Support NeoGAF

[Cheerilee]

Actually, why do you think I suggested registering, monitoring, observing, and possibly medicating them?

The article posits that pedophilia may be immutable, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. If we don't have the technology yet, surely we may be able to in the future monitor brain-waves or something and identify people who are at high-risk of being pedophiles?

Once we register them, we can monitor and possibly chemically castrate them so that they can never attack a helpless child.

This is a false equivalency. The very consummation of the things that arouse an average pedophile is a rape, prima facie. The very consummation of the things that arouse an average heterosexual is not a rape, as the majority of heterosexuals are not rapists.

The very consummation of the things that arouse an average single heterosexual is a rape.

We have the technology today to identify people who are at high risk of being rapists, it's called Facebook. Track down everyone who lists themselves as "single", monitor them, and then chemically castrate them.

Not the way the pedophile sees it. He sees it as a romantic liaison, not an act of force or corruption.

From the OP

As a young boy, Paul Christiano loved the world of girls — the way they danced, how their spindly bodies tumbled in gymnastics.

In adolescence, as other boys ogled classmates, he was troubled to find himself fantasizing about 7- to 11-year-olds.

His desires remained stuck in time as he neared adulthood. Despite a stable home life in suburban Chicago, he was tortured by urges he knew could land him in prison.

"For having these feelings, I was destined to become a monster," he said. "I was terrified."

In 1999, Christiano was caught buying child pornography. Now 36, he said he has never molested a child, but after five years of state-ordered therapy, the attraction remains.

 

[KHarvey16]

How do you not see the similarity of the infringed-upon fundamental liberty interests among Manzanar, Guantanamo, and screening the population for pedophiles? How do you not see that the Executive and Judicial branches decide such infringements are necessary in certain instances? I even sketched an outline how my proposal could be adjudicated as constitutional.

If it's unconstitutional because "it would be, and clearly so", explain.

Explain? Explain how it would be against the constitution to test everyone for a condition they have no control over and then force them onto some list, track them and potentially perform irreversible medical procedures on their body against their will? Where the fuck would I even start?

Logically your justification makes no sense. Even if we just grant you the point that Guantanamo is unconstitutional, your position becomes "this unconstitutional thing can happen because this other unconstitutional thing happened". Do I have to explain why that's poor reasoning?

Your concerns have already been addressed in my replies to Zyrusticae. The "rest of your post" was already answered.

No it wasn't.

 

[Nightstick11]

The very consummation of the things that arouse an average single heterosexual is a rape.

We have the technology today to identify people who are at high risk of being rapists, it's called Facebook. Track down everyone who lists themselves as "single", monitor them, and then chemically castrate them.

Another false equivalency, and a poor attempt at a strawman.

The very consummation of the thing that arouses an average single heterosexual is consensual sex. This is not rape. The majority of heterosexuals are not rapists.

The very consummation of the thing that arouses an average pedophile is sex with a child-- it is prima facie rape.

 

[Acerac]

You keep repeating that as if you're making some kind of point, but you're either being obtuse or willfully ignoring the implications of what I said. Who said volunteer for anything?

How do we notice people who are ADHD? Sociopathic? Bipolar? Homosexual? Heterosexual? Racist? Low blood pressure? Homocidal tendencies? Suicidal?

When homosexuality is legislated against people hide that they're gay. The same would (and does) happen here with pedophiles. If you think they'd volunteer to be herded up and castrated you are a fool.

Your entire reply, while indignant and emotional, lacks any reason, and shows a lack of understanding of simple facts and definitions. Observe.

The most arrogant opening to a post I've seen this year!

 

[Cheerilee]

Another false equivalency, and a poor attempt at a strawman.

The very consummation of the thing that arouses an average single heterosexual is consensual sex. This is not rape. The majority of heterosexuals are not rapists.

The very consummation of the thing that arouses an average pedophile is sex with a child-- it is prima facie rape.

Pedophiles can't have sex without rape. Therefore you conclude that all pedophiles are potential rapists.

Heterosexuals who have failed the sex game can't have sex without rape (ignoring prostitution for a moment, since that's kind of illegal in some places as well). But somehow they're not potential rapists because you make a distinction in the reasons why they failed the sex game? Heterosexuals win the sex game most of the time, so the ones that don't win are excused for their rape (which greatly outnumbers pedo-rape) by proxy?

 

[Nightstick11]

Explain? Explain how it would be against the constitution to test everyone for a condition they have no control over and then force them onto some list, track them and potentially perform irreversible medical procedures on their body against their will? Where the fuck would I even start?

Logically your justification makes no sense. Even if we just grant you the point that Guantanamo is unconstitutional, your position becomes "this unconstitutional thing can happen because this other unconstitutional thing happened". Do I have to explain why that's poor reasoning?

Your entire reply, while indignant and emotional, lacks any reason, and shows a lack of understanding of simple facts and definitions. Observe.

(1)You didn't "grant" me the point that Guantanamo is "unconstitutional"; it is by definition constitutional, because it was not adjudicated as unconstitutional. Get this through your head: just because you feel something is unconstitutional does not make it so.

(2) In Korematsu, the Court judged as constitutional the incarceration of an entire ethnicity, plus colonial ethnicities, into concentration camps, for a condition they had no control over. As I pointed out, this was never overturned, meaning Manzanar was never adjudicated as unconstitutional. Why? I explained why. Because the "strict scrutiny" standard was applied, and it was deemed necessary. Since you clearly don't know what the strict scrutiny standard is, why don't you google it really quickly.

(3) In Guantanamo, US citizens as well as citizens of various other countries, some of which we surely have extradition treaties with, are incarcerated in foreign waters, some which have had habeas corpus denied. This was not adjudicated as unconstitutional, presumably because this passes the strict scrutiny standard. Guantanamo by DEFINITION is not unconstitutional.

(4) Those legal precedents are direct reasons I gave on why the involuntary registration and observation of a minority group in the United States could be deemed constitutional.

(5) Here, I'll even give you another one. Addington v. Texas, you can get someone involuntarily committed to a mental institution for psychiatric treatment just by using the "clear and convincing" evidence standard. That is a very low standard. All we would have to do is classify pedophilia as a mental disorder(which it already is in some jurisdictions), and boom, there we go.


