Lets debate about: Paedophiles

[Holden Caulfield]

what are your opinions on paedophillia, the way it is viewed by the people/media, the way they are treated by the judicial service etc etc..

you go first:)

[Sean]

I think that the media are in love with paedophilliac hysteria, and they love to titillate a supposedly shocked audience with as graphic an account as they can get away with. In the same way that they run those supposed documentaries on special people who just happen to be one man freakshows and people pretend that they're learning about medical conditions and are sympathetic, when really they're just out to oogle at that guy with bumholes for eye sockets or whatever.
The Pedogeddon (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9031532194656768989) episode of Brasseye caught the public and media fascination/titillation perfectly and they supposed shock at them saying so proved their point even more.

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/b/b5/Daily_Star_Brass_Eye_Charlotte_Church.jpg
Notice the story on the left about Charlotte Church now being fuckable right across from their outrage.

[JohnnyC]

It's sexual orientation and personal choice.As long as you don't rape or harm anyone you can be attracted and have consensual sex with who/what ever you like.I'm a strong supporter of right to have any sexual orientations you want. :)

[Black Dagger]

Yes but it's naive to think that there isn't a correlation between a pedophilic 'orientation' and the abuse of children - it's not so simple to just say 'oh as long as you don't harm anyone it's ok' - sure, but how feasible is it for someone who actually wants to act on their pedophilic sexual urges to do so without abusing someone? Being sexually attracted to very young children presents problems that don't exist between adult orientated sexuality. Whilst there is much sexual abuse between adults as well, the ability for adults to give informed and active consent is much greater. Informed and active consent involves having a good understanding of what sex is, as well as an active desire to participate in 'sex' (rather than for example, sex disguised as a 'game' - which is used as non-sexual to a young child but which results in sexual gratification for the adult).

[JohnnyC]

Yes but it's naive to think that there isn't a correlation between a pedophilic 'orientation' and the abuse of children - it's not so simple to just say 'oh as long as you don't harm anyone it's ok' - sure, but how feasible is it for someone who actually wants to act on their pedophilic sexual urges to do so without abusing someone? Being sexually attracted to very young children presents problems that don't exist between adult orientated sexuality. Whilst there is much sexual abuse between adults as well, the ability for adults to give informed and active consent is much greater. Informed and active consent involves having a good understanding of what sex is, as well as an active desire to participate in 'sex' (rather than for example, sex disguised as a 'game' - which is used as non-sexual to a young child but which results in sexual gratification for the adult).
There is also correlation between heterosexuality and woman abuse but that doesn't mean heterosexuality is the problem.I think children have the right to make their own decisions even if they are potentially bad for them.There are many adults who make "stupid" choices out of ignorance they regret but that doesn't mean we (society) should have the right to "protect them" or forbid to do so.Liberty, in my opinion, means freedom to make choices, (possible mistakes) without some authority (government, "society") interfering with it and forbidding you to do it just because they consider you are not ready for such thing.

[Black Dagger]

There is also correlation between heterosexuality and woman abuse but that doesn't mean heterosexuality is the problem.

This is a fallacious analogy, and something i already anticipated in my previous post:


Yes but it's naive to think that there isn't a correlation between a pedophilic 'orientation' and the abuse of children - it's not so simple to just say 'oh as long as you don't harm anyone it's ok' - sure, but how feasible is it for someone who actually wants to act on their pedophilic sexual urges to do so without abusing someone? Whilst there is much sexual abuse between adults as well, the ability for adults to give informed and active consent is much greater. Informed and active consent involves having a good understanding of what sex is, as well as an active desire to participate in 'sex' (rather than for example, sex disguised as a 'game' - which is used as non-sexual to a young child but which results in sexual gratification for the adult).

The point being that pedophilic 'sexuality' has a built in asymmetry of power (for example, in knowledge) that is not present in the same way in heterosexual relationships between adults - or most adult relationships period. That is the issue of informed and active consent - between an adult and a young child, how the activity is framed to the child (do they understand what sex is - and that this is sex - or are they being misled?)
Seeing as most young children don't really learn about what sex is, it is difficult to see how this is possible, or indeed that they would be sexually attracted to adults, rather than attracted to sexual interaction with their peers for example. If this desire is not present then there is no active consent, it's rape. This condition makes acting on pedophilic sexual urges, i.e. engaging in sexual activity with a child - inherently abusive or in the very least heavily prone to instances of abuse. As i doubt anyone can provide a counterexample where it can be demonstrated that a young child has understood what sex is and actively desired to have this experience with someone much older than them (an adult). Though of course that will depend on how we define 'young child', but the younger that is the more unlikely it is for such an example to exist. And even if it did, it takes much more than one instance to make your argument intellectually honest in anyway whatsoever.



I think children have the right to make their own decisions even if they are potentially bad for them.

Of course, but the issue here is not whether kids should be allowed to make decisions - but if they are capable of making informed ones, or if their ignorance or naivety is being manipulated, or abused by an adult for that adults pleasure rather than mutual pleasure, derived from mutual consent.

I.E. Is the child initiating this sexual activity? I really doubt it.

Or are they being taken advantage of? In cases of pedophilia the answer is almost certainly - yes!

What you're suggesting would make sense if we were not talking about a situation where there is such obvious room for abuse. Because in reality, children are not making a 'bad decision' when they hop in the car of a pedophile who has offered them some kind of treat - they are a child whose naivety or ignorance is being abused or exploited by an adult for that persons sexual gratification.



There are many adults who make "stupid" choices out of ignorance they regret but that doesn't mean we (society) should have the right to "protect them" or forbid to do so.Liberty, in my opinion, means freedom to make choices, (possible mistakes) without some authority (government, "society") interfering with it and forbidding you to do it just because they consider you are not ready for such thing.

You're fundamentally misrepresenting the issues here. This isn't about whether kids should have the 'choice' - it is about whether they are capable of understanding what is going on, and if they are whether or not they are freely choosing to have sex with an adult - because they desire to do so. The reality is - and you really need to acknowledge this - the reality is that most adult-child sex occurs between people from the same family (often but not exclusively, the childs father or a male relative) or otherwise someone close to them in some way. This is called molestation - rape - it's not a 'choice' - and it's extremely traumatic.

[JohnnyC]

Of course I think children should be educated about pedophilia and that tricking kid that doesn't now anything about sex into it is a bad thing.I'm just trying to say that if you know what you're getting into you have right to do it no matter how old are you.In no way I'm supporting tricking children into something they don't know, but if you understand what you're doing and you know consequences of your acts you should have the same right as adults to do what ever you want.I think the only problem is how to evaluate do someone truly understand what sex is or not.

Just to make it clear, I pretty much agree with everything you said and I'm completely against abusing someone just because you have enough knowledge to manipulate him. :)

[Black Dagger]

Of course I think children should be educated about pedophilia and that tricking kid that doesn't now anything about sex into it is a bad thing.I'm just trying to say that if you know what you're getting into you have right to do it no matter how old are you.

Sure, i agree with that. It's just when we're talking about young children the discussion becomes a bit moot, as there are obvious limitations in their ability to give informed and active consent in the first place, before the idea of 'choice' even comes up - there is the isssue of whether they are simply being manipulated by an adult - an authority figure - one of their parents, a relative, a school teacher, a priest, a family friend etc.



In no way I'm supporting tricking children into something they don't know, but if you understand what you're doing and you know consequences of your acts you should have the same right as adults to do what ever you want.

Sure.



I think the only problem is how to evaluate do someone truly understand what sex is or not.


Oh ok, good - i agree.

[apathy maybe]

what are your opinions on paedophillia, the way it is viewed by the people/media, the way they are treated by the judicial service etc etc..

you go first:)

God do we have to?

This discussion has been done to death, and you providing nothing but a single sentence doesn't help it.

What's your opinion? If you don't have one, why isn't this in Learning?

