Support NeoGAF

[mantidor]

Sexuality is a complex and deep dimension of humanity, studies limited to just genetics are a a dead end, we know is not mere genes, even if they play a role, and science already admits this. We should really start by answering what makes us attracted to someone else, seeing how it has changed through history, sexuality is more than just a tumor in your brain.

With that said, pedophilia is such a specific and odd paraphilia that it really cannot be compared with fetishism, much less with something as common as homosexuality.

Are there instances of pedophilia in nature? I know of bonobos who have sex basically between everyone, even the youngest, but I've never heard of it happening in nature before sexual maturity and I really doubt it does.

 

[Riddick]

In that case detainment is the correct word. As I said earlier, punishing people before they've hurt anyone or anything is an idea I'm not very fond of, especially given the fact that many (most?) of these people will never act on these impulses as long as they live.
We could shoot them in the head. That would stop them.

So you think that the dangerous mentally ill who are put in mental hospitals against their will are being punished? I didn't like the term detainment because it usually implies punishment by the law.

 

[Riddick]

It should probably be mentioned that "heterosexuals who can't get laid" aren't described as running around harming society by the nature of their out-of-control heterosexuality, due to all the people that they rape (and by volume, heterosexuals rape more than anyone).

Heterosexuals have a shot at getting laid with maybe 45% of the population.
Homosexuals have a shot at getting laid with maybe 5% of the population.
Pedophiles have a shot at getting laid with 0%.

Those odds by themselves don't make anyone guilty of rape.

The problem is that every other group can find a release without harming society with the exception of pedophiles (most popular being sex, prostitution and porn). Child porn is the less harmful solution for pedophiles and even that is pretty fucking harmful.

 

[MIMIC]

From the article.

Like many forms of sexual deviance, pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is a deep-rooted predisposition — limited almost entirely to men — that becomes clear during puberty and does not change.

Thought this was interesting. I wonder why that is.

 

[akachan ningen]

we need to make tumors illegal

 

[Lost Fragment]

From the article.



Thought this was interesting. I wonder why that is.

I really doubt that there's much in the way of concrete statistics on pedophiles in a general sense, so I would take that sort of thing, as well as the "1% to 5% of men are pedophiles" stuff with a grain of salt. When your studies have to rely almost exclusively on convincted pedophiles, then you're only seeing one part of the equation.

 

[Volimar]

It's very interesting. I wonder if acceptance of it as a medical condition might change the way it is treated. Denial and shame just closets the pedophiles, and of course children can't consent to sex, or portrayals of sex in pornography...

Would animated or computer generated pornography be seen as a way for pedophiles to find release? Or will it still be treated as only complete denial of the urge can lead to "normalcy"? I wonder how often each path leads to actual molestation. Perhaps it depends on the individual, and it's the case that easing the suffering of one individual might just embolden another...

 

[Nightstick11]

Do you feel the same way regarding all predispositions related to violence or abuse?

I would not say all, but I see no reason why we should mollycoddle incorrigible, subhuman defects like serial killers, serial rapists, child rapists, etc. Surely we could keep them sedated for the rest of their natural lives once they are identified or something.

 

[Acerac]

So you think that the dangerous mentally ill who are put in mental hospitals against their will are being punished? I didn't like the term detainment because it usually implies punishment by the law.

The key difference here is that I'm talking about those people who were born like this and haven't done a thing wrong. You seem to think these people can't control their urges, I'd imagine they're like the rest of the population in that if they can't get laid it really sucks and they're horny a lot, but the vast majority of them are not gonna run around raping people. People who are dangerously mentally ill have a very high likelyhood of causing harm to themselves or others. I see no reason to believe that this segment of the population is any more likely than any other to rape when unable to satisfy their urges otherwise.

As a sidenote, this is why I am all for providing these people with whatever tools they need to get off as long as no real children are involved. They're the ones we're trying to protect, and saying we're going to lock up every pedophile will not get many people to admit their desires. All that would do is stunt our ability to learn about this problem society faces and cause more problems for the children who'd be targeted by those who would have otherwise gotten treatment.