I listed judicial precedents and standards of law. For the third time, explain why this is unconstitutional, or do you have anything better than "b-b-b-b-bbut I feel this is unconstitutional"?


And you keep saying "you ignored the rest of my post." I told you I addressed it, and you just said nuh-uh no you didn't. Is there anything specific you want me to answer?

 

[IHaveCandy]

Thoughts are never crimes, ever.

 

[Nightstick11]

Pedophiles can't have sex without rape. Therefore you conclude that all pedophiles are potential rapists.

Heterosexuals who have failed the sex game can't have sex without rape (ignoring prostitution for a moment, since that's kind of illegal in some places as well). But somehow they're not potential rapists because you make a distinction in the reasons why they failed the sex game? Heterosexuals win the sex game most of the time, so the ones that don't win are excused for their rape (which greatly outnumbers pedo-rape) by proxy?

You're really grasping at straws here and trying to structure my argument in a way that is creative and imaginative, but not what I actually said.

The average heterosexual, when consummating the average heterosexual desire, is not committing rape.

The average pedophile, when consummating the average pedophile desire, is committing rape prima facie.

Do you have any logically coherent way of equating the average heterosexual to the average pedophile, or are we playing the equate-the-average-pedophile-to-criminal-heteros-who-rape game?

 

[Volimar]

I'm hoping that a lot of these posts are just GAFfers not willing to say that they don't have an answer to this problem and that's why they're coming up with some of these pretty terrifying suggestions. I'd hate to think that people would really favor this kind of barbaric behavior.

From the OP

I wasn't saying that they don't see it as wrong, more that they develop romantic attachments to their victims. Even though they probably accept that sex with a child is wrong, they'd likely not see it in the same vein as forcible rape. Which is also kind of what is said in the OP.

 

[Nightstick11]

When homosexuality is legislated against people hide that they're gay. The same would (and does) happen here with pedophiles. If you think they'd volunteer to be herded up and castrated you are a fool.

As others earlier have pointed out, homosexuality is not equivalent to pedophilia at all, and to make comparisons between the two really dishonors the incredible sacrifices that the gay-and-lesbian community has made to fight for their civil rights.

 

[IHaveCandy]

Does nightstick seriously want to round up all pedophiles, regardless of innocence, and regulate them/change them forcibly?

 

[IHaveCandy]

As others earlier have pointed out, homosexuality is not equivalent to pedophilia at all, and to make comparisons between the two really dishonors the incredible sacrifices that the gay-and-lesbian community has made to fight for their civil rights.

I think you only read "homosexual" in his post and pretended you read the rest.

 

[stilgar]

Look at all the fucks I give! Just look at them!

I don't care if it is immutable or not...if that effects treatment, then so be it, but this article as a tinge of "well, this is like hetersexuality or even homosexualirty" so...ya know...we can't help it...accept it.

Sorry, but no.

Accept it ? You did read this thread with your own glasses.
It just emphasizes what we already know: it's an illness. But instead of being psychological, like a post- trauma stigma, they concluded it has more biological roots.
It could lead to new ways to treat to problem.

 

[Cheerilee]

You're really grasping at straws here and trying to structure my argument in a way that is creative and imaginative, but not what I actually said.

The average heterosexual, when consummating the average heterosexual desire, is not committing rape.

The average pedophile, when consummating the average pedophile desire, is committing rape prima facie.

Do you have any logically coherent way of equating the average heterosexual to the average pedophile, or are we playing the equate-the-average-pedophile-to-criminal-heteros-who-rape game?

I didn't equate pedophiles to criminal heteros (that would slant the average massively in favor of pedophiles), I equated them to anyone who marks their facebook status as "single".

You're trying to draw a correlation between rape and sexual orientation, violating basic freedoms, and ignoring more effective (yet still deplorable) ways of profiling.

 

[Volimar]

As others earlier have pointed out, homosexuality is not equivalent to pedophilia at all, and to make comparisons between the two really dishonors the incredible sacrifices that the gay-and-lesbian community has made to fight for their civil rights.

No one is saying it's equivalent, but for many years, and indeed in some parts of the world even today, it carried the same stigma and caused a lot of people to hide their sexual identities. It's silly to think that many pedophiles wouldn't do the same in that kind of environment. While I'm sure a few probably would sign up to be looked after and chemically castrated, it'd probably keep most pedophiles underground instead of seeking help. And honestly, that's the last thing we should want to happen.

 

[oneils]

Does nightstick seriously want to round up all pedophiles, regardless of innocence, and regulate them/change them forcibly?

I don't want put words in his mouth, but I think he is explaining how they could be monitored when not acting on their desires and then perhaps forced to undergo certain changes or therapies after they act on their desires.

Edit: his policy options, though, are probably more extreme than some would like. I think it might have an adverse affect by making pedophiles more likely to hide and repress their urges which may actually increase the number/rate of crime.

I think another option could be to provide hormonal therapies and counselling to those who come forward voluntarily and to provide the same therapies to offenders, on top of segregation.

I do think therapy is important. Christiano, the guy in the article, was kind of dumb. He knew he had the urges but he still went ahead and got a job working with children. Had he undergone counselling first, he may have received advice saying he should generally try not to work around children all day long.

 

[Fou-Lu]

I kind of hope it would be seen as a medical condition that is treatable, if only so it can become more common and easy for pedophiles to seek help and hopefully be prevented from hurting anyone. Or there should at least be a push towards prevention.

I always found it strange how society would rather torch mob people with problems before that person ever does anything harmful than at least attempt to help them. But this is even more emphasized with pedophiles, everyone ABHORS them.

I remember a college game of 'would you rather' where the question "Would you rather be a rapist who can't control himself and rapes adults every day or a pedophile who controls his urges and never hurts everyone?" came up. Every single person except myself chose rapist, even the girls, I was kind of flabbergasted, and they were all disgusted with me for my choice.

 

[Nightstick11]

I think you only read "homosexual" in his post and pretended you read the rest.

I think you didn't realize I'm pointing out that there is no similarity between homosexuality and pedophilia.

I didn't equate pedophiles to criminal heteros (that would slant the average massively in favor of pedophiles), I equated them to anyone who marks their facebook status as "single".

You're trying to draw a correlation between rape and sexual orientation, violating basic freedoms, and ignoring more effective (yet still deplorable) ways of profiling.