Dear everyone please don't start threads with a single sentence. It not only breaks the guideline on short posts, but it does very little to nothing to guide the discussion. This is a discussion forum.

-----

My opinion can, I'm sure, be found in one of the other threads.
But quickly, I think that the way it is treated by the media is ignorant and biased in most cases, and by the legal system 'orribly (I'm biased, I don't think there should be a legal system).

[Rascolnikova]

There is also correlation between heterosexuality and woman abuse but that doesn't mean heterosexuality is the problem.

Actually, there isn't. Unless I'm mistaken, lesbian couples have pretty high rates of domestic violence.

[which doctor]

I think the media portrayal of pedophiles is ridiculous.

First off, pedophilia is a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. In America, if an older man has a sexual attraction to pretty much anyone under 17, he gets labeled a pedophile. Pedophilia is a good example of a moral panic and those Dateline shows with Chris Hansen just make the problem worse.

Furthermore, the United States has very antiquated sex laws, especially with regards of age of consent laws. These stories about kids having to register as sex offenders because they had sex with another person their age are ridiculous and serve no purpose.

One reason I believe the child sex industry can be so lucrative in some parts of the world is because it is such a taboo.

I think society needs to understand that pedophilia is a sexual orientation and we need to.

I think if we're going to debate about what to do with pedophiles, we should be debating about in what ways it is acceptable for pedophiles to satisfy their sexual urges. We should take into account at what period of development humans are able participate in consensual sex.

It's a very sticky situation since we need to evaluate it so often on a case-by-case basis. It's difficult to make broad laws about it, but something still needs to be done and limitations made. Unfortunately it is a problem that will never be 100% solved.

[Dr Mindbender]

what Taig says.

[Rosa Provokateur]

It's sick, purely sick. These people need help and everything should be done to compassionatly help these people be cured of their condition.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I think the media portrayal of pedophiles is ridiculous.

First off, pedophilia is a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. In America, if an older man has a sexual attraction to pretty much anyone under 17, he gets labeled a pedophile. Pedophilia is a good example of a moral panic and those Dateline shows with Chris Hansen just make the problem worse.


Grown men being attracted to highschool sophmores is a problem in and of itself. I dont like NBC but Chris Hansen's show will hopefully teach kids to be responsible online, I usually oppose incarceration but not on this.

[Dust Bunnies]

I believe that we need to have sex ed programs all up from Kindergarten until they graduate High School. Its hard to tell at what age can a child* know and consent. Some 10 year olds are more mature and able than 18 year olds. This may seem a bit idealistic but I would like this on the issue: starting with kindergarten there is sex ed programs that talk about pedos and stuff, they continue through the grades (eventually adding on birds and bees, STD's, etc as they get older). So by 4th or 5th grade we can hope they can make an informed choice. If the child was tricked/forced to do an act that is rape. But if the child knows fullwell what will happen if they consent and understands the issue then that is not rape.

*I define child in this post as someone who hasn't graduated High School, so it includes Birth, Toddlers, children, Teens, etc.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I believe that we need to have sex ed programs all up from Kindergarten until they graduate High School. Its hard to tell at what age can a child* know and consent. Some 10 year olds are more mature and able than 18 year olds. This may seem a bit idealistic but I would like this on the issue: starting with kindergarten there is sex ed programs that talk about pedos and stuff, they continue through the grades (eventually adding on birds and bees, STD's, etc as they get older). So by 4th or 5th grade we can hope they can make an informed choice. If the child was tricked/forced to do an act that is rape. But if the child knows fullwell what will happen if they consent and understands the issue then that is not rape.

*I define child in this post as someone who hasn't graduated High School, so it includes Birth, Toddlers, children, Teens, etc.

Not to flame but are you crazy! Kids that young have no reason to know and dont need to know about sex. 13, thats the age to teach them because thats when it matters and phyical attractions begin. If a person doesnt have physical attraction then they might not be able to fully understand the topic or its importance.

[which doctor]

It's sick, purely sick. These people need help and everything should be done to compassionatly help these people be cured of their condition.
How exactly would you go about "curing" someone of their sexual orientation?

[synthesis]

I believe that we need to have sex ed programs all up from Kindergarten until they graduate High School. Its hard to tell at what age can a child* know and consent. Some 10 year olds are more mature and able than 18 year olds. This may seem a bit idealistic but I would like this on the issue: starting with kindergarten there is sex ed programs that talk about pedos and stuff, they continue through the grades (eventually adding on birds and bees, STD's, etc as they get older). So by 4th or 5th grade we can hope they can make an informed choice. If the child was tricked/forced to do an act that is rape. But if the child knows fullwell what will happen if they consent and understands the issue then that is not rape.

*I define child in this post as someone who hasn't graduated High School, so it includes Birth, Toddlers, children, Teens, etc.

Well, for one thing, considering teenagers to be children is a very recent development. In most of history, people were considered adults as soon as they went through pubescence or some ritual that accompanied it.

However, the fact that our society does treat teenagers as children means that relationships between teenagers and adults can, in practice, often be exploitative and predatory. Even "consensual" relationships between children/teenagers and adult men are usually predicated on the former's abusive or non-existent relationships with male father figures, which is generally recognized and exploited by the latter.

The problem is that "exploitation" and "predation" are very tricky matters to define when it comes to sex, so any relevant regulations would probably be relatively arbitrary.

Personally, I feel that a blanket ban on these forms of intercourse isn't necessarily bad and that the small number of children and adults who would not be able to legally express their mature sexual urges is a reasonable sacrifice to make in order to prevent real exploitation and predation, which, in practice, is usually the nature of child-adult sexual relationships.

[bawbag]

Puting pedophiles in jail is wrong I agree with Green Apostle, they should be helped as they are sick and jail doesn't help atall, the same thing goes for drug addicts, pedophiles and drug addicts are thrown in jail and when they get released they go out and do the same thing over, I remember hearing about a pedophile who put the lottery on on his weekend out before he was released, and won it, and planned to go and live in another country where he could BUY a child and have sex with him, if anyone else has heard this story maybe they can shed some light on it, but i think these people need help and should not just be thrown in jail


and I love that brasseye episode as seen on the newspaper above, great show

[Dust Bunnies]

Rehab is the solution, not calling them sick. I don't know how to judge pedophilia, whether it is a disease/disability such as Autism or a sexual orientation such as Heterosexuality. I think one thing we must do is realize that shunning them will fix nothing.

I called teens "children" because of the development that they go through. All through your life until about 18 or 21* you're growing both physically, mentally, and through life experiences at a rapid pace.** So, in a sense teens are in a development stage, but I believe we should not prejudice against that. Infact I'm perfectly fine with two teens having sex, just as long as they use a condom. (or, if it doesn't mess up their growth, pills)

To Green Apostle who called me "crazy", why not teach children? I'm not saying telling Kindergarteners about sex, but teach them about those who would hurt them. But the idea of hiding a natural process until the age of 13 I find ridiculous. Unless I am given a credible study/research saying it is bad to tell the kids how they were made, I don't agree with the idea that the age of 13 is when they're mature enough (or some cases, when hormones kick in).

Honestly, I'm not sure how to exactly handle pedophiles (especially the violent ones), we just need to get past calling them wacko or sick and finally come to understand that it is not a personal choice to be a pedophile.

*I know some finish early, some may finish later, just using what I've heard as norms.
**I understand that in some cases the accumulation of life experiances are different, and sometimes adult have more experiances, but the experiances during childhood may form the person they become.

[which doctor]

Not to flame but are you crazy! Kids that young have no reason to know and dont need to know about sex. 13, thats the age to teach them because thats when it matters and phyical attractions begin. If a person doesnt have physical attraction then they might not be able to fully understand the topic or its importance.
What makes you think you're the authority on human development? There are children out there getting pregnant before the age of 13. Sex happens between children, it's a fact of life. I think that sex education should begin at a very young age.

