This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
gamerunknown
Ryja posted
this link
in another
thread
(haven't clicked through, just judging from Ryja's commentary). I hope it is an appropriate topic for discussion.
Anyway, I pretty much agree with Pezz. Every time I hear about things like this I count myself as blessed that I am a white heterosexual male, living in a developed country with great quality of life outcomes and thus have it pretty much the easiest on the planet.
I immediately feel empathy for the victims, who were the completely innocent party and did not deserve to have such horrible acts committed to them.
However, societies approach to homosexuality should be instructive to our approach to other abnormal sexual behaviours (in a strictly statistical sense). We've learnt two things: people generally don't tend to want to be attracted to the people they are. There are availability heuristics, but I think someone put it as "sure, I choose to get bullied and harassed every day of my life" - since paedophilia is treated with more revulsion than homosexuality, we should come to similar conclusions for paedophilia. Another thing we've learnt from the social approach to homosexuality is that aversion therapy is not effective and serves more as a punitive measure.
So what are our options? I think the only two reasonable ones are chemical castration and isolation from children or images of children. As with my approach to psychopathy, it revokes two very important legal concepts: innocent until proven guilty and that all men are born equal. I can't deny that this is a great impingement on individual liberty and would be a simple way for the government to shoehorn in more repressive legislation. I can't think of any alternative that would work as an adequate preventative measure.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
You may not be able to control being attracted to someone, but you can control what you do about it. If a man rapes the woman next door, the excuse "I couldn't help being attracted to her," doesn't really hold water. Being attracted to someone =/= the right to rape them. If someone is only attracted to certain types of women, and they can't find a woman like that who is attracted back to them, then they don't suddenly have the right to force the issue.
If two consenting adults are attracted to each other, and other people have an issue because they don't think two people of different races or religions, or of the same gender, should be attracted to each other, then that is when such an argument means anything. If you're not harming anyone, then they really don't have a right to comment. But when your acting on your attractions directly harms another individual, then it goes beyond the realm of personal preference and becomes a crime.
Personally, I still find it so wrong that people equate pedophilia with homosexuality, based on the nominal connection that in both cases people are predisposed to be attracted to certain people, and make no choice about it. It's like saying that if you're predisposed to liking chocolate, you can go steal a cake from someone else. If you are born with a condition where you have really sensitive ears, and as a result you find certain types of music irritating, you don't have the right to destroy the stereo equipment of people who play it. If you, for some reason, get very turned on by the color blue, that doesn't automatically mean that if a woman walks by in a blue dress that you've some excuse to attack her.
Stop equating the uncontrollable nature of attraction with the lack of responsibility to not harm other people. They do not equate, and one does not excuse the other. If, as people who are arguing for a more understanding treatment of pedophiles are asserting, they have the ability to know that what they want is wrong, and that many curb the impulse, then it means that those who offend have made a choice and should be punished accordingly. If the nature of the disorder is such that they have no control, then it's not a punishment but a preventative measure to treat the disorder itself with institutionalization, the same as it would be if someone was diagnosed with a disorder that resulted in them being uncontrollably violent.
But Gamer's repeated comparison between pedophiles who rape children, and homosexuals who don't assault anybody, is starting to grate, because it's been addressed as a poor comparison before, and he has admitted that it's a leftover tendency of his upbringing and not really the same because one is victimless. And yet, he keeps using the analogy.
Post by
Azazel
@ElhonnaDS
The problem is, people like the guy in the article are almost always mentally ill in some way. Some of them probably don't even regret it afterwards. It's not something they can control. That doesn't make them innocent, obviously, but crazy people aren't responsible in the same way as a perfectly sane robber/mugger or whatever. I think he should go to a mental institution rather than prison.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Azazel- I am not saying whether they need to be in prison or in a mental institution- I just know that it has to be one or the other, and not roaming free to do it again. My post was more directly in response to yet another comparison of pedophilia and homosexuality.