Which leads directly again to my second, subsidiary point that I stated.

If the average, single heterosexual acted on their sexual fantasies, it would not be a crime.

If the average pedophile acted on their sexual fantasies, it would be a crime on its face.

That is a key difference, and that is why heterosexuality=homosexuality=pedophilia is a false equivalency.

No one is saying it's equivalent, but for many years, and indeed in some parts of the world even today, it carried the same stigma and caused a lot of people to hide their sexual identities. It's silly to think that many pedophiles wouldn't do the same in that kind of environment. While I'm sure a few probably would sign up to be looked after and chemically castrated, it'd probably keep most pedophiles underground instead of seeking help. And honestly, that's the last thing we should want to happen.

While it is true that homosexuality has a stigma in some parts of the world, we should all stipulate that by modern liberalism it is universally acknowledged that a gay adult male having consensual sex with another gay adult male, or a gay adult female having consensual sex with another gay adult female, is not intrinsically a crime.

For a pedophile to act on their sexual urges, it is an intrinsic crime. It is inherently criminal for a man to stick his penis into a little boy or girl. We should not tolerate this "sexual orientation"; they are more equivalent to schizophrenics, psycopaths, sociopaths, manic-depressives, etc. who are a potential danger to others. We need to set up an easy way to locate, track, and monitor them.

Also, chemical castration is not permanent; the castration effects end as soon as the subject stops being injected with chemicals. I really don't think my proposal is some kind of human violation.

 

[KHarvey16]

(1)You didn't "grant" me the point that Guantanamo is "unconstitutional"; it is by definition constitutional, because it was not adjudicated as unconstitutional. Get this through your head: just because you feel something is unconstitutional does not make it so.

Bullshit. You keep bringing it up because you think it's wrong. In fact you bringing it up has no meaning at all unless you think it should be unconstitutional.

(2) In Korematsu, the Court judged as constitutional the incarceration of an entire ethnicity, plus colonial ethnicities, into concentration camps, for a condition they had no control over. As I pointed out, this was never overturned, meaning Manzanar was never adjudicated as unconstitutional. Why? I explained why. Because the "strict scrutiny" standard was applied, and it was deemed necessary. Since you clearly don't know what the strict scrutiny standard is, why don't you google it really quickly.

Again using Korematsu v. United States to justify a point. Congrats! You go ahead and hang your hat on that one.

(3) In Guantanamo, US citizens as well as citizens of various other countries, some of which we surely have extradition treaties with, are incarcerated in foreign waters, some which have had habeas corpus denied. This was not adjudicated as unconstitutional, presumably because this passes the strict scrutiny standard. Guantanamo by DEFINITION is not unconstitutional.

See my first reply.

(4) Those legal precedents are direct reasons I gave on why the involuntary registration and observation of a minority group in the United States could be deemed constitutional.

And that's faulty reasoning. You argue as if all things are equal when they are not. "Jimmy got ice cream so that means I should too!"

(5) Here, I'll even give you another one. Addington v. Texas, you can get someone involuntarily committed to a mental institution for psychiatric treatment just by using the "clear and convincing" evidence standard. That is a very low standard. All we would have to do is classify pedophilia as a mental disorder(which it already is in some jurisdictions), and boom, there we go.

You can't even tell me how likely a pedophile is to commit rape! You started this whole conversation off on the misconception that pedophile meant child rapist. If you actually read the case, you'd notice that something simply being a mental disorder is not enough.

I listed judicial precedents and standards of law. For the third time, explain why this is unconstitutional, or do you have anything better than "b-b-b-b-bbut I feel this is unconstitutional"?

You listed some cases in the mistaken belief they offer anything approaching precedent relevant to anything we're discussing here.

You have not established what the likelihood is for a pedophile to rape or even if a pedophile believes rape is acceptable any more than anyone else. Essentially your argument is that people who want to rape other people should be monitored. This category of people is not defined or limited by sexuality. And no matter how often you'd like to ignore the issue, sexually desiring children does not automatically make a person want to commit the act of rape. I desire that nice Rolex but I don't want to commit an act of theft. Even if theft was the only possible way of acquiring that watch desiring to posses it does not mean I want to break the law by stealing it.

Further, disorders that fall under consideration for involuntary commitment are characterized this way because they prevent a person from understanding or considering the consequences of their actions. People aren't committed for desiring to murder, people are committed for desiring to murder and lacking the standard human feelings that tell us it's wrong.

And you keep saying "you ignored the rest of my post." I told you I addressed it, and you just said nuh-uh no you didn't. Is there anything specific you want me to answer?

Show how desire leads to acceptance. Why is a person who desires children incapable of finding rape appalling?

What percentage of pedophiles are rapists or want to commit rape?

 

[Nightstick11]

Bullshit. You keep bringing it up because you think it's wrong. In fact you bringing it up has no meaning at all unless you think it should be unconstitutional.

Hoo boy. This is a doozy.

It seems like the whole point of me citing Guantanamo flew over your head. I cited it as precedent how something which may be "wrong" is still constitutional or legal, but please, tell me more on how I think. I'm all ears.

Again using Korematsu v. United States to justify a point. Congrats! You go ahead and hang your hat on that one.

You don't like Korematsu, I see, I see. Does it morally outrage you? Does it make your feelings churn? I understand.

But me citing valid, standing legal precedent to justify a point I am making is wrong... how?

And that's faulty reasoning. You argue as if all things are equal when they are not. "Jimmy got ice cream so that means I should too!"

What? How does this reply even make any sense to my quote that you posted?

Let me recap.

You said rounding people up to register, monitor, and possibly temporarily castrate them is unconstitutional, and you "didn't even have to explain how."

I explained how it is constitutional.

Your response is... "you argue as if all things are equal when they are not." Do you have any more inspiring, vague generalities to share, or should we return to supporting the points we were making?

You can't even tell me how likely a pedophile is to commit rape! You started this whole conversation off on the misconception that pedophile meant child rapist. If you actually read the case, you'd notice that something simply being a mental disorder is not enough.

How would I know how likely a pedophile is to commit rape? Am I some kind of mind-reader? Should I tell you my "feelings" on it? I only comment on things I know, which I can back up. I suggest you do the same. Fact: 100% of pedophiles who act on their sexual fantasies are rapists. By statutory definition.