[Dust Bunnies]

What makes you think you're the authority on human development? There are children out there getting pregnant before the age of 13. Sex happens between children, it's a fact of life. I think that sex education should begin at a very young age.

Puberty can happen even at the age of 9 or 10, I believe this notion of that they're not adult enough to see Barack Obama putting a condom on a pickle* is a very conservative, outdated notion.

*That comment was to mock the John McCain attack on Barack Obama teaching "sex ed" (really an avoid the pedo type thing) to Kindergarteners.

[AngelCity Neo-Stalinist]

The so called "age of consent" was totally non-existnant before the 20th century. For centuries and centuries people of massive age gaps were lovers, people usually got married in their teens, adolescent young men were lovers with elder adult men throughout the ancient world, men often married much younger women, Lord Byron had a 12 year old girlfriend in the last years of his life(that's the only example I could think of off the top of my head);women got with younger dudes to, it's all documented in lituature and epic poetry and all that stuff. I'm not saying it should be preserved as a cultural thing, I'm saying that it's a fundamental part of human nature. People have beend doing it for years, it wasn't considered it's own specific orientation, that's just the way things were. And the reason we have to wait till 18 to get married is because some Malthusian economist back in the Industrial Revolution suggested a set legal marriage age so that urban areas wouldn't become overcrowded since all the factory workers grew up on farms and were raised with the idea of having 11 or 12 kids. It developed into a taboo because of some warped Christian mindeset and straight lased Victorian moralism, both of which are characteristics of the bourgeosis value system being used to control and manipulate. Debunking what is essentially the "myth" of pedophilia is a revolutionary act.

[Black Dagger]

Debunking what is essentially the "myth" of pedophilia is a revolutionary act.

How so?

[Patchd]

How exactly would you go about "curing" someone of their sexual orientation?What more would you expect from someone who brings religion into their politics?

Also, Black Dagger, how would you solve this problem of paedophilia?

[Black Dagger]

I don't know. But whatever is decided, i would hope that people are treated with dignity - no forced castrations etc., or worse.

[Patchd]

I don't know. But whatever is decided, i would hope that people are treated with dignity - no forced castrations etc., or worse.And by dignity, would you include imprisonment? Or perhaps a social hating scheme, similar to one that the media is stirring up?

[Dr Mindbender]

It's sick, purely sick. These people need help and everything should be done to compassionatly help these people be cured of their condition.
thats more or less what they said about homosexuality right up to the point that homosexuality was legalised.

I think its a lot more complicated than simply branding it an 'illness'. Although i think theres a hell of a lot of 'nurture' factors that play an influence, and the general conservative free market status quo doesnt help. They did a survey before and they found that paedophiles are most likely to have grown up in religious, authoritarian, over-protective backgrounds.

[Rascolnikova]

I'm going to shamelessly quote myself.


I think there shouldn't be an age of consent, but that coerciveness in relationships should be punishable, and that it's extremely reasonable to presume that a relationship between a person below some maturity level and another person who is a certain amount more mature than them is necessarily coercive. The criteria should be some evaluation of maturity, though, not just chronological age.This is pretty much my stance. Though, I don't think maturity is the only way to measure coerciveness, of course.

[Rosa Provokateur]

How exactly would you go about "curing" someone of their sexual orientation?
Rehabilitation, it's not an orientation.

[Rosa Provokateur]

What makes you think you're the authority on human development? There are children out there getting pregnant before the age of 13. Sex happens between children, it's a fact of life. I think that sex education should begin at a very young age.
If kids are geting pregnant before 13 then we need to take proactive preventive measures, sex before the body is developmentally ready (after puberty) is un-healthy.

[Rosa Provokateur]

thats more or less what they said about homosexuality right up to the point that homosexuality was legalised.

I think its a lot more complicated than simply branding it an 'illness'. Although i think theres a hell of a lot of 'nurture' factors that play an influence, and the general conservative free market status quo doesnt help. They did a survey before and they found that paedophiles are most likely to have grown up in religious, authoritarian, over-protective backgrounds.

Agreed. The only difference with homosexuality is that the majority of us are old enough and physically developed enough to have sex responsibly.

[Dust Bunnies]

Rehabilitation, it's not an orientation.

For centuries people thought that homosexuals were not an orientation, and even now people think that homosexuality is a choice/sign of the devil, and not something scientifically proven.

If that is a strawman above please forgive me, but, I think pedophilia is the effect of certain chemicals and hormones in the body, it is not an addiction.

[cop an Attitude]

Not to flame but are you crazy! Kids that young have no reason to know and dont need to know about sex. 13, thats the age to teach them because thats when it matters and phyical attractions begin. If a person doesnt have physical attraction then they might not be able to fully understand the topic or its importance.

Yes but should we educate children before they hit puberty so when they do, they fully understand what is going on with their body and their urges. My class had sex ed in 5th grade, when I was 10, and I still found the whole experience pretty confusing until I was about 14. Those "awkward" years really don’t need to be so awkward if we were educated more and more open to sex. There is no reason to label such an activity as taboo if done the right way (protection, education, consent). If we start to teach or ease our kids into sex ed or "health class" in 3rd grade then they would be more comfortable and more aware of what sex really implies.

Also to add to the real topic. Pedophilia is a fetish, that’s all. Sexual intercourse should be allowed for anyone of puberty age, 13 maybe. If they are educated beforehand then they would be actually able to engage in sexual intercourse when their bodies are ready to! There is a reason why they have those "raging hormones", its because they naturally want to have sex. It’s instinctive so why suppress it? As for anyone that had not hit puberty yet, it should not be allowed, only because their body is not ready for it and they might not understand the implications of it. And as for those attracted to prepubescent minors, maybe some sort of alternative should be reached, like simulated porn, maybe even child porn. (if done right it could be fairly victimless.)

[synthesis]

Honestly, I'm not sure how to exactly handle pedophiles (especially the violent ones), we just need to get past calling them wacko or sick and finally come to understand that it is not a personal choice to be a pedophile.

The impulse to have sex with children may not be a personal choice, but acting on that impulse is certainly a personal choice.

I also recognize that the thought process leading up to acting on those impulses may not be a personal choice, but in that case, there is either some rational side of these people that we should expect to recognize the damaging effects of their recurring actions, or they should be considered sociopathic and treated accordingly.

[Black Dagger]

And by dignity, would you include imprisonment?

No, i don't support 'imprisonment' as a solution to much of anything.


Or perhaps a social hating scheme, similar to one that the media is stirring up?

Why the loaded question? I'm not sure if this was intended, but this question comes off as very hostile - if this was intended - why? I would prefer you state your objections to what i have said in a plain and open way. Of course i do not support social victimisation or the vigilante-ism that follows it.

[Mujer Libre]

The only person I've ever spoken to who had paedophilic thoughts experienced them as a kind of obsessive compulsive disorder. He didn't want the thoughts, but they kept coming into his mind, and it worried him a lot.

He'd never acted on it because he knew that sexually abusing kids is wrong, other than to go to places where there were children and look at them. (which is worrying in itself- but there's an upside to this story) He'd been having psychological therapy (in his case I think psychodynamic, but that's not important) and felt that it had really been helping.

I'm not sure that this is the case with everyone, that paedophilic thoughts are an OCD spectrum thing, but surely this case points against imprisonment and punishment as suitable ways of approaching the issue.

[Dr Mindbender]

I'm not sure that this is the case with everyone, that paedophilic thoughts are an OCD spectrum thing, but surely this case points against imprisonment and punishment as suitable ways of approaching the issue.

Punishment is still used against people who kill as a result of their mental health, so until that is resolved i don't think theres much hope. I think paedophilia represents the last bastion so to speak in that particular area of judicial progression.

