm making. I will try again though.

Sorry, I cannot help it if your point was snafu.


you set up paedophilia as a detached phenomenon and move the discourse away from understanding it as an individual and intra-human issue. These kinds of views crate a siege mentality that doesn't benefit our understanding.

You are really scraping the barrel for points aren't you? No, I did not detach it as a phenomenon, hence I said that it is a problem for most workers. Paedophiles do not speak for the whole working-class, are a problem to primarily;y working-class families and the vast majority of the working-class would not feel safe if they knew a paedophile was in their community.

In other words, you really have no point. No one has said that paedophiles cannot be working-class. Even if all paedophiles were working-class, which they are not as I proved earlier with a Goad as a example, that would not mean all working-class are paedophiles, therefore paedophilia is a ''phenomenon'' in the working-class...but also the middle-class and upper-class.


I can see why my post would be laughable nonsense if in fact I was saying that every member of the working class are paedophilies, but since I am evidently not saying that I think you should try and engage a bit better.

No, you should try to formulate legitimate points better.


You still haven't explained what that post is irrelevant to?

Pointing out that paedophiles can be working-class is irrelevant. No one has said they are.


As I have said above (and two other times in this thread) your attitude creates a situation where paedophilia is seen as an outside phenomenon that the working class as some homogeneous force (which obviously they're not) have to batter-down-the-hatches against.

Well done for reading that from my post! I'll give you a medal for taking something I have said and making a nonsensical point out of it. Paedophiles do not exist outside the working-class, but they are certainly a problem to working-class communities, just as a blackleg miner would be.


Paedophilia isn't something that happens to monsters that come into our communities and snatch our children.

Never once said that they were. :rolleyes:


They are often the very people you are suggesting need to create a siege mentality in order to defend themselves in the first place.


:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

No they are not, hence I have said ''most'' working-class people. Obviously I am discounted paedophiles from them, aren't? It doesn't matter is the paedophile is from the working-class, they are still a danger to the working-class just as an active pro-monarchist, pro-capitalist terrorist would be.


You said that you didn't argue for capital punishment and mutilation, so I said stop defending them and now you are contradicting what you said by seemingly arguing for them.

I am arguing that they are not reactionaries and do have a legitimate opinion.


What am I defending them from exactly?

Well, you are certainly making them into these damn victims when they are not, you are tying them in to strongly to the working-class. In other words you are looking for excuses for them, completely ignoring that most paedophiles were not abused and that many (if not most) are middle-class.


Such as what?

Well to phrase it better so that you understand. I do not think the methods are reactionary, I just do not agree with them. Not everything I disagree with is reactionary, especially when they have somewhat legitimate reasons, as I have already explained.


You haven't actually explained how advocating and defending reactionary ideas is different to being a reactionary.

See above.


But a liberal Muslim is reactionary whether you support them or not.

They are reactionary because they happen to believe in god and call him Allah? Yeah right...


Oh, good one.

I know it is. :cool:


Yes it is my problem, but since this is a discussion forum where you are trying to clarify opinions you've made for the purposes of a discussion your engaging in, it makes little sense to then refuse to clarify yourself when asked...

I already have, yet you want me to post evidence to prove my opinion?! :lol:


Is it utopian to believe that people can be cured of bipolar?

Yes. You can treat it but not cure it.


Is it utopian to believe that people can be cured of schizophrenia?

Yes. See above.




People have dedicated their lives to finding ways to treat symptoms and help patients overcome their disability. Why should this be different for paedophiles?

I never said it should be. I am not arguing against people trying to cure them, I just do not think mankind will ever be able to. I do find it naive and Utopian.


Well, because apparently you're a psychologist, so I would imagine you'd care a great deal, since they are part of the field you allegedly study in...

Why should I? Experts in the field used to advocate I.Q. test so that they could sterilize people they found intellectually inferior, and I have written attacks on I.Q. testing from a psychological perspctive. Many psychologists who studied intelligence were completely reactionary; Hans Jürgen Eysenck comes to mind. So no, I don't really care about people you consider experts, just as I do not care for the views of Eysenck or Cognitive Behavioural therapists.


"Naive optimist" is your professional conclusion is it? Very thorough.

Nope, it is my personal one. :rolleyes:


I am not a psychologist but I have friends who have done a BSc in the subject,

Exactly, I am more qualified in this field than you are and I do not care how many alleged friends you have in the field. You are not a psychologist, you are not almost a psychologist, you are just a layperson.


I know very well that to become a qualified psychologist you must have completed an extensive amount of practical work.

No you don't. You have not had the experience so you can only believe that to be the case. You are, at least, correct for the most part. But it depends on what you mean by practical work as Experimental Psychology is different to Clinical Psychology...as it is when you teach Psychology. I had teachers with little practical experience in the field. They pretty much just when through college all the way to their thesis (not all published their theses and thus did not gain doctorates).