I would not say all, but I see no reason why we should mollycoddle incorrigible, subhuman defects like serial killers, serial rapists, child rapists, etc. Surely we could keep them sedated for the rest of their natural lives once they are identified or something.

I already told you; shoot them in the head.

No trial.

Also people who voted for Romney. 'cause that shit is ridicilus and they should know better.

 

[KHarvey16]

I would not say all, but I see no reason why we should mollycoddle incorrigible, subhuman defects like serial killers, serial rapists, child rapists, etc. Surely we could keep them sedated for the rest of their natural lives once they are identified or something.

You've identified people that have committed violence or abused others. I didn't ask you about people like that since you didn't direct your comments at people like that.

 

[Zyrusticae]

Would animated or computer generated pornography be seen as a way for pedophiles to find release?

This works for me.

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but the drawn and written material serve as very effective outlets in my case...

I'm glad this article exists. It's terrible how many people associate pedophilia with automatic child abuse, as though pedophiles are automatically psychopathic and incapable of any sort of self-control or empathy. The condition is pretty terrible in and of itself (hell, the social ostracization and demonization is punishment enough). Adding that sort of junk on top reeaally doesn't help matters any.

The key difference here is that I'm talking about those people who were born like this and haven't done a thing wrong. You seem to think these people can't control their urges, I'd imagine they're like the rest of the population in that if they can't get laid it really sucks and they're horny a lot, but the vast majority of them are not gonna run around raping people. People who are dangerously mentally ill have a very high likelyhood of causing harm to themselves or others. I see no reason to believe that this segment of the population is any more likely than any other to rape when unable to satisfy their urges otherwise.

As a sidenote, this is why I am all for providing these people with whatever tools they need to get off as long as no real children are involved. They're the ones we're trying to protect, and saying we're going to lock up every pedophile will not get many people to admit their desires. All that would do is stunt our ability to learn about this problem society faces and cause more problems for the children who'd be targeted by those who would have otherwise gotten treatment.

I was with you all the way up to this:

I already told you; shoot them in the head.

No trial.

NO.

Not until we get a 0% false conviction rate (which is never going to happen). I will NOT trade proper proceeding of justice for security. Too many innocent people have been killed for shit like this.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

the whole article terrifies me and it's something I've long suspected. Pedos can't switch it off any more than gays or straights can.

I can't imagine a worse hell than to be a pedo that never wants to hurt a child.

 

[BruiserBear]

the whole article terrifies me and it's something I've long suspected. Pedos can't switch it off any more than gays or straights can.

I can't imagine a worse hell than to be a pedo that never wants to hurt a child.

I've long thought the same thing. It's such a difficult situation on so many levels.

 

[Acerac]

It's very interesting. I wonder if acceptance of it as a medical condition might change the way it is treated. Denial and shame just closets the pedophiles, and of course children can't consent to sex, or portrayals of sex in pornography...

Would animated or computer generated pornography be seen as a way for pedophiles to find release? Or will it still be treated as only complete denial of the urge can lead to "normalcy"? I wonder how often each path leads to actual molestation. Perhaps it depends on the individual, and it's the case that easing the suffering of one individual might just embolden another...

Honestly it seems like the only logical solution to me.

I don't know about others, but when I finish masturbating I don't quickly go out and try and reenact what I masturbated to. I'm usually pretty damn satisfied. Maybe other men are different but that seems like it goes against a lot of stereotypes?

I was with you all the way up to this:

NO.

Not until we get a 0% false conviction rate (which is never going to happen). I will NOT trade proper proceeding of justice for security. Too many innocent people have been killed for shit like this.

The poster was earlier saying pedophiles should be quarantined and other ridiculous stuff, I was doing a parody. I was hoping the last line would make it clear but I guess my spelling of ridiculous and saying we should kill off large chunks of the american public wasn't enough.

Glad you agree with the rest though, everything I've said in this thread other than to that one person has been genuine. ^^;

 

[Nightstick11]

You've identified people that have committed violence or abused others. I didn't ask you about people like that since you didn't direct your comments at people like that.

I thought we were talking about pedophiles, who rape children. Now, surely you can agree there can be preventive measures that can be taken before people are allowed to go kill or rape or molest to satisfy their physiological urges.