[AngelCity Neo-Stalinist]

To quote myself "debunking what is essentially the myth of pedophillia is revolutionary act" in that considering sexual attraction to pubescent "children" is not a specific orientation but just an aspect of hetero,homo,bi sexuality. For those who are EXCLUSIVLY attracted to young people it could then be considered it's won specific orientation. It shouldn't be demonized; it's natural. Villification of it is simply some sort of capitalist social construct. Recognize the social aspect of world revolution:Marx essentially stated that society and all that social order entails comes to be as a result of the relationships between people when they enter into production with oneanother. Social mores and concepts of what's right and wrong are no longer what comes natural but become distorted as a result of the division of labour. Pedophilia and the persecution of so-called pedophiles is just another symptom of class struggle.

[AngelCity Neo-Stalinist]

Sex is permissable once a child hits puberty, like that other dude said.

[Rosa Provokateur]

For centuries people thought that homosexuals were not an orientation, and even now people think that homosexuality is a choice/sign of the devil, and not something scientifically proven.

If that is a strawman above please forgive me, but, I think pedophilia is the effect of certain chemicals and hormones in the body, it is not an addiction.

Gays dont get most of their action by kidnapping, rape or molestation. Pedophiles tend to do that. Addiction or not it should be rehabilitated and go the way of polio.

[Rascolnikova]

For those who are EXCLUSIVLY attracted to young people it could then be considered it's won specific orientation. It shouldn't be demonized; it's natural. Villification of it is simply some sort of capitalist social construct.

Rape is natural. So is the brutal physical domination of whoever one can get away with beating the shit out of. Plenty of cultures are fine with these behaviors in some variety of contexts, so it is clear that rejecting them is a social construct.


If it's a capitalist social construct, I'm a capitalist.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Rape is natural. So is the brutal physical domination of whoever one can get away with beating the shit out of. Plenty of cultures are fine with these behaviors in some variety of contexts, so it is clear that rejecting them is a social construct.


If it's a capitalist social construct, I'm a capitalist.
A fuckin men:thumbup:

[which doctor]

Gays dont get most of their action by kidnapping, rape or molestation. Pedophiles tend to do that. Addiction or not it should be rehabilitated and go the way of polio.
The vast majority of people with pedophilic tendencies don't kidnap, rape, or molest children either.

[Rosa Provokateur]

The vast majority of people with pedophilic tendencies don't kidnap, rape, or molest children either.
They're not a very open community, understandably, so we dont know what the vast majority does. We can only judge based on what we've seen and the pedophiles I've seen molest kids.

[butterfly]

Paedophila is not more so a sexual orientation than other sexual fanstacies. Paedophiles tend to be gender discriminate and it's usually a learned behaviour.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

They're not a very open community, understandably, so we dont know what the vast majority does. We can only judge based on what we've seen and the pedophiles I've seen molest kids.

You mean listen to what the gutter press says?

No.

[Black Dagger]

They're not a very open community, understandably, so we dont know what the vast majority does. We can only judge based on what we've seen and the pedophiles I've seen molest kids.

That's a horrible way to judge - if you've seen a pedophile on TV it means they're a pedophile who got caught molesting kids - and i'm betting 'the news' accounts for 100% of your exposure to pedophiles and their actions? So as far as sources go it's not a sound basis for judgement - is it?

I'm not trying to make a comment on what the 'majority' of pedophiles 'do' - but simply to re-state your own comments, that this is 'not a very open community'. Therefore to make an argument about the 'majority of pedophiles' behaviour based on a source with a 100% bias to a displaying a particular behaviour is not really sound at all.

[AngelCity Neo-Stalinist]

Don't take my fucken words out of context. "Pedophiles" who rape, kidnap, and torture are not the majority despite what the media wants us to think, violence among them is just the same as it would be among bothe hetero and homosexuals. Pedophilia in and of itself is not a violent act.

[Rascolnikova]

In light of:

Don't take my fucken words out of context. "Pedophiles" who rape, kidnap, and torture are not the majority despite what the media wants us to think, violence among them is just the same as it would be among bothe hetero and homosexuals. Pedophilia in and of itself is not a violent act.

Do you have a response to


I think. . . coerciveness in relationships should be punishable, and that it's extremely reasonable to presume that a relationship between a person below some maturity level and another person who is a certain amount more mature than them is necessarily coercive. The criteria should be some evaluation of maturity, though, not just chronological age.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I'm not trying to make a comment on what the 'majority' of pedophiles 'do' - but simply to re-state your own comments, that this is 'not a very open community'. Therefore to make an argument about the 'majority of pedophiles' behaviour based on a source with a 100% bias to a displaying a particular behaviour is not really sound at all.
I'm not saying that they're all like that but since we don't know what their community is like, we can't be sure that there isn't some truth to what the news is finding. I don't trust the news media either but to say that they're always 100% wrong is inaccurate.

[AngelCity Neo-Stalinist]

Yes I do. I would say that that was a very reasonable statement which I agree with. The age of consent should be puberty and sex ed should being early, just like a couple of other guys said. That may seem simplistic but it's a solution.

[Black Dagger]

I'm not saying that they're all like that but since we don't know what their community is like, we can't be sure that there isn't some truth to what the news is finding. I don't trust the news media either but to say that they're always 100% wrong is inaccurate.

It doesn't matter if they're 'right' or not - as i explained in my last post - you're 'sample' is biased to a present a particular behaviour - it's not representative of anything other than that: some people with pedophilic desires act on them and get caught - c'est tout. Hardly a useful insight.

[Guerrilla22]

We can't have people engaging in sexual acts with prepubescent children. A prepubescent child cannot consent to sex, let alone process what is happening during a sex act. This obviously can lead to irreversible pyschological and emotional damage to a person. However, I am not in the camp that is calling for pedophiles to be burned at the stake as many, including the mainstream media are.

[Rascolnikova]

Yes I do. I would say that that was a very reasonable statement which I agree with. The age of consent should be puberty and sex ed should being early, just like a couple of other guys said. That may seem simplistic but it's a solution.
The beginning of puberty? The end of puberty? It doesn't seem that simple to me.

Edit: to be clear, the beginning of puberty seems far to early to me to recognize blanket consent--in all circumstances. . . and arguably, people aren't neurologically adult till around age 23. Your solution strikes me as a non-solution.

[AngelCity Neo-Stalinist]

I'd say early teens would be good: 13,14. Your right it does start earlyer, I started going through puberty at around 10 or 11 and my folks took me to the doctor cuz they were all freaked out. Same thing with a couple other people I know. Sex with a prepubescent child should be ilegal. 23? Your statement seems to assert that we should raise the current age; are you suggesting thta 18 is to young? And if not explain how it is condusive to your point.

[Rascolnikova]

I'd say early teens would be good: 13,14. Your right it does start earlyer, I started going through puberty at around 10 or 11 and my folks took me to the doctor cuz they were all freaked out. Same thing with a couple other people I know. Sex with a prepubescent child should be ilegal. 23? Your statement seems to assert that we should raise the current age; are you suggesting thta 18 is to young? And if not explain how it is condusive to your point.

My point was that simply saying "puberty" as age of consent barely narrows things down at all.

I think sexual exploration with between people who have very close to the same age and--maybe or? maturity level, intelligence, authority in the social situation, physical strength--should be legal at all ages. I see a lot of potential for coercion in a relationship between a 13 year old and an adult, or even a 17 year old, depending on individuals and circumstances--this within the framework of simple consent.

I would like to live in a culture where all individuals are at least slightly paranoid about engaging in sexually coercive behavior, because each person's right to bodily autonomy is held so highly. Under such a cultural context, some sort of metric of power-differential might be developed that took various factors into account and could be called on in legal situations. I would hope that in this sort of culture, individuals wouldn't need to worry about calculating the precise power differential in every situation because they wouldn't want to trod anywhere close to that line.