Did you understand the case? Because you didn't. Here, I'll help.

Addison's mother tried to get him confined to a mental hospital for an indefinite period of time.

Addison argued that this amounted to imprisonment, and was a violation of due process because he didn't get the chance to properly get a hearing on his freedom. He argued that involuntary confinement was such a fundamental liberty right that the court should have applied the highest standard of evidence-- that's the "proof beyond reasonable doubt" standard.

Court disagreed. Court weighed an individual's right to freedom with, I direct quote: "the state's interests in providing care to its citizens who are unable, because of emotional disorders, to care for themselves and in protecting the community from the dangerous tendencies of some who are mentally ill." Individual did NOT deserve the highest standard of evidence.

Summary: an individual's right to be free must be balanced against the community's interests in being safe.

You're welcome.

You listed some cases in the mistaken belief they offer anything approaching precedent relevant to anything we're discussing here.

I must've been mistaken in assuming you could draw basic inferences. If you require a detailed explanation, let me know, and I'll be happy to help.

You have not established what the likelihood is for a pedophile to rape or even if a pedophile believes rape is acceptable any more than anyone else. Essentially your argument is that people who want to rape other people should be monitored. This category of people is not defined or limited by sexuality.

Your first sentence is not legally necessary for me to establish. My proposal does not require this. Therefore, I will ignore it as irrelevant.

And no matter how often you'd like to ignore the issue, sexually desiring children does not automatically make a person want to commit the act of rape.

Sexually desiring children, by statutory definition, automatically makes a person want to commit the act of rape, because having sex with a child, by statutory definition, is rape. It's a strict-liability crime. You do it, you're guilty. There's no b-b-b-but she didn't show me ID, there's no b-b-b-b-ut I was drunk. You have sex with a 9 year old, you're a statutory rapist. Period. End of.

Do you not understand the concept of laws or something?

Show how desire leads to acceptance. Why is a person who desires children incapable of finding rape appalling?

What percentage of pedophiles are rapists or want to commit rape?

Because that person desires to rape. He/She can control it, but their "sexual orientation" is to be a statutory rapist.

What percentage of pedophiles want to commit rape? All of them. How many do? I don't know.

 

[Acerac]

While it is true that homosexuality has a stigma in some parts of the world, we should all stipulate that by modern liberalism it is universally acknowledged that a gay adult male having consensual sex with another gay adult male, or a gay adult female having consensual sex with another gay adult female, is not intrinsically a crime.

For a pedophile to act on their sexual urges, it is an intrinsic crime. It is inherently criminal for a man to stick his penis into a little boy or girl. We should not tolerate this "sexual orientation"; they are more equivalent to schizophrenics, psycopaths, sociopaths, manic-depressives, etc. who are a potential danger to others. We need to set up an easy way to locate, track, and monitor them.

Also, chemical castration is not permanent; the castration effects end as soon as the subject stops being injected with chemicals. I really don't think my proposal is some kind of human violation.

Let's walk through this slowly.

I ask how we'd know people are pedophiles.

You reply the same way we know people are gay.

I say that when it is legislated against (as you're suggesting) people will hide their attractions.

You berate me for comparing gays to pedophiles.




You totally missed the point of the post. How would we know that people are pedophiles if they hide it? Use specific examples, as you've refused to do so thusfar.

 

[Dereck]

To avoid derailment I'll send you a PM.

Could you send me one too, please?

 

[Zyrusticae]

I wasn't saying that they don't see it as wrong, more that they develop romantic attachments to their victims. Even though they probably accept that sex with a child is wrong, they'd likely not see it in the same vein as forcible rape. Which is also kind of what is said in the OP.

Absolutely.

I actually have a very hard time understanding why "statutory rape" is considered as severe as it is. From my perspective, sexual activity with a minor, while definitely creepy (even I'M a pedophile and can admit that much), isn't the same thing or even comparable to forcible rape (which can destroy a person forever, adult or child). Hell, I was exposed to pornography from a very young age and it never traumatized me or anything, so again I don't really understand the stigma behind it.

I CAN understand the ickiness of a huge age difference, I CAN understand the exploitative angle of someone in a position of power using that power to coerce kids into doing things they otherwise wouldn't do, but while these things are icky, I can't feel like they justify such a strong reaction like they currently do. Plus these are things that really should be evaluated from a case-to-case basis. If two individuals are just in a really loving relationship, it doesn't seem right to pass such righteous judgment on them for such...

But, y'know, whatever, them's the breaks and I've gotta deal with them. Like I always have.

 

[KHarvey16]

What? How does this reply even make any sense to my quote that you posted?

Let me recap.

You said rounding people up to register, monitor, and possibly temporarily castrate them is unconstitutional, and you "didn't even have to explain how."

I explained how it is constitutional.

Your response is... "you argue as if all things are equal when they are not." Do you have any more inspiring, vague generalities to share, or should we return to supporting the points we were making?

You didn't explain how it is constitutional. You said "here, look, THIS thing is constitutional for reasons completely irrelevant to what we're talking about here, so the stuff we're talking about can also be constitutional!" All things are not equal and you argue as if they were.

How would I know how likely a pedophile is to commit rape? Am I some kind of mind-reader? Should I tell you my "feelings" on it? I only comment on things I know, which I can back up. I suggest you do the same. Fact: 100% of pedophiles who act on their sexual fantasies are rapists. By statutory definition.

Did you understand the case? Because you didn't. Here, I'll help.

Addison's mother tried to get him confined to a mental hospital for an indefinite period of time.

Addison argued that this amounted to imprisonment, and was a violation of due process because he didn't get the chance to properly get a hearing on his freedom. He argued that involuntary confinement was such a fundamental liberty right that the court should have applied the highest standard of evidence-- that's the "proof beyond reasonable doubt" standard.

Court disagreed. Court weighed an individual's right to freedom with, I direct quote: "the state's interests in providing care to its citizens who are unable, because of emotional disorders, to care for themselves and in protecting the community from the dangerous tendencies of some who are mentally ill." Individual did NOT deserve the highest standard of evidence.

Summary: an individual's right to be free must be balanced against the community's interests in being safe.

You're welcome.

I'll quote you the relevant portion:

Whether the individual is mentally ill and dangerous to either himself or others and is in need of confined therapy turns on the meaning of the facts which must be interpreted by expert psychiatrists and psychologists.

