Mark Taylor equates internet porn with videogames and sexual predators.

Video here.

I thought this was pretty amusing. Apparently violent (and pornographic!) videogames are as bad as internet porn and online predators. I had no idea!!

How ya doing, buddy?

Isn't the death penalty for repeat child molestors a little extreme? Besides that I don't think it'll really cut down on pedos touching kids.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Eleo

Isn't the death penalty for repeat child molestors a little extreme? Besides that I don't think it'll really cut down on pedos touching kids.

Yeah, I have a problem with that part too. I can't get my head around the "repeat" part.
How many times does a child have to be raped before we do something about it?

No, murdering pedophiles won't solve the problem of future pedophiles, but it's sure as hell better than wasting the society's collective time and money on investigations, trials, prison and counseling.

video games: lol

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I think by "repeat", they're refering to people who've done it to several different kids. Molesting one kid multiple times can be different since there's only one victim. People who've done it to several kids show an obvious disregard for other people's health (or whatever), and they're more likely to molest again than not. Those who'd preyed on a single victim should (IMO) be given a second chance.

Creating a death penalty insures that they won't molest anyone again and it's a pretty good deterant. It's not going to eliminate it, but it certainly should make more pedos think about what they're doing.

It's not THAT hard to monitor what you're kids find online, either. If you're worried about your 9-year-old seeing porn or talking to old perverts, don't put a computer in their room. (Like it is in that vid.) Put it in a more family-oriented area.

Same goes for video games. Any half-way attentive parent would watch what their kids are seeing and playing anyway. Not to mention that most kids with the lack of sense to become violent shits are fucked up before they start playing games.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I dunno, I have a bit of sympathy for pedos. I'm not saying it's okay that they molest little kids, but they've got what could be an incurable sexual desire that they have to spend their lives unable to act on.

Killing them off isn't really a valid solution to me. Couldn't they just as easily be castrated? Yeah, that's extreme, but you have to admit that it's less extreme and just as effective as death. In fact my guess is - and I have nothing to support this but I believe that it's true - is that castration is more frightening a fate than death is.

Originally Posted by neus

No, murdering pedophiles won't solve the problem of future pedophiles, but it's sure as hell better than wasting the society's collective time and money on investigations, trials, prison and counseling.

We should definitely just execute everyone who is a burden to society. Because it costs less.

I was speaking idiomatically.

It won't solve mental issues but it will severely cut down on the sexual desire in pedos to molest kids. The mental issues can be dealt with each offense prior to and following castration.

I can't see it being possible to make a pedo stop liking kids. That would be like trying to cure homosexuality or some dumb shit. The best you can do is try to help them control themselves. After that it's up to them if they want to break the law or not, right?

My idea was more so an example of how you can be less extreme and just as effective as death if you try to be. Obviously death doesn't really solve the mental issues either besides causing the offender's brain to cease functioning.

Is this thread even on topic.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Eleo

I dunno, I have a bit of sympathy for pedos. I'm not saying it's okay that they molest little kids, but they've got what could be an incurable sexual desire that they have to spend their lives unable to act on.

And, so, what - we ought to allow them to rape children with 1 year in prison per child raped? Or castrate them after an offense? Do you believe the only way to harm a child is by one's genitals?
As a society, we've already chosen to punish the criminals instead of curing the causes of their actions. I'm arguing that such a course of action ought to be taken to its next logical step - tougher punishment. An in-between policy of inadequate punishment will not only fail to remove the crime's causes, it will also encourage repeat offenders. If a policy is to be followed, it must be followed completely. Either we hug pedoes or execute them on sight. Anything in between is going to do more harm than good.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by neus

And, so, what - we ought to allow them to rape children with 1 year in prison per child raped? Or castrate them after an offense?

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I never said anything like that.

Originally Posted by neus

Do you believe the only way to harm a child is by one's genitals?

No, but there's a point where it can't really be considered as a true sexual crime and is just raw violence. If I punch a kid in the nose it doesn't really count as molestation.

Originally Posted by neus

Either we hug pedoes or execute them on sight. Anything in between is going to do more harm than good.

What kind of logic dictates that we have to operate upon one of two extremes? There's nothing to support this type of philosophy as being rational.

Crime is going to go down unless this is Minority Report and you can predict it before it happens. I don't particularly see child molestation rampant, unpunished, and out of control. People always want to strive toward the ideal of no-crime-at-all and you just can't control people to that extent. Yes, it would be ideal that another child never got molested, ever. Too bad that's not going to happen. That said, it's true that having harsher punishments might cut down on a crime, but if you're going to make harsher punishments for one crime that isn't out of control as it is, you might as well do it for all crimes, just because it cuts down. Your line of thinking suggests death penalty should be given people who litter just because it might reduce the amount of litter. But hopefully you can see the absurdity of such a harsh punishment for such a small crime.