[Rosa Provokateur]

We can't have people engaging in sexual acts with prepubescent children. A prepubescent child cannot consent to sex, let alone process what is happening during a sex act. This obviously can lead to irreversible pyschological and emotional damage to a person.
Agreed. You hit the nail on the head:thumbup:

[Mecha_Shiva]

I don't understand how pedophilia is a sexual orientation? I would think it is more of like.... I dunno a thing someone is into....? I mean if pedophilia is an orientation, is bondage an orientaion? Or like beastality? I just dont see it as an orientation.
And if it is a sexual orientation, why would that mean its ok? I mean if you are exploting and taking advantage, hurting, abusing or anything like that to any person, not just a child even, then it doesnt make it ok just because you have an impulse or condition to do it.
I mean if an older person finds someone younger then them and starts an honest relationship with them, where everything is out there, they both know what the other wants and the possible consequences of there actions, then thats awesome, but unfortunantly its not always like that.
Is it ok for people with mental conditions who kill other people or hurt others in any other way to do that just because hey have a problem? No. You help them to overcome there problems, and untill they can overcome them you try to keep them away from the people they might harm. But you don't just go "oh, they have a problem we cant discriminate against them for being that way" and let them. What about the people theyre hurting? they have rights too

and as for the age of consent, i dont think its as simple as saying, you hit puberty, you can have sex and anyone of any age can have sex with you. Just because someones body is physically able to have sex doesnt mean they know what it is, or all the consequences of it.
And its not like puberty happens all at once and bam your bodys all grown up. your body starts growing when you hit puberty. and people finish puberty at as many different ages form eachother as thay start it.
its all really tricky :confused:

[Merces]

To dispute a persons sexuality and the protection of children is to really look at the situation and compare those opinions to the (what if that was your child) situation. Protecting our rights to freedom of sexuality and religion and speech shouldn't cloud ones judgment when it concerns children. Most children at this stage experience trust within adults and are in development in their moral and physical selves. To rob them of that is to slap on a verdict of "well we shouldn't discriminte agianst a persons orientation". Orientation for adults over the age 18 is purely ones own manner. Prison doesn't help. It only increases the prison population and raises my taxes. Prison is the easy soultion to all problems. More than half of todays inmates suffer from some sort of mental problem. But because of their violent tenor they are thrown in prison, which will lead usaully to isolation due to their vioelnt nature, and also increase their likelyhood of being more violent due to the isolation. Peadophiles should be dealt accordingly, however that answer is still in air. But until that is resolved I beleive peadophilia should be illegal.

[money for hunger]

Yeah I understand that most pedophiles don't molest kids.
and rehabillitation to turn those that do get caught back into functioning members of society is a good idea

But fuck
Those guys that kidnap, rape, and kill little girls
they are beyond rehab
and should be fucking shot.

thats harsh, but they didn't give those little kids anymore chance than that

[Black Dagger]

Eh, i really don't like that attitude.

How do you know 'they' are beyond rehab? Coz their crimes are disgusting? Coz you say so? Vigilante justice is inherently unjust.

[Blackscare]

Didn't go through the entire thread, forgive me if I'm repeating something someone else said.

Even if a child "consents" (though I doubt a little kid is going to really understand the implications until after the act has happened) sexual relations with children are known unequivocally to cause serious emotional problems in children.

Saying things like "if the kid understood it might be ok" is a useless exercise because there isn't an 8 year old alive who is going to be able to look far into the future and anticipate the long-term effect sexual relations at that age will have. Children able to participate in sex with an adult with no ill effect are fantasy creatures (for pedos) like unicorns or fairies.

I wouldn't persecute pedos who don't act on their impulses.

As for actual molesters, considering the long term havoc they wreak on not only the child but society (factoring the anti-social behavior likely to come from experiences like this), I would simply kill them. Not out of malice, but more along the lines of how you would take care of a rapid dog. No way to make sure they don't do it again except gasoline and a match :cursing: (ok, maybe that's a bit malicious lol)

I don't think that's unreasonable, you perform an abhorrent act that destroys the lives of innocent, ignorant children, and the father or mother should kill you.

[Black Dagger]

So... an 'eye for an eye' huh? Yeah, i always thought the bible was a good source of guidance, even in modern times :rolleyes:

[Blackscare]

So... an 'eye for an eye' huh? Yeah, i always thought the bible was a good source of guidance, even in modern times :rolleyes:

Not so much eye for an eye, I just don't believe in prisons. That being said, how do we deal with dangers to society like murderers (of the purely psychotic serial killer type, not crime of passion or bar fight type stuff) and pedo's? Well, you kill them.

To me, thats the price of a free society. No jails, but if you fuck up in a big premeditated way, you die. Either that or institute a prison system, and how long until other "criminals" make their way in?

Granted, I'm an anarchist and that effects my views.

[Blackscare]

Wanted to add that I guess looooong term admittance to a mental health place may be acceptable, but that isn't far from a prison term either.

[Charles Xavier]

Paedophiles deserve the death penalty, abuse of children is a horrific crime.

[Black Dagger]

Murderers deserve the death penalty, murder is a horrific crime.

[Blackscare]

the uniformity of those two posts makes me think there's some kind of joke i'm not getting o_O

[spartan]

Paedophiles deserve the death penalty, abuse of children is a horrific crime.

No one deserves the death penalty.

I myself used to be in favour of it but now I see it is an outdated form of punishment which is expensive and leads to too many mistakes.

Child molesters are obviously sick people who should be locked up for life if they have a high potential of reoffending, but killing them won't make a damn bit of difference (and please don't claim that it is cheaper than life imprisonment without the possibility of parole because it isn't).

Paedophiles who haven't acted on their fantasies should be allowed to seek treatment (and we should also be trying to come up with better treatments in this field) without fear of violence from others.

I don't hate humans, I hate the bad actions of some of us humans but I can never hate the actual person, well not enough to kill them like others wish.

What right do we have to take another life? Can we take the life of someone because they took the life of another? If so when the hell do we stop? Surely the executioner of the killer should be killed by someone for killing a killer? And surely the killer of the executioner should be killed by another person for killing the killer of a killer of a killer etc, etc?

An eye for an eye and all that.

[Black Dagger]

the uniformity of those two posts makes me think there's some kind of joke i'm not getting o_O

I don't think killing people for killing or abusing others really makes sense as a punishment for those things. Killing people is 'good', 'positive' - justice? - if the person you kill 'deserved it'. So killing people is not so bad, just make sure they killed someone first. How about we stop killing people? I dunno, i don't really like the idea of a 'free' society ruled by the death penalty tbh.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I don't think killing people for killing or abusing others really makes sense as a punishment for those things. Killing people is 'good', 'positive' - justice? - if the person you kill 'deserved it'. So killing people is not so bad, just make sure they killed someone first. How about we stop killing people? I dunno, i don't really like the idea of a 'free' society ruled by the death penalty tbh.

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with GeorgiDimitrov on this one...The death penalty is 'retributive justice', which in my view is a dangerous motive.
Rehabilitation should be the goal, and failing that, the protection of society from someone likely to commit a criminal act. I certainly expect that we as a society should find pedophilia abhorrent, but a knee-jerk reaction of killing the killer will not be an effective method for prevention of criminal behaviour. The crime is the problem, not the criminal. This means that killing a criminal, however abhorrent their actions, is not a solution to underlying problems.

[BPSocialist]

Tou know, this thread and some of the opinions on it are only gonna give the far-right more "commie paedophiles grooming on the internet" ammo.

MODS PLEASE TRASH THIS THREAD!!! It's going to damage the leftist cause.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Tou know, this thread and some of the opinions on it are only gonna give the far-right more "commie paedophiles grooming on the internet" ammo.

MODS PLEASE TRASH THIS THREAD!!! It's going to damage the leftist cause.

Attitudes like yours encourage knee-jerk reactions and only serve to stifle discussion.

So no.

[Dr Mindbender]

Paedophiles deserve the death penalty, abuse of children is a horrific crime.

Surely there has to be a more proportional compromise between death and what the majority deem to be too lenient.