In other words, experts have to determine that someone is mentally ill AND dangerous to himself or others.

You're welcome, as well as extremely condescending.

Sexually desiring children, by statutory definition, automatically makes a person want to commit the act of rape, because having sex with a child, by statutory definition, is rape. It's a strict-liability crime. You do it, you're guilty. There's no b-b-b-but she didn't show me ID, there's no b-b-b-b-ut I was drunk. You have sex with a 9 year old, you're a statutory rapist. Period. End of.

Do you not understand the concept of laws or something?

You can want to have sex with someone, a child even, but not want to commit rape. Why is this such a difficult logical concept for you?

Because that person desires to rape. He/She can control it, but their "sexual orientation" is to be a statutory rapist.

What percentage of pedophiles want to commit rape? All of them. How many do? I don't know.

Dumb.

 

[Nightstick11]

Let's walk through this slowly.

I ask how we'd know people are pedophiles.

You reply the same way we know people are gay.

Are we selectively quoting each other and pretending the other missed the point?

You keep repeating that as if you're making some kind of point, but you're either being obtuse or willfully ignoring the implications of what I said. Who said volunteer for anything?

How do we notice people who are ADHD? Sociopathic? Bipolar? Homosexual? Heterosexual? Racist? Low blood pressure? Homocidal tendencies? Suicidal?

I say that when it is legislated against (as you're suggesting) people will hide their attractions.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware pedophilia wasn't legislated against already. My mistake.

You totally missed the point of the post. How would we know that people are pedophiles if they hide it? Use specific examples, as you've refused to do so thusfar.

I already answered this, and you're pretending that I didn't.

How do we know people are autistic? Schizophrenic? Sociopathic? Bipolar? Manic? Depressive? Suicidal? Homicidal? Neo-Nazis? Gang-members? Heterosexual? Homosexual? Bisexual? Mormons? Atheists? Christians?

Is it some kind of impossible goal I'm reaching for?

 

[Acerac]

Stop dodging the question.

...

Unless you're actually agreeing with me, since the answer is "We don't"? I suppose that's too much to hope for.

Spoiler

Fucking Poe's Law

 

[Nightstick11]

You didn't explain how it is constitutional. You said "here, look, THIS thing is constitutional for reasons completely irrelevant to what we're talking about here, so the stuff we're talking about can also be constitutional!" All things are not equal and you argue as if they were.

You didn't google the strict scrutiny standard, did you. No wonder why it feels like I'm talking to a brick wall.

Sigh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny.

I'll boil it down: if the government wants to infringe on liberty rights, there are certain requirements that must be met. Guantanamo Bay and Korematsu are examples of cases that passed the strict scrutiny standard.

In other words, experts have to determine that someone is mentally ill AND dangerous to himself or others.

You're welcome, as well as extremely condescending.

Sigh. And how does this refute anything I said again?

Is it that men having sex with 6 year olds isn't dangerous?
Is it the part where I said they should be monitored and observed?
Is it the part where I said mental health professionals shouldn't play a role in the diagnosis? (protip: I never said that).

Red herring. Try again.

You can want to have sex with someone, a child even, but not want to commit rape. Why is this such a difficult logical concept for you?

Dumb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

If you're not American, I apologize for my patronizing tone. If you are American, then jesus christ.

 

[Nightstick11]

Stop dodging the question.

...

Unless you're actually agreeing with me, since the answer is "We don't"? I suppose that's too much to hope for.

Spoiler

Fucking Poe's Law

??

The answer is we can know. By the same methods we ascertain the list of other categorizations I listed twice previously. We can get expert opinions, diagnostics, testing, observation by professionals, concerns of family members, friends, and others who know the person, by things the very person says or does, etc. etc.

 

[Acerac]

??

The answer is we can know. By the same methods we ascertain the list of other categorizations I listed twice previously. We can get expert opinions, diagnostics, testing, observation by professionals, concerns of family members, friends, and others who know the person, by things the very person says or does, etc. etc.

If you think having experts test every person in America for pedophilia is feasible then God bless you. Relying on family and friends would be foolish for obvious reasons, so we're left with testing all of America 1 by 1.

Not gonna lie, it'd create one hell of a job market.

 

[Nightstick11]

If you think having experts test every person in America for pedophilia is feasible then God bless you. Relying on family and friends would be foolish for obvious reasons, so we're left with testing all of America 1 by 1.

Not gonna lie, it'd create one hell of a job market.

Well, normally, the way the mental health industry works is people either self-check in or a concerned family member/friend alerts the authorities/goes to the mental health professional, who complete the investigation themselves.

So really, we're not left with testing all of America 1 by 1.

 

[KHarvey16]

You didn't google the strict scrutiny standard, did you. No wonder why it feels like I'm talking to a brick wall.

Sigh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny.

I'll boil it down: if the government wants to infringe on liberty rights, there are certain requirements that must be met. Guantanamo Bay and Korematsu are examples of cases that passed the strict scrutiny standard.

And you're argument is that because those passed, this will too. That form of argument makes sense to children and stupid adults. Those things and this thing ARE NOT THE SAME. I know what strict scrutiny is and that's why I've been telling you this over and over. The justifications and potential justifications for all three of these cases are DIFFERENT.

Sigh. And how does this refute anything I said again?

Is it that men having sex with 6 year olds isn't dangerous?
Is it the part where I said they should be monitored and observed?
Is it the part where I said mental health professionals shouldn't play a role in the diagnosis? (protip: I never said that).

Red herring. Try again.

You said characterizing it as a mental disorder would do the trick. Are you still going to argue that?

On top of that your argument here is disingenuous. Men having sex with 6 year olds is dangerous. Pedophilia is not men having sex with 6 year olds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

If you're not American, I apologize for my patronizing tone. If you are American, then jesus christ.

What the hell does any of that have to do with what I posted? You're missing the point because you're too caught up trying to convince yourself of how smart you are.

A person can simultaneously desire sex with a 6 year old and not desire to commit that rape. I can want a pie but also not want to ruin my New Year's resolution.

 

[Cheerilee]

Which leads directly again to my second, subsidiary point that I stated.

If the average, single heterosexual acted on their sexual fantasies, it would not be a crime.

If the average pedophile acted on their sexual fantasies, it would be a crime on its face.