Molesting kids is not the equivalent of dropping cigarette butts on the sidewalk, but it's arguably not the equivalent of pre-meditated murder either. I bet the victims themselves would very rarely ever want death for the person who molested them.

Oh, and please don't group general pedophiles and child molestors into one group. There are plenty of people even in their teens downloading lolicon hentai and not thinking about running out and raping a a pre-pubscent minor.

Double Post:
Withdrawing from this debate. I keep forgetting that I hate involving myself in PP discussions because almost everyone disagrees with my philosophies. I think.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

You could always get Sarah in here to back you up.

How ya doing, buddy?

:lolsign: the classical excuse. During the Dawson killing, Bloque Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe was already blaming violence on TV (and probably video games) for causing the killing.

I think that people are forgetting an imporant point: the child's, er, familial milieu. If parents are too violent (or too little caring), it's going to mess him!

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by neus

And, so, what - we ought to allow them to rape children with 1 year in prison per child raped? Or castrate them after an offense? Do you believe the only way to harm a child is by one's genitals?
As a society, we've already chosen to punish the criminals instead of curing the causes of their actions. I'm arguing that such a course of action ought to be taken to its next logical step - tougher punishment. An in-between policy of inadequate punishment will not only fail to remove the crime's causes, it will also encourage repeat offenders. If a policy is to be followed, it must be followed completely. Either we hug pedoes or execute them on sight. Anything in between is going to do more harm than good.

Tougher punishment can only go to the point where the death penalty is punishment for everything--I do not feel that the 'next logical step' is tougher punishment, as it is no road to resolution of the issue. You say that the benefit of execution for child molestation and similar pedophilic acts comes in the fact that it will save time and money spent on investigations, trials, jail time, and counseling. Should not the goal of punishment of child molestation be to reduce the thing itself and not reduce the costs involved?
The absolute punishment of execution for child molestation is only an end to an individual case, not the whole of them. It will not, over time, solve the issue of child molestation.

As for the video game issue, I laughed a bit. I have no issue with keeping violent games out of the hands of kids, but I only wish that politicians wouldn't act as if those games are a cancer which is slowly invading the minds of all human beings. The argument that they should be kept out of the hands of children is fairly valid, but no group of game developers or publisher (that I know of) consciously tries to sell their games to children. If children are interested in those violent games, it is surely not because marketing has made them interested.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

You could always get Sarah in here to back you up.

Yeah and everyone will just automatically discredit her because she's actually a pedophile. It's pretty easy just to crucify pedophiles because everyone does it and there are very few people who would even try to side with them. Even I think Sarah is weird as hell (and I like old men), but as long as he isn't actually molesting kids then I don't have a problem with him.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I don't know anything about him wanting to change age limits, so I really have nothing to say about that.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

I'm not saying it's okay that they molest little kids, but they've got what could be an incurable sexual desire that they have to spend their lives unable to act on.

Child Molestation isn't the product of a healthy sexual desire, though. It's not like we're talking about physically mature 16 year olds, we're talking about kids that are, in these cases, infants and prepubescents. Sure, there is a physical erotic component but generally it stems from their need for control or power. Children are physically inferior and their minds are still developing which means that they're easily manipulated and controlled.

It's a perversion, in the true sense of the word.

In a lot of cases of homosexual rape among adults, the perpetrators aren't homosexual, it's an act of dominance-- an expression of power and control over someone else. This is the same idea at play.

Note: I'm not saying homosexuality is perverse nor am I saying homosexuals are power hungry control freaks. But that sometimes people commit acts, homosexual in nature, as an expression of dominance.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Doesn't any fetish have some type of psychological counterpart, conscious or subconscious? Even a "normal" fetish like, I don't know, Asian women, could potentially be unhealthy in some kind of way.

Are you trying to suggest that all molestation is just a product of poor psychological health? For that you would have to also say that pedophilia itself is. If it's not then I one can just as easily claim that child molestation can also be the result of a a build up of sexual desire. Come on, we're talking about going sexually unsatisfied for what could be decades. In such a time, with poor self-control and the right factors, anyone desiring to have sex with a pre-pubescent might attempt it, ignoring the laws and the health of their victim. Theoretically then it's quite possible that the molestation has little or nothing to do with a need for dominance, control, or power. I couldn't agree with the notion that all cases of pedophilia are perversion.

Pre-pubescent children are as much of potential sexual objects as anyone or anything else. In a pedophile's head, the desire most likely precedes the taboo. The pedophile wants the child as a lover, but taboos as well as empathy and logic (hopefully) go against his or her desire.

Like I said before, it's easy to take the stance of "pedophiles are sickos" because pedophilia is still incredibly taboo and very few people will disagree with you. It's easy to reject my type of thinking and just claim all pedophiles are fucked up and leave it at that, just because it's the majority opinion. Nobody wants to give sympathy to anyone who wants to have sex with these innocent, virgin children who only understand certain dimensions of love and might have absolutely no understanding of sex. I'm just trying to be as rational as possible here... Even if people don't want to hear it or believe it.