I already told you; shoot them in the head.

No trial.

Also people who voted for Romney. 'cause that shit is ridicilus and they should know better.

Let's not be barbarous brutes.

Anyone identified as a pedophile might be registered, monitored, and possibly medicated/chemically castrated, but we're not a country that goes around shooting or imprisoning people without a trial, Guantanamo notwithstanding.

 

[Zyrusticae]

the whole article terrifies me and it's something I've long suspected. Pedos can't switch it off any more than gays or straights can.

I can't imagine a worse hell than to be a pedo that never wants to hurt a child.

I've long thought the same thing. It's such a difficult situation on so many levels.

Again, in my personal situation, it's really not that bad (unless you're suffering from satyromania/nymphomania or something). I mean, besides the social ostracization, which is the REAL reason I don't tell anyone about my condition.

My sex drive is actually fairly normal. I have no problem restraining myself around kids just like any normal heterosexual should have no problem restraining themselves around the opposite sex.

Of course, if I ever express my attraction in a video game, even through something as innocuous as my choice of avatar, I can expect lots of ridicule...

I thought we were talking about pedophiles, who rape children. Now, surely you can agree there can be preventive measures that can be taken before people are allowed to go kill or rape or molest to satisfy their physiological urges.

Damn, man, calm down.

Pedophile does not automatically equate to child rapist. Repeat that a few times, let it sink into your head. I know it sounds impossible, but it's true.

Even the article states that half of child molesters aren't even attracted to children...

 

[KHarvey16]

I wonder if they would find that the proportion of pedophiles willing to rape a child similar to the proportion of heterosexuals willing to rape a woman. In someone who's generally law abiding and moral rape would register as wrong regardless of it being a woman who could potentially give consent but isn't right now or a child that could never do so. The counseling and help for a person who is a pedophile and has a standard moral outlook would probably focus on living a life without being with the type of partner you're attracted to and not necessarily on how not to rape children.

 

[Acerac]

Let's not be barbarous brutes.

Anyone identified as a pedophile might be registered, monitored, and possibly medicated/chemically castrated, but we're not a country that goes around shooting or imprisoning people without a trial, Guantanamo notwithstanding.

So how then would we notice these people in the first place? After they rape children? They're sure as hell not gonna volunteer for chemical castration and monitoring.

Can you see why I think this is a poor course of action? It seems much wiser is to give these people help so we don't have the current situation of only knowing when it is too late.

Your way seems to focus on punishing the people who raped children, mine focuses on avoiding the rape in the first place. I suppose it depends where your priorities lie.

I wonder if they would find that the proportion of pedophiles willing to rape a child similar to the proportion of heterosexuals willing to rape a woman. In someone who's generally law abiding and moral rape would register as wrong regardless of it being a woman who could potentially give consent but isn't right now or a child that could never do so. The counseling and help for a person who is a pedophile and has a standard moral outlook would probably focus on living a life without being with the type of partner you're attracted to and not necessarily on how not to rape children.

I'd theorize it'd be similar... minus the fact that these people have no outlet. Given the fact that these people can't satisfy their urges legally... well... they're already breaking the law, I'd not be surprised if quite a few took this as justification to take it that one step further. It's a damn shame and a significant problem with our current system.

 

[Nightstick11]

So how then would we notice these people in the first place? After they rape children? They're sure as hell not gonna volunteer for chemical castration and monitoring.

Can you see why I think this is a poor course of action? It seems much wiser is to give these people help so we don't have the current situation of only knowing when it is too late.

Your way seems to focus on punishing the people who raped children, mine focuses on avoiding the rape in the first place. I suppose it depends where your priorities lie.

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.

 

[oneils]

Another nail in the coffin of the modern society.

Yeah, let's legalize pedophilia. Soon zoophilia and then necrophilia. I mean, we all have these urges, right? RIGHT?

Fucking disgusting.

Did you read the same article I did?

 

[Acerac]

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.

So how then would we notice these people in the first place? After they rape children? They're sure as hell not gonna volunteer for chemical castration and monitoring.

Seriously you had to have read this line to get to the one you underlined it was the first one in the message.

 

[KHarvey16]

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.