You come across as aggressive, combative, incapable of taking criticism and immature.

No, I am just not a liberal masquerading as a socialist.


None of those things are 'qualities' (if you can call them that) which people would want in a person working with mental health patients.

Your comments are irrelevant because you have not seen me in a professional setting rather than defending my position or the position of comrades. So in other words, your comment is absurd and, again, irrelevant to the conversation.


And I think trying to claim that all you need some a "few more studies" to become a practicing psychologist is just a bit ridiculous. A few studies? What does that even mean?

Hmm, maybe you should not try to talk about an area of study you know nothing of then.

Anyway, to answer your question, you need a Master's to work in most areas of psychology, and a doctorate for Clinical Psychology.

Point towards some texts that I can read then. By anyone.


Does this seem like the attitude of someone who is a "few studies" away from being a practicing psychologist?

It has nothing to do with psychology, but everything to do with my private life and sense of humour. :rolleyes:

Psychologists are people too, not saints that have to care about every single person on the Earth. :rolleyes:


I think not.

Again, when it comes to psychology you are a layperson. I do not really care what you think about my abilities because you do not know me personally nor have you ever worked with me.


No one is asking you to give away your identity. All I am asking is for you to present some evidence for you assertions.

Ah, so that is it. Actually you have to support what you are saying. You claim that you can cure paedophilia, or will be able to, which I disbelief. The burden of proof is on you for making the claim and not me. It is the same with theists and atheists. The burden of proof is on the theists for believing in god not on the atheists for disbelieving in god.

Do you see what I am getting at?

[El Chuncho]

And these are just some of the problems. Now stop crusading against the black guy on cocaine waiting outside your window to kidnap your white children and accept that shit is really fucked up and you aren't going to fix it by burning 2-10 people on the cross each year.


What the fuck?Have you been drinking or getting high? It is fucked up trying to turn something about paedophilia into something about absurd notions of skin colour. Are you saying that all paedophiles are black and on cocaine? That is pretty racist. Or are you trying to say that those who are arguing against prioritizing paedophile ''rights'' think that all paedophiles are black? That is absurd nonsense and you do not know the skin colour of anyone in this thread anyway.

What I think is that you were trying to get kudos points by supporting black rights (despite this not being about colour at all...and is about paedophiles, who are any colour, but usually white in the west, it seems) but just came across as an ass.

This thread has nothing to do with colour. Don't derail it.

[Luís Henrique]

How would that make paedophilia somehow OK? :confused:

Big mistery to me. It seems that if one doesn't agree with the idea that they should be lynched, one is OK with paedophilia. I am not OK with paedophilia, but I am also not OK with the death penalty, and even less with vigilante justice. Not even for paedophilic rapists or rapists cum murderers.


I only agree with executions during revolutions; e.g. of high-ranking political enemies.Good.


Many would say me stating that is ''old fashioned'', well if it is then I am not ashamed for being a little old fashioned in this regards; childhood innocence is real and active paedophiles defile it.Good; there is no reason that communists should follow PC fads.


Making excuses for them (who says most were abused as children? There is no evidence for that even if they claimed it) clouds the issue of protecting children.First, I don't know if "most" paedophiles were abused as children. Many were; it doesn't mean that there should be sympathy for them. People are responsible for their deeds, even if they have been victims of brutal crimes. That goes for rapists who were abused as children, as well as for lynchers and vigilantes.

Second, understanding how rapists' minds work doesn't cloud the issue of protecting children. Rather on the contrary, what clouds that issue is the medieval attitude of mindless revenge against criminals; it makes more difficult to actually spot abusive situations, it perpetuates false myths about families being always protective of infants, it makes more difficult for victims of abuse to come out and speak about it. Those things are horrible, but they happen; society should be open about them, not involve them in a shroud of deep, satanic, obscene mistery.


Children come firs, followed by victims who were grown up. Paedophiles come after them. My only issue is that the rights of paedophiles should not be made into as much of a priority as it quite clearly has been on Revleft.I don't think this is true. Established policy is to ban advocates of paedophilia on sight, and to immediately trash threads or posts equating paedophilia with "sexual orientations" or questioning age of consent laws.

Needless to say, that's how it should be.

Though I wouldn't be sad at all if the same criteria were applied to supporters of retributive justice.


Yes they are, but that is not part of the points I was making. I am talking about proven paedophiles. I am not talking about lynching, say, an eccentric unwashed old man who lives alone and tries to commune with his dead wife! Or an ''ugly'' guy who smiles at children.Given the tendency to invert the burden of proof in rape cases, that would be exactly what would happen if the "revengeists" had their way.