FELIPE NO

I would be willing to accept your postulation were it that it didn't go against every bit of established research that I'm aware of.

Children that are prepubescent are referred to as prepubescent for a reason. They don't emit the same pheromones that maturated humans do. I cannot find a comprehensible reason, from a biological standpoint, why anyone would develope or have an innate attraction to children. However, there is a psychological explanation for that attraction and-- unless you consider the willingness to subject children to satisfying your own personal desires, no matter the cost to them, acceptable behavior-- it is a pathology. It's a simple question of plausibility, yeah, you may not want to hear it; but that doesn't stop it from being any less viable.

There's really no beating around the bush about it. Of course, as one who has a certain level of respect for the scientific method, I'm willing to accept the fact that I am wrong. Then comes the moral dilemma, even if by some odd occurence that these people are found to be truly incapable of controlling their attraction, does that necessarily predicate that they should be allowed to satisfy this attraction.

Children aren't fully capable of understanding the rammifications of sexual relationships, hell, most adults can't even claim that. It would seem to me illogical and, ultimately, irresponsible to allow such acts to be committed knowing-- having observed the severe side-effects that it can have. And for what? So that some man or woman can have some carnal desire fulfilled? Taking it a step further, how would the relationship progress? I doubt the child would be able to return the love the adult is supposedly giving them, unless of course it turns into some sort of weird parental situation-- which, again has serious psychological reprocussions for the child.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

Children that are prepubescent are referred to as prepubescent for a reason. They don't emit the same pheromones that maturated humans do.

This isn't the jungle. Since when do pheromones come into play heavily when it comes to human attraction? One can see a photograph of a person and have a strong sexual desire toward that person. And even considering his or her utter incapability of being with that person, that doesn't end their desire. One can also be attracted to a person who doesn't or wouldn't be attracted to him or her. So what?

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

I cannot find a comprehensible reason, from a biological standpoint, why anyone would develope or have an innate attraction to children.

Despite studies on the subject no one can really find a solid pattern between biology/psychology and sexual orientation. I'd like to see pedophilia successfully treated some day, like psychologists have successfully treated homosexuality.

Oh wait.

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

Children aren't fully capable of understanding the rammifications of sexual relationships, hell, most adults can't even claim that. It would seem to me illogical and, ultimately, irresponsible to allow such acts to be committed knowing-- having observed the severe side-effects that it can have. And for what? So that some man or woman can have some carnal desire fulfilled? Taking it a step further, how would the relationship progress? I doubt the child would be able to return the love the adult is supposedly giving them, unless of course it turns into some sort of weird parental situation-- which, again has serious psychological reprocussions for the child.

Yeah, I already said all this. But you can't try to equate the desire to commit an act as the same as committing an act, or the entire population is made up of criminals.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

So what?

So it means that the pre-pubescant aren't physically developed to be sexual objects. Thus meaning that since there is no biological function which generates attraction, that any attraction to them is a perversion.

Quote:

Despite studies on the subject no one can really find a solid pattern between biology/psychology and sexual orientation.

Pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation, you clod, it's a preference. If one prefers to have sex with children that's an irrefutable deviancy.

Quote:

Yeah, I already said all this. But you can't try to equate the desire to commit an act as the same as committing an act, or the entire population is made up of criminals.

And what you're not getting is that what people are talking about are pederasts and molestors, not merely pedophiles. You're trying to make an emotional appeal where there is no need for one. It'd be different if we were talking about persecuting pedophiles that haven't actually harmed any children, but that isn't the subject.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

So it means that the pre-pubescant aren't physically developed to be sexual objects. Thus meaning that since there is no biological function which generates attraction, that any attraction to them is a perversion.

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense. Since when does something have to look a certain way or be at a certain stage in development to be attractive? There's nothing that supports that notion.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation, you clod, it's a preference. If one prefers to have sex with children that's an irrefutable deviancy.

Sexual preference is pretty much synonymous with orientation. Most people often use the two terms interchangeably, do they not? If you look up either term you pretty much the same definition.

sexual orientation
sexual preference

And in fact the way you used the term would appear to be incorrect based on the definition of the word. Even wiki disagrees.

You can take it up wit da dictionary if you want, tho.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

And what you're not getting is that what people are talking about are pederasts and molestors, not merely pedophiles. You're trying to make an emotional appeal where there is no need for one. It'd be different if we were talking about persecuting pedophiles that haven't actually harmed any children, but that isn't the subject.

Make an emotional appeal? When? I did say that I have sympathy for a pedo, but only because I'm trying my best to be reasonable in my outlook toward them. I went over this like three times in this thread. All I said is that I didn't think they deserved the death penalty. I am not trying to imply that molestation is okay or that they don't deserve to be punished. This entire debate stemmed from that. I know exactly what people are talking about in this thread.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.