I always thought castration could be considered in cases like these. (sperm can be pre-frozen which negates the argument about the right to conceive under consensual terms) If the pedophile is deprived of his major testosterone production source he is unlikely to rape or molest again.

[BPSocialist]

Attitudes like yours encourage knee-jerk reactions and only serve to stifle discussion.

So no.

Ok, but maybe we should tone it down a little. If the BNP find this, they'll have a field day.

Ulster socialist, castration would probably be better emposed on all severe sex offenders, make the punishment fit the crime and all that.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ok, but maybe we should tone it down a little.

Tone what down, precisely?


If the BNP find this, they'll have a field day.

Why do you care what those bunch of twats think? They already think of us as the "loony left".

[Dr Mindbender]

Why do you care what those bunch of twats think? They already think of us as the "loony left".

Exactly. The fascists are too regarded as lunatics by mainstream society, so i think it is the mainstream debate that should concern us more than the fascists.

Most people dont regard this as too taboo to shy away from. I find regarding most issues taboo as anti-materialist and intellectually dishonest.

[ZeroNowhere]

But fuck
Those guys that kidnap, rape, and kill little girls
they are beyond rehab
and should be fucking shot.

thats harsh
No, that's being a judgmental supernaturalist prick. To quote Dawkins, "Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour."


Paedophiles deserve the death penalty, abuse of children is a horrific crime.
Oh, just shut up, will you?
The interesting thing about free will is that it is bullcrap.


I myself used to be in favour of it but now I see it is an outdated form of punishment which is expensive and leads to too many mistakes.
Eh, you're being a bit too lenient there. Then again, it's hardly 'outdated', since neoliberalism only came about again in the 1970s, and the whole 'responsibility!' crap is more common than ever. The main problem is that it is built upon foundations that do not exist.


As for actual molesters, considering the long term havoc they wreak on not only the child but society (factoring the anti-social behavior likely to come from experiences like this), I would simply kill them. Not out of malice, but more along the lines of how you would take care of a rapid dog.
Wouldn't you generally, y'know, sign them up for a competition or something?
Ehm.
Anyways, your conclusions are baseless. When my computer stops working, I don't go, "Oh, what the hell, I'll just blow it up. Wheee." The death penalty does not benefit anybody. At all. No matter how much Kant would want it to.

"Your Honor, I am almost ashamed to talk about it. I can hardly imagine that we are in the twentieth century. And yet there are men who seriously say that for what Nature has done, for what life has done, for what training has done, you should hang these boys….

Why did they kill little Bobby Franks? Not for money, not for spite; not for hate. They killed him as they might kill a spider or a fly, for the experience. They killed him because they were made that way. Because somewhere in the infinite processes that go to the making up of the boy or the man something slipped, and those unfortunate lads sit here hated, despised, outcasts, with the community shouting for their blood. "
-Clarence Darrow.

[BPSocialist]

I know, but now they'll have something substancial to back their claims up and people will reject us.....

Seriously, thise could be really damaging if it gets into general public viewing.

[Post-Something]

Nobody cares what RevLeft thinks. We aren't spokespeaple for the entire left side of the political spectrum. And debating a topic won't bring our name down. There are loads of topics in far right forums like "what do you think of killing jews?", but nobody cares about those either. We aren't a think tank.

[BPSocialist]

Yeah, but maybe it's better safe than sorry.....

[Mujer Libre]

Yeah, but maybe it's better safe than sorry.....

Most people think revolution is a crazy idea- does that mean we should stop talking about it?

Not discussing an issue because it's taboo is bullshit, and never results in anything positive, merely the continuance of the status quo.

[BPSocialist]

Ok, I accept your argument and back down on the issue.:)

[ZeroNowhere]

I know, but now they'll have something substancial to back their claims up and people will reject us.....

Seriously, thise could be really damaging if it gets into general public viewing.
Well, here's an even better idea: We don't give a fuck. We will debate what we bloody want to debate. Merci.

Edit: Alright, then, that exchange was fairly pointless.

[BPSocialist]

Alright, if you'd read on, you'd have found that I backed down.

[Rascolnikova]

Well, here's an even better idea: We don't give a fuck. Merci.

wow, that is totally our strategy for forming the proletariat as a class!!

[ZeroNowhere]

wow, that is totally our strategy for forming the proletariat as a class!!
We're not a bloody PR institute for Revolution Ltd. We're Revleft.

[Rascolnikova]

We're not a bloody PR institute for Revolution Ltd. We're Revleft.

I noticed. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1344153&postcount=87)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I noticed. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1344153&postcount=87)

You can hold people's hands if you want to; myself, I prefer not to be so patronising and paternalistic, and assume by default that people have a functioning brain.

[Rascolnikova]

How is that in any way hand-holding?

I offered a critique of an institution I'm a very active part of and an attitude I find too popular here. If someone would like to engage in serious debate on this in a more appropriate thread for it, I'd be more than happy to do so. Till then, I see nothing wrong with reaffirming my initial position in a way that (you say) is effectively "patronizing and paternalistic" towards myself.

[Blackscare]

I for one, never said anything about retribution. I look at it in practical terms. Like I said above, it's like putting a dog with rabbis down. As far as expense go, please lets be serious. Maybe these ridiculous cocktails they give death row inmates are expensive (probably, knowing the prison industry), but a bullet isn't. Also, compare that expense to the cost of life imprisonment in terms of resources and the moral fabric of a society that chooses to cage it's members like dogs in some institution for life. I'll take a bullet in the head rather than life in some prison, or Siberia, thank you very much.

[spartan]

I for one, never said anything about retribution. I look at it in practical terms. Like I said above, it's like putting a dog with rabbis down. As far as expense go, please lets be serious. Maybe these ridiculous cocktails they give death row inmates are expensive (probably, knowing the prison industry), but a bullet isn't. Also, compare that expense to the cost of life imprisonment in terms of resources and the moral fabric of a society that chooses to cage it's members like dogs in some institution for life. I'll take a bullet in the head rather than life in some prison, or Siberia, thank you very much.

Life imprisonment is proven to be less costly than capital punishment.

Also this is a debate about paedophiles (adults who are sexually attracted and aroused by prepubescent children, not child molesters, who may or may not be paedophiles) so why would we lock them up and execute them simply for having 'inappropriate' thoughts?

If we do this we are one step closer to Orwell's thought police in 1984.

[Blackscare]

Life imprisonment is proven to be less costly than capital punishment.

Also this is a debate about paedophiles (adults who are sexually attracted and aroused by prepubescent children, not child molesters, who may or may not be paedophiles) so why would we lock them up and execute them simply for having 'inappropriate' thoughts?

If we do this we are one step closer to Orwell's thought police in 1984.

First of all, read my other posts. I'm talking about child molesters, not pedophiles per se.

Also, you didn't address the concession that I made that current methods popular are very costly (what with the expensive "euthanasia" methods involving drugs, rooms with observers or remotely televising to victim's families, long ass appeals processes that clog court rooms in an effort to stave off the execution date, and finally the cost of maintaining a prison system and feeding the prisoners the whole time).

The fact is the debate moved to the subject of molesters before I posted, as it should have because it's an important ethical question.

Don't call me some Orwellian thought nazi, my whole point is that in order to avoid crazy institutions that rot society (like prisons) we need to first of all do away with law as we know it now and decide what to do with those very few left over that actually shouldn't be in society for everyone elses sake. In my opinion, the most humane way to handle that is a quick simple death in a dignified way. People aren't stray dogs, there's no point in sticking a needle in them like one and using all the crazy and expensive paraphenalia and fetishes society attaches to the issue of execution.

If anything, I'm the one calling for the least Orwellian course of action out of anyone. Consider prisons for a second, and tell me those aren't Orwellian.

[Blackscare]

I'd like to add that I'm not for sniffing out people that 'think wrong', but if you have clear evidence of someone having raped a kid or committed serial killings, say with DNA evidence or something else equally conclusive, then I support execution. I'm not for summary trials of accused pedos followed by execution.