Indeed, if you look at the link I provided to Innocence Project, you will see that this is what has been happening with uncanny regularity: people being falsely accused, jailed and executed for things they haven't done - just for being ugly, weird, petty criminals, hobos, etc. "Black" being an important part of that "etc".

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

WTF?? Who has mentioned skin colour? Why does everything have to be about "race" on RevLeft? :confused:

60% of people convicted on false rape allegations in the United States are Black. While they are only 12% of the population as a whole.

Think about that, and then ask yourself again what the hell does it have to do with race.

Luís Henrique

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Nor does being an anarchist.
Hey, leave this out of it!

[PhoenixAsh]

The biggest set back against child abuse was the campaign "stranger, danger". An idiotic fallacy based on the idea that childabuse was predominantly caused by strangers. This is a myth as the overwhelming mayority of childabuse cases is caused by family members.

Just a very small percentage of these perpetraitors qualify as pedophiles. Most of them are not. Not even in the cases where abuse lasts for years and years.

[Princess Luna]

I don't think this is true. Established policy is to ban advocates of paedophilia on sight, and to immediately trash threads or posts equating paedophilia with "sexual orientations" or questioning age of consent laws.

Needless to say, that's how it should be.


what is wrong with criticizing the current age of consent laws in many countries?? the idea that if you are 17 years and 364 days old and live in the US, you are to stupid and immature to consent to normal sex, to the point that it is rape and yet one day later you become mature enough to consent to the most depraved acts, is ridiculous and deserves to be questioned to say the least. Keep in mind I am not saying the age of consent should be abolised completely, just pointing out that its current form is patronizing to teenagers.

[Luís Henrique]

what is wrong with criticizing the current age of consent laws in many countries??

It could jeopardise the legal situation of this site.


the idea that if you are 17 years and 364 days old and live in the US, you are to stupid and immature to consent to normal sex, to the point that it is rape and yet one day later you become mature enough to consent to the most depraved acts, is ridiculous and deserves to be questioned to say the least. Keep in mind I am not saying the age of consent should be abolised completely, just pointing out that its current form is patronizing to teenagers.

If you are 13 years and 364 days old and you are not stupid and immature, you can wait until you are 14 years and one day old. And even if you can't wait, you still have the option of having sex and not calling the police.

Really.

Luís Henrique

[28350]

what is wrong with criticizing the current age of consent laws in many countries?? the idea that if you are 17 years and 364 days old and live in the US, you are to stupid and immature to consent to normal sex, to the point that it is rape and yet one day later you become mature enough to consent to the most depraved acts, is ridiculous and deserves to be questioned to say the least. Keep in mind I am not saying the age of consent should be abolised completely, just pointing out that its current form is patronizing to teenagers.

revleft is hosted on servers in a country that has laws that make this kind of discussion a bad idea

edit: wait idk what the fuck i'm talking about

[KR]

Indeed, and I quit being a moderator in these forums because I outright banned a paedophile who dared suggest his ilk was an "oppressed minority" like gays or Blacks, which generated a series of accusations of "authoritarianism". Since I got no support from the admins, I resigned. So my credentials in such an issue are quite good enough.
I'm glad you quit being a mod, personal feelings should't affect whatever or not you ban a person. By the way according to which forum rule was he banned?

[9]

revleft is hosted on servers in a country that has laws that make this kind of discussion a bad idea

revleft is hosted in the US.

[GallowsBird]

Paedophilia has little to do with Teenagers having sexual relationships anyway. I suppose it is related in that it concerns the age of consent (which varies between countries) but we shouldn't conflate the issue of the age of consent for underaged adults (physically speaking if not always mentally :rolleyes: ) who have undergone puberty with a sexual attraction for pre-pubescent children. Also we shouldn't conflate a person who has sexual relations with an underaged but sexually mature teenager (aka has gone through puberty) and a Paedophile as there are proper terms for such a person Ephebophile and Hebephile. Though we can debate till a Stalinist joins RAAN on the "ins and outs" of Ephebophilia (late teens) or Hebephilia (early teens) it should be given its own thread as it is a seperate issue.

[danyboy27]

And there we have it! Oh... wait....

What if.... just saying.... a pedophile was actually an abused child in their own right? How does your ridiculous, absolutist, black and white view reconcile this totally reasonable, and very probable, scenario?

Wait I got it! The pedophile isn't the victim, but they were the victim, but they aren't now, so they can't be, but they were, so they are, but.... ugh.

It's time to recognize that villains are often victims and often the attitudes and actions of people result from traumatic experiences they had as children. So it's no so clear cut as all pedophiles ought to be shot, and all innocent children ought to be drowned in love continuously for all eternity. Everyone was a child once...