And so I asked you if you felt the same way regarding all predispositions to violence or abuse. Should we register and monitor everyone whose brain predestines their wants or desires to operate outside the bounds of accepted morality?

 

[Nightstick11]

I wonder if they would find that the proportion of pedophiles willing to rape a child similar to the proportion of heterosexuals willing to rape a woman. In someone who's generally law abiding and moral rape would register as wrong regardless of it being a woman who could potentially give consent but isn't right now or a child that could never do so. The counseling and help for a person who is a pedophile and has a standard moral outlook would probably focus on living a life without being with the type of partner you're attracted to and not necessarily on how not to rape children.

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.

 

[MIMIC]

I really doubt that there's much in the way of concrete statistics on pedophiles in a general sense, so I would take that sort of thing, as well as the "1% to 5% of men are pedophiles" stuff with a grain of salt. When your studies have to rely almost exclusively on convincted pedophiles, then you're only seeing one part of the equation.

True.

 

[Nightstick11]

So how then would we notice these people in the first place? After they rape children? They're sure as hell not gonna volunteer for chemical castration and monitoring.

Seriously you had to have read this line to get to the one you underlined it was the first one in the message.

Um...???

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.

And so I asked you if you felt the same way regarding all predispositions to violence or abuse. Should we register and monitor everyone whose brain predestines their wants or desires to operate outside the bounds of accepted morality?

For people who are predisposed to being serial killers, serial rapists, other would-be criminals of like moral turpitude, yes.

 

[Volimar]

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.

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

 

[KHarvey16]

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.

You believe that a person cannot desire something while simultaneously knowing that acting upon that desire would be legally and/or morally wrong? Also, are you stating that the majority of pedophiles are rapists?

 

[Acerac]

Um...???

Oh I'm sorry I meant what can we do now with non scifi tech? Even assuming this tech existed your plan is to check the brainwaves of EVERYONE IN AMERICA for pedophilia. I don't want my govt monitoring my brain waves at any point, and I say that with no fear of being put in a pedoprison or whatever you suggest.

Also I will point out that you're supporting monitoring and castrating large chunks of the population who will never harm anyone. I can't really dig that even if you could identify people who have a sexual attraction that is disagreeable.

 

[Nightstick11]

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

You believe that a person cannot desire something while simultaneously knowing that acting upon that desire would be legally and/or morally wrong? Also, are you stating that the majority of pedophiles are rapists?

Volimar got what I was saying. What the pedophile wants (love and sex with a child) is prima facie rape. It does not matter how he sees it or whether he wants to sugar coat it. A child is not capable of giving consent.

KHarvey, 100% of pedophiles who have sex with a child are rapists. Those that don't have sex with a child are not rapists.

 

[KHarvey16]

For people who are predisposed to being serial killers, serial rapists, other would-be criminals of like moral turpitude, yes.

I guess at least your system here can count consistency along with unconstitutionality among its characteristic.

Volimar got what I was saying. What the pedophile wants (love and sex with a child) is prima facie rape. It does not matter how he sees it or whether he wants to sugar coat it. A child is not capable of giving consent.

And desire does not inexorably lead to acceptance. A pedophile I'm sure can desire sex with a child AND know that it's wrong.

KHarvey, 100% of pedophiles who have sex with a child are rapists. Those that don't have sex with a child are not rapists.

What percentage of pedophiles are rapists? Don't guess.

 

[Nightstick11]

Oh I'm sorry I meant what can we do now with non scifi tech?

Also I will point out that you're supporting monitoring and castrating large chunks of the population who will never harm anyone. I can't really dig that even if you could identify people who have a sexual attraction that is disagreeable.

You're in luck, because it's not scifi? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography

If you want to hand-wave pedophilia away as "disagreeable", that's your option, but monitoring and possibly castrating a population who, by the very nature of consummating their base desires is rape, is preferable to locking animals up AFTER they've already ruined lives, how can you argue that your stance is one which is looking to avoid child rape in the future?

 

[jchap]

Like all other problems in human society, this problem will be solved by the advent of sex-bots

 

[Nightstick11]

I guess at least your system here can count consistency along with unconstitutionality among its characteristic.