Also, like I said in a post above about some murderers, I wouldn't support the execution of a one time rapist of a grown adult. Why? Because while rape no doubt has a strong effect on anyone it's inflicted on, in the case of children it's even more so. The metaphorical cement just isn't dried yet in their heads, and the course of development is forever changed. Plus pedophilia is one of the only crimes that propagates itself. A child who is raped is far more likely to have an urge to do what was done to themselves to others when they are older. The fact is, many, I'd venture to say most, pedophiles have a history of abuse in their own past.

Murdered people don't go on to murder (unless you've got a poltergeist on your hands lol) and raped adults don't experience the same fundamental rewiring and tendency to repeat the cycle that molested children do.

[ZeroNowhere]

I'd like to add that I'm not for sniffing out people that 'think wrong', but if you have clear evidence of someone having raped a kid or committed serial killings, say with DNA evidence or something else equally conclusive, then I support execution.
Why?


Because while rape no doubt has a strong effect on anyone it's inflicted on, in the case of children it's even more so.
Right, and killing the guy makes the child's problems go away. :rolleyes:


A child who is raped is far more likely to have an urge to do what was done to themselves to others when they are older.
Let's kill them too, then. Also, let's kill you, because I can make a baseless value judgment that you are a 'waste of resources'.


In my opinion, the most humane way to handle that is a quick simple death in a dignified way.
Strange. We let those with mental illness off the hook, but, as people don't have free will, surely we have no right to kill a murderer or rapist either? Surely it would be more humane to kill the former than try to cure them? Surely we are NOOOSTRADAMUS! and can make judgments about whether or not people can be cured right after they commit a crime?


Like I said above, it's like putting a dog with rabbis down.
Rabbis? :D
Murderers have no free will. In that case, surely we should kill everybody in the society around them? Also their parents, wives and husbands, siblings, teachers...? The death penalty accomplishes nothing. Why does an offender’s fully determined choice require retribution, as opposed to non-punitive incarceration and reformation? What’s the argument that establishes the goodness of the offender’s suffering?


I'll take a bullet in the head rather than life in some prison, or Siberia, thank you very much.
More importantly, that's irrelevant. Do guilty rapists deserve to die? No, nobody does. It is not necessary to protect ourselves from murderers, the whole 'resources' argument is useless in modern times, and its use as a deterrent is questionable, to say the least.

[Blackscare]

Why?

Like I said, a molester causes not only damage to his victim, but because he's creating people who are mentally unwell themselves, he is also hurting society. To me there are three types of crime that exist. 1. Consensual crime (total bullshit) 2. Crime against one individual (better solutions than prison or death) 3. Crimes against society (these are the tiniest minority)

Right, and killing the guy makes the child's problems go away. :rolleyes:

No, but it does prevent the guy from screwing up more kids while we put this one through therapy to cope with what happened.

Let's kill them too, then. Also, let's kill you, because I can make a baseless value judgment that you are a 'waste of resources'.

Maybe I should clarify, children who suffer this kind of abuse who DO NOT receive the emotional help they need may go on to molest kids. A child who's committed no wrong (and furthermore, is still malleable enough to be helped) SHOULD be helped because the harmful effects can be reversed.

Strange. We let those with mental illness off the hook, but, as people don't have free will, surely we have no right to kill a murderer or rapist either? Surely it would be more humane to kill the former than try to cure them? Surely we are NOOOSTRADAMUS! and can make judgments about whether or not people can be cured right after they commit a crime?

I don't believe people don't have free will, that's another debate. Lets avoid taking debatable philosophical stances that suit individual tastes in discussions of concrete practicality.

I'm not for killing all people with mental illness at all. But it's true enough that rehabilitating people is hit or miss, and that's acceptable for things like bipolarity, eating poop, or any other sign of mental illness one may develop. People have a right to live regardless of whether or not they can be cured of whatever plagues them. Except in the case when a person who is otherwise in touch with reality rapes a child or kills repeatedly for fun. In that case the failure of therapy is not an acceptable chance to take if the person is to be released back into society. One could argue for a lifetime stay at a psych ward but that to me is similar to jail in such a situation.


Rabbis? :D

lol spell check got me

Murderers have no free will. In that case, surely we should kill everybody in the society around them? Also their parents, wives and husbands, siblings, teachers...? The death penalty accomplishes nothing. Why does an offender’s fully determined choice require retribution, as opposed to non-punitive incarceration and reformation? What’s the argument that establishes the goodness of the offender’s suffering?

I'll ignore the free will remarks since they're irrelevant. I'll address what is in bold.

The death penalty works for removing people known to be prone to killing and raping from the world. So yes, it does accomplish something. I would mention my argument that it isn't to be used as a deterrent, but you mentioned that below and I'll get to it.

Also, no one said anything about the goodness of suffering. That's not the point. The death penalty has nothing to do with suffering or punishment. It has everything to do with utility and protecting society from a small segment of people who cannot coexist peacefully with others and whose crimes are of a nature that deprive people of their lives or breed further violence and mental trauma.

More importantly, it protects people from a society that can make arbitrary judgment calls and slap people in jails (even in a 'just' society it's a slippery slope from putting harmful people away to throwing just anyone into a university of crime). Also, as the somewhat recent story of a homeless man who robbed a bank for $100 to continue rehab and promptly turned himself in only to be given 15 years in prison shows, it's easy to abuse the power to lock people up. People give more pause for thought and thorough investigation before deciding upon the death penalty. With a society with only the death penalty (excluding punishments like painting a fence or cleaning up trash in return for the forgiveness and continued acceptance of an individual in a voluntary association or community) it would be hard to abuse the power to sentence lest public opinion swing violently against whoever was handing them out.


More importantly, that's irrelevant. Do guilty rapists deserve to die? No, nobody does. It is not necessary to protect ourselves from murderers, the whole 'resources' argument is useless in modern times, and its use as a deterrent is questionable, to say the least.

Here you go again, attributing moralistic values that don't exist to things I say. The use of the word 'deserve' is a prime example. Did I say that I supported smiting people? Smiting is what gods did back in the day to people who supposedly 'deserved' a good cosmic ass kicking.

It seems your argument is that no one should be able to kill another human being because of his actions. The problem is, you're using that as fact and building an argument around it rather than justifying it. There's no universal right to life that's established as an impenetrable philosophical law. My argument that it is right to kill another human being is one based in a cold analysis of the situation at hand, taking into account the dangers incarceration poses to a free society and the fact that unlike most 'criminals', molesters and serial killers (or serial rapists) have pathology at the base of their crimes. Since you may or may not ever cure someone of a compulsion, and their compulsion is one that creates intense problems for others that may never be fixed (or will never be fixed for the victims of serial killers), it cannot come to pass that someone like this can be allowed to roam free again.

People who molest kids often do it with the idea that the child will not remember when it is older, or tell anyone at the time that it happens. Therefor, there is no deterrent. Serial killers often want to be captured, this is evident in the profiles of many famous killers. Serial rapists often drug victims or rely on the domination they have over their victims to keep them from talking. So I harbor no illusions about deterrents.

In this situation the rights of everyone to be safe, not to die, and to keep their hymens intact so long as they see fit are more important than the individual's right to life, because he is someone who poses a threat to everyone Else's rights. In the same sense that a government cannot be allowed to exist that interferes with basic rights of it's citizens, an individual cannot either.


*filler text*

[Blackscare]

This means that killing a criminal, however abhorrent their actions, is not a solution to underlying problems.

Except that since pedophiles cause the trauma that creates more pedophiles, it is a solution to underlying problems for any future victims.

[spartan]

Except that since pedophiles cause the trauma that creates more pedophiles, it is a solution to underlying problems for any future victims.

That is actually a popular myth reinforced by the gutter press's sensationalist stories aimed at whipping up vigilante mobs against paedophiles.