Post by
Azazel
@Azazel- I am not saying whether they need to be in prison or in a mental institution- I just know that it has to be one or the other, and not roaming free to do it again.
Nono, that wasn't what I meant lol. I meant that if he has to go somewhere, it should be a mental institution. My post was more directly in response to yet another comparison of pedophilia and homosexuality.
You can compare those? D:
Post by
ElhonnaDS
My post was more directly in response to yet another comparison of pedophilia and homosexuality.
You can compare those? D:
However, societies approach to homosexuality should be instructive to our approach to other abnormal sexual behaviours (in a strictly statistical sense). We've learnt two things: people generally don't tend to want to be attracted to the people they are. There are availability heuristics, but I think someone put it as "sure, I choose to get bullied and harassed every day of my life" - since paedophilia is treated with more revulsion than homosexuality, we should come to similar conclusions for paedophilia. Another thing we've learnt from the social approach to homosexuality is that aversion therapy is not effective and serves more as a punitive measure.
That's what inspired my comment.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
This is pretty sickening.
Post by
gamerunknown
It's like saying that if you're predisposed to liking chocolate, you can go steal a cake from someone else.
Well, we've already learnt that telling people that they have a choice between never being sexually fulfilled or being executed/punished then they often choose sexual fulfilment, even when it is illegal or they have to harm people in order to do it (and I agree that the latter is always the case with paedophilia).
Edit: I posted about how I hated "lad" humour earlier and the edit isn't showing. Since there isn't a mod note I'm guessing it wasn't removed, just didn't post properly... Anyway, the article posted earlier about the "unilad" website has one of the founders accuse a detractor of being a lesbian, which indicates ignorance rather than satire to me. I'd far rather be entertained by Richard Herring, Stewart Lee or Rowan Atkinson.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
It's like saying that if you're predisposed to liking chocolate, you can go steal a cake from someone else.
Well, we've already learnt that telling people that they have a choice between never being sexually fulfilled or being executed/punished then they often choose sexual fulfilment, even when it is illegal or they have to harm people in order to do it (and I agree that the latter is always the case with paedophilia).
Which is exactly why it's a poor comparison. Choosing to act on your attractions, as a pedophile, always results with someone being harmed. Choosing to act on your attractions as a homosexual results in someone being harmed no more often (and, though I have no source, I though I heard percentage wise that it was less often) than acting on adult heterosexual attractions. A fairer comparison would be comparing people who can only get sexual fulfillment through violence or humiliation of their partner with pedophiles.
Post by
Gone
Ryja posted
this link
in another
thread
(haven't clicked through, just judging from Ryja's commentary). I hope it is an appropriate topic for discussion.
Anyway, I pretty much agree with Pezz. Every time I hear about things like this I count myself as blessed that I am a white heterosexual male, living in a developed country with great quality of life outcomes and thus have it pretty much the easiest on the planet.
I immediately feel empathy for the victims, who were the completely innocent party and did not deserve to have such horrible acts committed to them.
However, societies approach to homosexuality should be instructive to our approach to other abnormal sexual behaviours (in a strictly statistical sense). We've learnt two things: people generally don't tend to want to be attracted to the people they are. There are availability heuristics, but I think someone put it as "sure, I choose to get bullied and harassed every day of my life" - since paedophilia is treated with more revulsion than homosexuality, we should come to similar conclusions for paedophilia. Another thing we've learnt from the social approach to homosexuality is that aversion therapy is not effective and serves more as a punitive measure.
So what are our options? I think the only two reasonable ones are chemical castration and isolation from children or images of children. As with my approach to psychopathy, it revokes two very important legal concepts: innocent until proven guilty and that all men are born equal. I can't deny that this is a great impingement on individual liberty and would be a simple way for the government to shoehorn in more repressive legislation. I can't think of any alternative that would work as an adequate preventative measure.