That is a key difference, and that is why heterosexuality=homosexuality=pedophilia is a false equivalency.

You've apparently been suggesting that pedophilia, since it's apparently scientifically detectable, should be detected and suppressed by force.

People have suggested that the percentage of pedophiles who rape might be similar to the percentage of heterosexuals or homosexuals who rape, and that the focus should be on rape, not on blanket accusations against sexual orientation.

You've been saying that comparing pedophilia to any other sexual orientation is a false equivalency, because pedophiles have drawn the short end of the stick and can't have sex, in any legal way. This is true. But it's also irrelevant. Homosexuals can't have vanilla sex. Who cares? Sex isn't everything in life. It's not even everything in sexual identity.

The basic argument people are making is that not all pedophiles are rapists, and that if they're not rapists, then nobody has the right to meddle with their sexual orientation against their will. And as I said earlier, if you're going to target a group for their inability to have sex without rape, and remove their sex drive against their will, just to be safe (a scary proposition), then you should target everyone who's unable to have sex without rape (including heterosexual dateless losers).

 

[Acerac]

Well, normally, the way the mental health industry works is people either self-check in or a concerned family member/friend alerts the authorities/goes to the mental health professional, who complete the investigation themselves.

So really, we're not left with testing all of America 1 by 1.

Normally the mental health industry doesn't chemically castrate and monitor you. Your plan requires that pedophiles either volunteer for this (they don't come out now so why would they volunteer for this?) or their families would notice something is wrong and report them (doesn't happen now, also has no reason to change).

You're assuming people will volunteer to be monitored and chemically castrated. I think that is a mighty large assumption.

 

[Nightstick11]

You've been saying that comparing pedophilia to any other sexual orientation is a false equivalency, because pedophiles have drawn the short end of the stick and can't have sex, in any legal way. This is true. But it's also irrelevant. Homosexuals can't have vanilla sex. Who cares? Sex isn't everything in life. It's not even everything in sexual identity.

It's the only thing that's relevant. Pedophiles can't have sex with children. If they do, they are rapists. We do not, as a society, condone rape. In any way, shape or form. Children are incompetent to give consent. Can a guy whose sexual thing is mentally disabled women go around banging mentally disabled women?

Homosexuals can't have vanilla sex, but they can have legal sex. They don't have to rape anyone to satisfy their sexual orientation.

The basic argument people are making is that not all pedophiles are rapists, and that if they're not rapists, then nobody has the right to meddle with their sexual orientation against their will. And as I said earlier, if you're going to target a group for their inability to have sex without rape, and remove their sex drive against their will, just to be safe (a scary proposition), then you should target everyone who's unable to have sex without rape (including heterosexual dateless losers).

We, as a society, have an inherent duty to protect our children. Pedophilia is not just a sexual orientation; it is a sexual orientation which, when indulged, is a crime of serious moral turpitude, and hurts not just people, but legally incompetent people who are legally incapable of understanding what they are doing and physically unable to protect themselves.

I want to target a group for their inability to have sex without rape. I understand that not all of them fuck kids; I also understand that their very intrinsic nature leads them to want to fuck kids. That is why I propose we register and identify and locate them. If they make any moves to fuck kids, they should be (temporarily) castrated. If they don't try and fuck kids, then nothing more need be done.

Heterosexual dateless losers do not have to automatically resort to rape to indulge their sexual orientation.

 

[Acerac]

Heterosexual dateless losers do not have to automatically resort to rape to indulge their sexual orientation.

Lolicon is a thing.

 

[Nightstick11]

Normally the mental health industry doesn't chemically castrate and monitor you. Your plan requires that pedophiles either volunteer for this (they don't come out now so why would they volunteer for this?) or their families would notice something is wrong and report them (doesn't happen now, also has no reason to change).

You're assuming people will volunteer to be monitored and chemically castrated. I think that is a mighty large assumption.

Actually, a lot of child-porn-watchers and child molesters get caught because their family members suspect something is wrong.

I'm not assuming people will volunteer to be monitored. Whether they want to or not is irrelevant and immaterial. Suspected gang members do not want to be monitored, people who are suspected of making bombs do not want to be investigated, suspected terrorists or sellers of state secrets or tax evaders do not want to be monitored.

What pedophiles volunteer or don't volunteer to do doesn't matter. The law can be structured in a way where those who do not volunteer themselves can be criminalized, just like the laws governing some aspects of the legal immigration process.

 

[Acerac]

So we will force people to admit they're pedophiles by making a law. This law will be enforced (I assume) by noticing them either looking at child porn, or having sex with children.

These things are already illegal. Your law would not stop any pedophile who uses private browsing and doesn't look at porn in front of his family.

 

[Nightstick11]

And you're argument is that because those passed, this will too. That form of argument makes sense to children and stupid adults. Those things and this thing ARE NOT THE SAME. I know what strict scrutiny is and that's why I've been telling you this over and over. The justifications and potential justifications for all three of these cases are DIFFERENT.

My argument is that this is not unconstitutional just because you say so. I cite cases where people--entire communities, have had their rights deprived as precedent that this proposal may be constitutional.

The justifications for all 3 cases are superficially different; the underlying theme is that the thing being done was considered a compelling governmental interest, and it was a reasonable way to achieve those things.

After this many explanations, how do you still not see the connection?

You said characterizing it as a mental disorder would do the trick. Are you still going to argue that?

Jesus christ.

In contrast to the strict-scrutiny cases I cited, I listed Addington (which WASN'T a strict-scrutiny case) as a way in which constitutionality wouldn't even be an issue. If we characterize pedophilia as a mental disorder, all we would have to do is prove, by clear and convincing evidence standard, that they need to be involuntarily committed.

On top of that your argument here is disingenuous. Men having sex with 6 year olds is dangerous. Pedophilia is not men having sex with 6 year olds.

Men having sex with 6 year olds is dangerous.

Men wanting to have sex with 6 year olds, ergo, can lead to dangerous things.

What the hell does any of that have to do with what I posted? You're missing the point because you're too caught up trying to convince yourself of how smart you are.

A person can simultaneously desire sex with a 6 year old and not desire to commit that rape. I can want a pie but also not want to ruin my New Year's resolution.

Is being dense your schtick?