Studies have shown that the victims of child molestation are unlikely to become child molesters themselves in the future.

In a minority of cases the abused may have gone on to become the abuser but the numbers are too insignificant to prove the 'cycle of abuse' theory.

[Rascolnikova]

That is actually a popular myth reinforced by the gutter press's sensationalist stories aimed at whipping up vigilante mobs against paedophiles.

Studies have shown that the victims of child molestation are unlikely to become child molesters themselves in the future.

In a minority of cases the abused may have gone on to become the abuser but the numbers are too insignificant to prove the 'cycle of abuse' theory.

Really?

I believe that depends on your reading of the "cycle of abuse" theory. What I've read said a high percentage of child molesters had been abused, compared to the general population--the number I remember is 70%, though that was a long time ago and I don't have a reference. This can be the case when only a very small percentage of those who have been abused go on to repeat the process.

[spartan]

Really?

I believe that depends on your reading of the "cycle of abuse" theory. What I've read said a high percentage of child molesters had been abused, compared to the general population--the number I remember is 70%, though that was a long time ago and I don't have a reference. This can be the case when only a very small percentage of those who have been abused go on to repeat the process.

It is now believed that brain defects could be the cause of paedophilia:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7006628.stm

One expert has even argued for antischizophrenic drugs to be used on those with paedophilia because the drugs work on the same area of the brain where the defects believed to be causing paedophilia in known paedophiles are thought to be.

The experience of sexual abuse as a child was previously thought to be one of the major causes of someone becoming a paedophile in the future, but research has shown that the vast majority of sexually abused children do not become paedophiles or child molesters when older, nor do the vast majority of paedophiles and child molesters report being sexually abused themselves as children.

Therefore the 'cycle of abuse' theory is largely becoming redundant as a way of explaining why paedophilia develops in some people and child molestation potentially results.

Also of intrest is some people with brain tumours in the region of the brain which some people believe cause paedophilia if damaged, have had paedophilic fantasies (when they didn't have them before the tumour) and some have even molested children. However, once the tumour was removed the paedophilia which came about from the tumour disappeared!

http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2008/04/22/pedophilia-cure-for-some/

[stalinspenis]

How young do you have to be to be considered a child? I read that in many countries the age of consent is 14, some are 16, some are even as low as 12. Here in the u.s. its 18. Like that Dave Chappelle stand up when he was talking about that R. Kelly sex tape with a 15 year old, he said "How old is 15 really?"

To be honest, if you're fucking anyone below 14 you might want to get some help. Even if it's consentual I don't think that children that young understand what they're getting into.

Remember that back in the day (ancient times) girls were getting married and having kids at 15.

[Black Dagger]

Remember that back in the day (ancient times) girls were getting married and having kids at 15.

They still are! Child marriage has not left human civilisation just yet.

[Rascolnikova]

haha. . . when I was 13, I lived with the maori family my oldest sister had married into, and whenever I complained about anything, the answer was always, "you know, a lot of places in the world a girl your age would be married and running her own household by now. . . trouble with you is you don't have enough responsibility."

they were awesome. :)

[Rosa Provokateur]

Vigilante justice is inherently unjust.
Would you rather we leave things to police? Communities can handle themselves, nothing unjust about that.

[Chapter 24]

Well despite what the bourgeois media propagates, paedophilia is not a matter of some loner nutjob with a sick urge to harm children sexually. It's quite obvious that paedophiles have a sexual interest in children. My view on it is, if children really could have consenual sex with an older adult then that would be fine. Problem is, they don't have enough knowledge on the subject to be able to have sexual consent - which is why I believe while paedophiles should not have anything taken against them simply for being paedophiles (having sexual thoughts), coercive actions made against children on their part (such as molestation, rape, child pornography, etc.) should be prohibited. And when action is taken against them as a group, it should be done in a humane matter - i.e., none of these "chemical castration" techniques that have been used in the past.

[Black Dagger]

Would you rather we leave things to police?

Of course not.

Ask loaded questions much?



Communities can handle themselves, nothing unjust about that.Haha, ok.

I suppose by 'handle' you mean lynch pedophiles right? I mean, i'm not sure what else could be meant by 'vigilante justice' :rolleyes:

Of course communities can 'handle themselves' - but despite your assertion there is nothing inherently just or unjust about 'community handled' justice. There is however something inherently unjust about 'vigilante justice' - it's 'vigilante justice' not 'justice' for a reason.

Stop uncritically conflating community justice strategies with 'vigilante justice' - there are non-coercive, non-violent alternatives to lynching pedophiles that have already been mentioned in this thread. I mean, where is the justice in that? Could you please explain that one? Justice usually involves at least some kind of pretension of fair arbitration, 'vigilante justice' implies no judicial fairness - no community judiciary to speak of just an individual or mob acting on anger or revenge. You say there's nothing wrong with communities handling justice themselves and i agree in principal but interpersonal violence cannot be a stand-in for a 'community judicary'.

[CommieCat]

I think the moral outrage & pedophilephobia is questionable for a number of reasons.

Firstly, we simply can't control what sexual feelings people have, whether your attracted to an opposite member of your sex, attracted to member's of your sex, or...children. Attempts to demonize people who do hold certain sexual attractions has never worked (did it work for homosexuals?!), then why should it do so for pedophiles?

However, what we can control is our responses to our sexual urges, which is why pedophiles who DO act on those desires CAN be held culpable for their actions. However, I think that (punishing someone for their actions) is different from punishing/attacking someone for their desires/sexuality.

That means that instead of pedophiles just been thrown in prison, they should receive the appropriate therapy & counseling & cognitive behavioral therapy.

Secondly, I think the vigilante-like responses & moral outrage has more to do with the desire to keep kids in line with old-fashioned values than ever protecting them. & related to the first point, its worrying if one sexuality is seen as 'perverted' and punishable that another sexuality should also be seen as 'decadent.' I just don't think that anyone having a sexual fantasy, whatever it may include, should be punished or demonized over that. Its walking into dangerous puritanical grounds...

Thirdly, as BD has argued really well, this sort of moral panic RE pedophiles leads to vigilante justice-like mentality. A mob mentality where the accused is guilty before they are tried. Obviously such a view is antithetical to justice & the concept of due process. People in their desires to hypothetically eliminate courts have forgotten that many aspects of the modern justice system ARE good practices and ones that (I hope!) should continue. That includes the burden of proof being on the accuser & a beyond reasonable doubt approach which errs on the side which benefits the accused.

[eisidisirock]

I hate it. I think that all pedophiles should get arrested but also get help.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Of course not.


Stop uncritically conflating community justice strategies with 'vigilante justice' - there are non-coercive, non-violent alternatives to lynching pedophiles that have already been mentioned in this thread. I mean, where is the justice in that? Could you please explain that one? Justice usually involves at least some kind of pretension of fair arbitration, 'vigilante justice' implies no judicial fairness - no community judiciary to speak of just an individual or mob acting on anger or revenge. You say there's nothing with communities handling justice themselves and i agree in principal but interpersonal violence cannot be a stand-in for a 'community judicary'.
Now we're talking. You're the only other person I've seen advocate non-violence.

[Mujer Libre]

Now we're talking. You're the only other person I've seen advocate non-violence.

I think that depends what you mean by non-violence. I think in this case BD is saying that violence is an inappropriate and ineffective way of meting out justice. What it essentially amounts to is revenge- dictated by emotion and not reason. It think most reasonable members of this board would agree with that perspective, even on such an emotionally charged issue as child abuse.

Non-violence in a general sense is a different kettle of fish, especially if it excludes violence as a form of self-defence, without which a revolution could not possibly be successful, bearing in mind that the state is an institution defined by violence (monopoly over the 'legitimate' use of force).

[Black Dagger]

Now we're talking. You're the only other person I've seen advocate non-violence.

Like ML said, i'm not actually advocating 'non-violence' as a general principal but was talking in the context of 'justice' in a communist society.