I kinda disagreed with what Pezz said about it, that we have the worst solution possible. I think rather there is no good way to go about dealing with pedophiles. I think the best way that we can go about it is to just keep trying to crack down on child abuse, and thus hope that with sucsess our society will eventualy produce less abusers. Of course Im basing this on the statistics that show more often than not people with sexual atractions to children and such went through some kind of abuse or another as a child.
I do sympathize with these people believe it or not, but I also suspect that if I had children that symapthy would dry up in a second. And as much as this probably makes me sound souless, the world would probably be a better place if an entire generation of future pedophiles all died at birth. I mean I know that life and society are very unfair to these people, but frankly we live in an unfair world and we are all just trying to do the best we can.
And I still dont get the cockroach..
Post by
MyTie
My post was more directly in response to yet another comparison of pedophilia and homosexuality.
They are comparable. Just as heterosexuality and pedophilia are both sexual urges, homosexuality and pedophilia are both sexual urges. The reason that homosexuality and pedophilia is compared is that many insist that homosexuality is NOT a choice, and that sexuality is innate. Then the same person will turn around and condemn taboo forms of sexuality, such as pedophilia or bestiality, as if the person had a choice. I think the comparison of bestiality and pedophilia as a sexual urge have as much equivocation to heterosexuality as it does homosexuality. But I can still see that if you are going to insist that all forms of sexuality are completely natural at birth and should be embraced, then you are going to have to accept people who are attracted to children and animals. I'm not saying accept the rape of animals and children, but accept the attraction and urges as a natural and good part of that person. As for me, I don't think homosexuality should be accepted, and further reject the insistence that homosexuality is innate. Therefore, my rejection of pedophilia and bestiality is consistent with my beliefs. I find it very hypocritical when people are not consistent with their logic and beliefs. I find it shallow when people approve of a logical train of thought when it is socially accepted, and even expected, that they do so, but then immediately reject the same logical train of thought when it leads to a social taboo. I think it is spineless. I, for one, decide based on evidence what I believe is right and wrong, and then stick with it when social pressure is against me. Society is fickle anyway. In no time at all most people will be agreeing with me when they disagreed and disagreeing where they agreed.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I have, I believe, made it pretty clear that my distinction is not in whether it is innate or not, but in whether that excuses you from harming other people or causing suffering. In that, I feel I've been fairly consistent.
Post by
MyTie
I have, I believe, made it pretty clear that my distinction is not in whether it is innate or not, but in whether that excuses you from harming other people or causing suffering. In that, I feel I've been fairly consistent.
Agreed!
Post by
gamerunknown
Im basing this on the statistics that show more often than not people with sexual atractions to children and such went through some kind of abuse or another as a child
I think similar environmental reasoning was used for homosexuality and autism. With homosexuality I think it was either abuse or childhood trauma (and the Freudian school claimed anal fixation), with autism poor parenting styles. In all cases I don't think the correlation holds strongly enough to give good merit, but I may be mistaken.
Edit:
I post to a facebook group about gay marriage and I always see arguments like this:
If God is againist gay's he/she wouldn't create themin the first place
Which I can't help but think is a terrible argument.
Post by
Azazel
http://christwire.org/2012/02/gay-sneeze-disease-have-you-been-infected/
There's a guy I suspect is gay, but he might just be bisexual. Am I infected? D:
Post by
Dragalthor
http://christwire.org/2012/02/gay-sneeze-disease-have-you-been-infected/
There's a guy I suspect is gay, but he might just be bisexual. Am I infected? D:
For the love of all that is sacred, please tell me that this website and the person who wrote that utter piece of drivel is extracting the urine!
Post by
gamerunknown
I saw a post recently about criminal tourism, but can no longer find the post or article. Anyway, I just reflected on a consequence of it that I didn't think of immediately. It is illegal for an employer in the US to employ children without specific regulations. Since corporations are legally people, perhaps corporations engaging in these activities outside of the US will now be convicted under this new law?
Post by
MyTie
The US Supreme Court
Corporations = people
Fetuses = invasive flesh lumps
My what an upside down society I live in.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.