Desiring sex with a 6 year old= Desiring to commit rape. A person can simultaneously desire to rape someone and not rape someone at the same time. A person desiring sex with a 6 year old is desiring to rape a child.

Sex with a 6 year old= rape. By strict liability.

What is so hard about this?

 

[Laughing Banana]

I feel like both Nightstick11 and the people who debate him like KHarvey all have good intentions at heart; only obviously they are approaching it from different sides/perspectives.

Interesting debates here.

So calm down people and don't resort to name-calling

 

[Nightstick11]

So we will force people to admit they're pedophiles by making a law. This law will be enforced (I assume) by noticing them either looking at child porn, or having sex with children.

These things are already illegal. Your law would not stop any pedophile who uses private browsing and doesn't look at porn in front of his family.

You forgot "and also utilizing the same tactics that Department of Homeland Security/FBI/CIA/law enforcement etc. use to catch criminals."

Private browsing and not looking at porn in front of the family will do little, if anything, in protecting a child pornography-contaminated computer to computer forensics.

 

[Acerac]

You forgot "and also utilizing the same tactics that Department of Homeland Security/FBI/CIA/law enforcement etc. use to catch criminals."

Private browsing and not looking at porn in front of the family will do little, if anything, in protecting a child pornography-contaminated computer to computer forensics.

So we check every internet capable device in the united states for child porn.

Got it.

The fun part will be the false positives from people using other's devices.

 

[Nightstick11]

So we check every device in the united states for child porn.

Got it.

So we do nothing, and give counseling sessions to child rapists instead of prison sentences. Got it.

Two can play the stupid Ad Absurdum game.

 

[KHarvey16]

My argument is that this is not unconstitutional just because you say so. I cite cases where people--entire communities, have had their rights deprived as precedent that this proposal may be constitutional.

The justifications for all 3 cases are superficially different; the underlying theme is that the thing being done was considered a compelling governmental interest, and it was a reasonable way to achieve those things.

After this many explanations, how do you still not see the connection?

Again, they did these other things so they can also do this thing. Lazy.

Jesus christ.

In contrast to the strict-scrutiny cases I cited, I listed Addington (which WASN'T a strict-scrutiny case) as a way in which constitutionality wouldn't even be an issue. If we characterize pedophilia as a mental disorder, all we would have to do is prove, by clear and convincing evidence standard, that they need to be involuntarily committed.

By having an expert determine they specifically are a danger to himself or others. You know, minor details like that. You can't even show me evidence that all pedophiles are dangerous.

Men having sex with 6 year olds is dangerous.

Men wanting to have sex with 6 year olds, ergo, can lead to dangerous things.

Can lead to dangerous things? Is that the standard we're using now?

Is being dense your schtick?

Desiring sex with a 6 year old= Desiring to commit rape. A person can simultaneously desire to rape someone and not rape someone at the same time. A person desiring sex with a 6 year old is to rape a child.

Sex with a 6 year old= rape. By strict liability.

What is so hard about this?

You're missing the point or just intellectually outmatched by an incredibly simple concept. A person can simultaneously desire sex with a child and also desire to not break the law or committ some moral offense. That I even need to explain this to you, never mind repeat it multiple times, depresses me greatly.

I'm going to bed and will check back tomorrow.

 

[Acerac]

So we do nothing, and give counseling sessions to child rapists instead of prison sentences. Got it.

Two can play the stupid Ad Absurdum game.

Err... well you're half right. We offer free, in depth and confidential counseling services for pedophiles so that they do not turn in to child rapists. Will this have a 100% success rate? No. Will it cause these people to seek help instead of keeping these feelings pent up til they burst in a most unfortunate manner? Yes.

Offering help is not doing nothing. Child abusers deserve to get hit with the full force of the law. That's not just rapists, but pornographers as well. I just think it's foolish to not do everything we can to minimize how often this occurs.

Unless you think your plan of making child porn and rape illegal would be more effective. Surely they'd not break the law to avoid being monitored and chemically castrated for years.

 

[Nightstick11]

Again, they did these other things so they can also do this thing. Lazy.

How is that "lazy"? I propose a law, you say "nuh-uh it's unconstitutional because i say so!", i give specific, explicit legal precedents on how it's not unconstitutional, and you display a profound ignorance on how the common-law system works or even the definition of constitutionality.

This is our fifth or sixth go-around, and you STILL haven't explained how it's unconstitutional.

By having an expert determine they specifically are a danger to himself or others. You know, minor details like that. You can't even show me evidence that all pedophiles are dangerous.

This would fall under proving the "clear and convincing" evidence standard, but you would have known that, if you had any idea on how laws work in the USA.

As I'll explain for the third or fourth time, I don't have to present any evidence that "all" pedophiles are dangerous to advocate a proposal. What legal standard or theory is that required under? The one you pulled out of your ass?

Can lead to dangerous things? Is that the standard we're using now?

Yeah, just like suspected terrorists can lead to dangerous things, or suspected drug dealers, or suspected spies, or suspected money-launderers. You know. Reality.

You're missing the point or just intellectually outmatched by an incredibly simple concept. A person can simultaneously desire sex with a child and also desire to not break the law or committ some moral offense. That I even need to explain this to you, never mind repeat it multiple times, depresses me greatly.

I'm going to bed and will check back tomorrow.

You are not getting it through your head that desiring sex with a child is desiring to break the law or commit some moral offense.

That you can offer no further explanation rather than repeating yourself is indicative of you STILL not understanding the concept of strict liability, age of consent, and statutory rape.

I'll explain it again. In simpler terms.

Strict liability= crime committed, regardless of intent to commit said crime
Age of consent= Age at which a person can legally give consent to sex
Statutory rape= strict-liability crime of having sex with a person under the age of consent

Desiring sex with a child ---> Desiring sex with a person under the age of consent ---> Desiring to commit a strict-liability crime ----> Desire to commit a crime.

It's that simple. It's not hard at all.

I cite common-law statutes, common-law theory, and model penal codes.

What did you do to make your point?

I actually have a very hard time understanding why "statutory rape" is considered as severe as it is. From my perspective, sexual activity with a minor, while definitely creepy (even I'M a pedophile and can admit that much), isn't the same thing or even comparable to forcible rape (which can destroy a person forever, adult or child). Hell, I was exposed to pornography from a very young age and it never traumatized me or anything, so again I don't really understand the stigma behind it.