How is it unconstitutional?

Korematsu v. United States has never been directly overturned, and was implicitly endorsed by the executive order enabling holding suspect terrorists at Guantanamo Bay.

My proposal would have to pass the "strict scrutiny" standard because it would infringe upon the fundamental liberty interest of persons, but really, all there is left to do is for a hotshot lawyer to argue that protecting children is a compelling government interest, and that registering/monitoring possible pedophiles is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.

 

[Acerac]

You're in luck, because it's not scifi? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography

If you want to hand-wave pedophilia away as "disagreeable", that's your option, but monitoring and possibly castrating a population who, by the very nature of consummating their base desires is rape, is preferable to locking animals up AFTER they've already ruined lives, how can you argue that your stance is one which is looking to avoid child rape in the future?

So how then would we notice these people in the first place? After they rape children? They're sure as hell not gonna volunteer for chemical castration and monitoring.

Or do you suggest we test all of America to hunt down the pedos?

 

[Cubsfan23]

ironically, the public has the maturity level of a 12 year old when discussing this issue.

 

[KHarvey16]

How is it unconstitutional?

Korematsu v. United States has never been directly overturned, and was implicitly endorsed by the executive order enabling holding suspect terrorists at Guantanamo Bay.

My proposal would have to pass the "strict scrutiny" standard because it would infringe upon the fundamental liberty interest of persons, but really, all there is left to do is for a hotshot lawyer to argue that protecting children is a compelling government interest, and that registering/monitoring possible pedophiles is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.

Did you really just use Korematsu v. United States to justify something? If you think registering, monitoring and possibly castrating people because of a brain they had no choice in owning would ever be accepted as constitutional I'm not sure what to say.

Also, you ignored the rest of my post.

 

[Zyrusticae]

You're in luck, because it's not scifi? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography

If you want to hand-wave pedophilia away as "disagreeable", that's your option, but monitoring and possibly castrating a population who, by the very nature of consummating their base desires is rape, is preferable to locking animals up AFTER they've already ruined lives, how can you argue that your stance is one which is looking to avoid child rape in the future?

Wow, it's like you're completely ignoring the fact that it is not a condition that is 1:1 connected with child rape.

And also like you're completely ignoring the existence of people like me (who have the condition but have never done anything wrong).

ironically, the public has the maturity level of a 12 year old when discussing this issue.

Haha! Well-stated.

 

[Acerac]

Did you really just use Korematsu v. United States to justify something? If you think registering, monitoring and possibly castrating people because of a brain they had no choice in owning would ever be accepted as constitutional I'm not sure what to say.

Also, you ignored the rest of my post.

Just c/p the relevant lines like I've been doing. He can't ignore them forever!

 

[Orayn]

You're in luck, because it's not scifi? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography

If you want to hand-wave pedophilia away as "disagreeable", that's your option, but monitoring and possibly castrating a population who, by the very nature of consummating their base desires is rape, is preferable to locking animals up AFTER they've already ruined lives, how can you argue that your stance is one which is looking to avoid child rape in the future?

Just to clarify, you are proposing mandatory population-wide pedophile screenings using a theoretical application of EEGs for perfect thought/desire-reading as the basis for chemical castration, correct?

 

[mantidor]

Like all other problems in human society, this problem will be solved by the advent of sex-bots

I don't think there will ever be a creepier robot than the one of child made for sexual purposes... it's just disturbing to say the least.

 

[low-G]

Just date small Asian women. Problem solved.

/very bad jokes

/sorry

 

[Nightstick11]

Did you really just use Korematsu v. United States to justify something? If you think registering, monitoring and possibly castrating people because of a brain they had no choice in owning would ever be accepted as constitutional I'm not sure what to say.

Also, you ignored the rest of my post.

You said my proposal was unconstitutional. I'm pointing out legal precedent where that's not necessarily the case.

I don't know, I'm sure some people thought putting people on a boat in the shore of Cuba without charging them for a crime for a decade would be de facto unconstitutional, but that's not necessarily the case, is it?

So how then would we notice these people in the first place? After they rape children? They're sure as hell not gonna volunteer for chemical castration and monitoring.