- August
Give it up man, i made this verry same argument a fews post ago and he just decided to outright ignore it. Come to think of it he ignored most of the post i made in this verry thread.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2332877&postcount=210

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2332869&postcount=209

[Quail]

I don't think people in this thread should be using "pedophile" and "child abuser" interchangeably. I think using the two terms interchangeably is a barrier to understanding pedophilia as it automatically associates it with a horrible crime. Granted, a lot of child abusers may be pedophiles, but being a pedophile may not necessarily lead to child abuse.

I'm sure this has been said a million times already, but it's silly to think that retribution against offenders will solve the problem. It's like cutting the leaves off a weed and wondering why it keeps growing back, instead of getting to the root. In order to deal most effectively with social problems and psychological problems, it's necessary to understand the problem, its causes and how we can go about treating it.

Pedophilia is also such a taboo subject that it really makes it impossible for people who are pedophiles to seek help. Nobody would want to admit to having sexual feelings for children because society would condemn them as a monster and a child abuser. However, if it were acknowledged as a mental health issue and people felt okay to say, "I have these feelings, can you help me to find a healthy outlet for them?" then perhaps some instances of child abuse could be prevented.

What would also help is more funding to the mental health system. In the UK the mental health services are tragically underfunded, so people who develop problems due to abuse as children can't access treatment. It's also very difficult for young people who have been abused to speak out in the first place, especially since most abuse is carried out by a trusted adult, so the young person might be worried about causing arguments in the family, or worried that they won't be taken seriously. They also may believe that it was their fault and they deserved the abuse.

Noting that many pedophiles have been abused as children isn't excusing their behaviour if they go on to abuse children themselves, but it does explain why they might have done it, which is important to us if we want to develop a better understanding. Finally, in general, rape isn't about sex. It's about control. If someone feels powerless and violated due to past abuse, it's possible to see why they might end up becoming an abuser because there isn't a positive outlet for their feelings.

[KR]

It could jeopardise the legal situation of this site.



If you are 13 years and 364 days old and you are not stupid and immature, you can wait until you are 14 years and one day old. And even if you can't wait, you still have the option of having sex and not calling the police.

Really.

Luís Henrique
You do know that it is most often the minors parents, not the minor that calls the police, right?

[Luís Henrique]

You do know that it is most often the minors parents, not the minor that calls the police, right?

Of course.

That's why if you are a minor and don't want your partner being jailed, you don't tell your parents.

Luís Henrique

[El Chuncho]

Think about that, and then ask yourself again what the hell does it have to do with race.

True, but nobody mentioned race in the thread. The comment seemed addressed to certain members of this thread, some of whom have major anti-racial credentials like GallowsBird - as I can attest to.

It is well and good mentioning that black people are often victims of prejudice, however, what AugustEast said was pretty weird.

Plus black people do not seem to be accused of paedophilia as much as white people, hence in the media (such as in 'BrassEye'') most paedophiles are white, grubby men in anoraks and ripped sleeveless jumpers. The media more often portrays black people as drug-dealing, white-woman raping gang thugs, instead. It focuses more of its time on any black criminal than white criminals, though. Hence in 'The Scum' (sorry, 'The Sun', an English paper) they actually mention when criminals are black, yet never call white criminals ''white''.

[El Chuncho]

Give it up man, i made this verry same argument a fews post ago and he just decided to outright ignore it. Come to think of it he ignored most of the post i made in this verry thread.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2332877&postcount=210

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2332869&postcount=209

Maybe if you actually used question marks (and actually asked a question rather than making a statement) people would answer your ''question''. :rolleyes:

[El Chuncho]

Hey, leave this out of it!

:D

I am not saying that anarchists are all reactionaries, per se, I am just saying that sectarians often argue that different tendencies are, and therefore ''reactionary'' is often subjective. :cool:

[El Chuncho]

Of course.

That's why if you are a minor and don't want your partner being jailed, you don't tell your parents.

Luís Henrique

This only applies to legal minors (say 13-15) as pre-pubescent children cannot have partners, only abusers. Children are not responsible for adult on child sexuality, they are not naturally sexual. They are exploited by adult, not willing partners in a loving relationship.

[KR]

This only applies to legal minors (say 13-15) as pre-pubescent children cannot have partners, only abusers. Children are not responsible for adult on child sexuality, they are not naturally sexual. They are exploited by adult, not willing partners in a loving relationship.
Are you implying that 13-15 year olds are not pubescent? lol wut.

[The Insurrection]

I guess it must have been me but I was the horniest fucker when I was 13-15.

[El Chuncho]

Are you implying that 13-15 year olds are not pubescent? lol wut.

Lol wut, indeed. I said that legal minors (13-15, only classified as minors legally but are really pubescent) can have sexual partners, but pre-pubescent children can't (real minors). Read my post again, along with what I quoted.











Idiot. :rolleyes:

[The Insurrection]

Why do you always feel the need to belittle people by insulting them? Are you insecure?