I didn't even see this before so I'll respond.

Sex with a minor is considered sex with someone who is legally incompetent. They are legally incapable of giving consent.

It is like having sex with an unconscious person.
It is like having sex with a person in a coma.
It is like having sex with a person who is under the influence of magic mushrooms.
It is like having sex with a severely mentally disabled person.

 

[Nightstick11]

Err... well you're half right. We offer free, in depth and confidential counseling services for pedophiles so that they do not turn in to child rapists. Will this have a 100% success rate? No. Will it cause these people to seek help instead of keeping these feelings pent up til they burst in a most unfortunate manner? Yes.

Offering help is not doing nothing. Child abusers deserve to get hit with the full force of the law. That's not just rapists, but pornographers as well. I just think it's foolish to not do everything we can to minimize how often this occurs.

Unless you think your plan of making child porn and rape illegal would be more effective. Surely they'd not break the law to avoid being monitored and chemically castrated for years.

How about you stop mischaracterizing my points?

Your half-baked measure would achieve little.

How about this:

We slap in a mental-health examination at the end of junior high and high school for everyone, at the same time we give out standardized testing and exit-exams.

Oh, Chester's a weirdo, better investigate him. Cheek-swap him, livescan him, counsel him, monitor him, diagnose him, give him therapy.

Oh, he downloaded child porn 20 years down the line? Well boy do I have a plea-bargain for you. We'll knock a few years off, maybe waive half the fine, and you get chemically castrated for 10 or 15 or 20 or 30 years.

Oh my god, we're living under Nazi Germany now.

 

[IHaveCandy]

Imagine how shitty of an examination it's going to be if it has to affordably examine every child.

 

[Acerac]

How about you stop mischaracterizing my points?

Your half-baked measure would achieve little.

How about this:

We slap in a mental-health examination at the end of junior high and high school for everyone, at the same time we give out standardized testing and exit-exams.

Oh, Chester's a weirdo, better investigate him. Cheek-swap him, livescan him, counsel him, monitor him, diagnose him, give him therapy.

Oh, he downloaded child porn 20 years down the line? Well boy do I have a plea-bargain for you. We'll knock a few years off, maybe waive half the fine, and you get chemically castrated for 10 or 15 or 20 or 30 years.

Oh my god, we're living under Nazi Germany now.

If identifying a pedophile is as easy as you seem to believe then that sounds splendid. If you could show me some evidence that pedophilia is identifiable from a simple mental-health exam I'll concede you were right on that matter.

Even were it to be so easy, I'm pretty sure we already do prosecute people when we notice they have downloaded child porn. Your plan calls for monitoring all "weirdos" for the chance of hoping they'll forget they are being monitored and look up child porn 20 years in the future. Do you know how many weirdos there are in high school? Do you know how many weirdos there are over 20 years of every high school in America? Your plans have real potential for job creation and I love that but honestly that seems like an overwhelming task.

All your plan seems to accomplish is being more lenient on these acts when we notice them. I can't say I agree with that, the laws against exploiting children need to remain extremely strict to present a high barrier to those considering these acts.

For reference, I'm sorry if you feel I'm misrepresenting any of your points. Any mistakes on my part are solely due to confusion over what you have presented, I'm trying the best I can to understand your position and I must admit I've been having some difficulty.

Imagine how shitty of an examination it's going to be if it has to affordably examine every child.

It's ok because we'll monitor everyone for 2 decades+ and if they rape a child BAM we'll reduce their sentence!

Now seems an appropriate time to post this.

 

[ShadyLurker]

Absolutely.

I actually have a very hard time understanding why "statutory rape" is considered as severe as it is. From my perspective, sexual activity with a minor, while definitely creepy (even I'M a pedophile and can admit that much), isn't the same thing or even comparable to forcible rape (which can destroy a person forever, adult or child). Hell, I was exposed to pornography from a very young age and it never traumatized me or anything, so again I don't really understand the stigma behind it.

I CAN understand the ickiness of a huge age difference, I CAN understand the exploitative angle of someone in a position of power using that power to coerce kids into doing things they otherwise wouldn't do, but while these things are icky, I can't feel like they justify such a strong reaction like they currently do. Plus these are things that really should be evaluated from a case-to-case basis. If two individuals are just in a really loving relationship, it doesn't seem right to pass such righteous judgment on them for such...

But, y'know, whatever, them's the breaks and I've gotta deal with them. Like I always have.

Kinda funny those other two guys arguing about how to identify pedophiles, while totally ignoring this guys posts outing himself.

 

[Nightstick11]

If identifying a pedophile is as easy as you seem to believe then that sounds splendid. If you could show me some evidence that pedophilia is identifiable from a simple mental-health exam I'll concede you were right on that matter.

Oh, you're right, it is nigh impossible to write a mental health exam that could surreptitiously discern sexual wants.

Even were it to be so easy, I'm pretty sure we already do prosecute people when we notice they have downloaded child porn. Your plan calls for monitoring all "weirdos" for the chance of hoping they'll forget they are being monitored and look up child porn 20 years in the future. Do you know how many weirdos there are in high school? Do you know how many weirdos there are over 20 years of every high school in America? Your plans have real potential for job creation and I love that but honestly that seems like an overwhelming task.

We can not only catch more people who download child porn, but we can possibly make inroads into preventing school shootings, and all kinds of other crimes.

Alternatively, weirdos who know they're being monitored might be less inclined to pursue their smut.

Oh my god, what a horrible thing.

All your plan seems to accomplish is being more lenient on these acts when we notice them. I can't say I agree with that, the laws against exploiting children need to remain extremely strict to present a high barrier to those considering these acts.

For reference, I'm sorry if you feel I'm misrepresenting any of your points. Any mistakes on my part are solely due to confusion over what you have presented, I'm trying the best I can to understand your position and I must admit I've been having some difficulty.

Nice way to mischaracterize? Didn't think before you type? Or are you just unfamiliar with child pornography cases? Rhetorical question.

The ones who get locked up for life will stay locked up.
The ones who get decades can get a couple years lopped off, which they may anyway for "good behavior".

The ones who get a 7-year sentence can get a year knocked off and castrated for 30.

Also, you misrepresent my points by (1) selective quoting and (2) failing at reading comprehension. My points weren't that hard to understand if you, you know, read them.