Or do you suggest we test all of America to hunt down the pedos?

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?

Just to clarify, you are proposing mandatory population-wide pedophile screenings using a theoretical application of EEGs for perfect thought/desire-reading as the basis for chemical castration, correct?

Are EEGs completely theoretical?

The proposal didn't shut the door for future scientific advances, and if you want to skip the preceding registration, monitoring, and observation periods to fit your straw-man, I guess you can count your statement as "correct."

Wow, it's like you're completely ignoring the fact that it is not a condition that is 1:1 connected with child rape.

And also like you're completely ignoring the existence of people like me (who have the condition but have never done anything wrong).

Schizophrenia isn't 1:1 connected with homicide or suicide either. What's your point? Your mind can be a danger. It warrants closer observation. If you're registered and you never do anything pedophiliac, no punishments happen to you. If you're registered and you do molest a child, it will be easier to track you.

 

[Lv99 Slacker]

WUT

THE

FUK

I don't know why, but this thread reminded me of this one: Study: Men find mentally inferior women more sexually attractive

 

[FGMPR]

I've posted this before on the Saville thread, but Louis Theroux's documentary where he visits a special type of detention center/prison where they attempt to cure pedophiles is especially relevant here. It gives you an idea just what kind of shit these people face in life, and the struggles they face when attempting to "cure" themselves of these urges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEt3-kuVl5Y

 

[KHarvey16]

You said my proposal was unconstitutional. I'm pointing out legal precedent where that's not necessarily the case.

I don't know, I'm sure some people thought putting people on a boat in the shore of Cuba without charging them for a crime for a decade would be de facto unconstitutional, but that's not necessarily the case, is it?

I called it unconstitutional because it would be, and clearly so. I don't know why you think the existence of Guantanamo changes that.

You are still ignoring the rest of my post.

 

[FGMPR]

Hahahaha no it has nothing do with incest. I am stopping you right there because once I'd have said, I have no siblings you'd probably have moved to parents.



Good point. I'm out.

Fair play for sharing that much, regardless.

 

[Orayn]

Are EEGs completely theoretical?

The proposal didn't shut the door for future scientific advances, and if you want to skip the preceding registration, monitoring, and observation periods to fit your straw-man, I guess you can count your statement as "correct.

Your proposed application of EEGs doesn't yet exist for making the kinds of clinical determinations you want it to. We agree on this. Even allowing the necessary scientific advances, you're suggesting something that's ridiculously invasive and dystopian and I guess you admit this too. Would you apply this method to tendencies that might lead someone to commit other crimes so we can monitor and perhaps pre-emptively punish them too? This is the stuff of Minority Report and Demolition Man being offered as a good way of running society a hint of irony.

 

[Nightstick11]

I called it unconstitutional because it would be, and clearly so. I don't know why you think the existence of Guantanamo changes that.

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.

You are still ignoring the rest of my post.

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

 

[ronito]

From the article.



Thought this was interesting. I wonder why that is.

Yeah it's really interesting. I mean studies tend to show that women are much more sexually fluid then men but then they largely don't have these kinds of things. It's counter-intuitive.

 

[Nightstick11]

Your proposed application of EEGs doesn't yet exist for making the kinds of clinical determinations you want it to. We agree on this. Even allowing the necessary scientific advances, you're suggesting something that's ridiculously invasive and dystopian and I guess you admit this too. Would you apply this method to tendencies that might lead someone to commit other crimes so we can monitor and perhaps pre-emptively punish them too? This is the stuff of Minority Report and Demolition Man being offered as a good way of running society a hint of irony.

Don't put words in my keyboard; I didn't agree with anything you said.

Brain finger-printing already exists. Are there kinks? Possibly. It should be solved within the next decade or two though.

When did I ever indicate I believe this to be "ridiculously invasive and dysotopian"? I proposed to use science in a narrowly tailored way to prevent and better predict the certain crimes of obscene moral turpitude, which I listed.

Is it ridiculously invasive and dysotopian to diagnose someone with severe schizophrenia?

Since when is registration and monitoring "pre-emptive punishment"? Are anti-gang investigation units "pre-emptive punishment"? Registration of immigrants? Reckless drivers?