Support NeoGAF

[CLEEK]

I think the most shocking thing from the article linked by the OP is that 30% of left handed people are paedophiles.

I've never trusted lefties, and now there is clear scientific evidence that they are the inhuman monsters I've always felt they were.

 

[Zyrusticae]

I think the most shocking thing from the article linked by the OP is that 30% of left handed people are paedophiles.

I've never trusted lefties, and now there is clear scientific evidence that they are the inhuman monsters I've always felt they were.

Hah!

But you should re-read it, it says 30% of pedophiles are left-handed or ambidextrous, not that 30% of left-handed people are pedophiles.

 

[mantidor]

I think the most shocking thing from the article linked by the OP is that 30% of left handed people are paedophiles.

I've never trusted lefties, and now there is clear scientific evidence that they are the inhuman monsters I've always felt they were.

It's the other way around, pedophiles have a 30% chance of being also left handed, 30% of all left handed people being pedophiles would be an insane number.

 

[ajim]

Interesting questions.

I have outlets. Comics and games from Japan most prominently (they have some of the weirdest shit coming out of that country, lemme tell ya...). There's also lots of written stuff out there, some of it surprisingly competent.

I don't have an attraction every kid I see - much like any adult, there are certain qualities that I find more desirable (some of which are completely unrealistic, which is another thing that keeps the desires in check).

The odd thing about 'age' is that I'm not really attracted to a certain age group as much as I am attracted to a certain look. Adult women, for example, can serve in a pinch provided they are flat-chested, possess neotenous features, are relatively short, are clean-shaven, and have a cute voice. (Amusingly enough, these particular features are enough to qualify a pornographic work as "simulated child pornography" which is also illegal in some parts of the world.)

In fact, I don't actually enjoy the personality traits of most children, whom I frequently find to be insufferable. You could say I'm attracted to the bodies of children, but prefer the attitude and behavior of adults... again, completely unrealistic and a factor in why I'm not imprisoned.

Zyrusticae, I'd like to give you big respect for being able to come out on neogaf.

Big respect.

And interesting answers overall too.

 

[NEO0MJ]

Hah!

But you should re-read it, it says 30% of pedophiles are left-handed or ambidextrous, not that 30% of left-handed people are pedophiles.

I think I also read somewhere that the percentage of lefty homosexuals was also higher than the general population?

Oh, and are you a lefty? Also, incredible courage for coming out.

 

[CLEEK]

30% of all left handed people being pedophiles would be an insane number.

Yeah, I reckon it's higher.

 

[Zyrusticae]

Zyrusticae, I'd like to give you big respect for being able to come out on neogaf.

Big respect.

And interesting answers overall too.

I think I also read somewhere that the percentage of lefty homosexuals was also higher than the general population?

Oh, and are you a lefty? Also, incredible courage for coming out.

Thanks guys! I'm still wondering if I'm going to regret this later...

I'm actually right-handed, by the way. Part of the 70% here!

 

[Nightstick11]

How can you continue to assert I haven't argued how your proposal is unconstitutional? The whole lynchpin of your position is that all pedophiles present a danger to children because all pedophiles actively want to rape children. Everything we're discussing stems from this basic premise and that premise is entirely false.

You said it was unconstitutional repeatedly, like a mantra, yet never explained how. What amendments does it violate? Which precedents does it overstep?

That premise is entirely "false" because it's a strawman. All pedophiles present a potential danger to children because all pedophiles, by their very nature, want to have sex with children, therefore they want to rape children. How is this false?

I've presented a shitload of precedents and contemporary examples tied to my proposal. None of them contradict anything. I'll recap them again, for your perusal.

Korematsu/Guantanamo Bay= Imprisoning entire races INDEFINITELY on the basis of suspicion of potentially harming society is constitutional under certain circumstances. Sexual orientation is not as protected as races, so I cite these to prove that my proposal falls wayyy under the bar allowed by the Supreme Court.

Addington= If a person is diagnosed with a mental illness and is at risk of harming himself or others, the state has the right to involuntarily commit them indefinitely, so long as it proves this danger through clear and convincing evidence. This is a low standard of proof, and sets the wiggle-room between the strictest cases like Korematsu, and unstrict cases like Addington.

Soldiers, convicts, reckless drivers, drunk drivers, spies, students, visitors, illegal immigrants, suspected gang members, etc.= Forcing/coaxing/bribing/strong-arming people to submit to a DNA database can be justified in a variety of circumstances.

Conclusion= Everything I proposed is already under constitutional grounds. For the umpteenth time, HOW is my proposal unconstitutional?

You go ahead and find a pedophile who, in the opinion of an expert, lacks the ability or willingness to refrain from acting on his sexual desires and presents an immediate threat and I 100 percent support that person being referred to any and all appropriate agencies. Simply diagnosing them as a pedophile does not and cannot logically satisfy these conditions, which means placing them on some list and forcing them to be committed or monitored or castrated contradicts the precedent you've cited.

This is a red herring, and confuses the strict scrutiny standard/rational basis standard/clear and convincing evidence into one big hodgepodge.

The only logical thing you said, which I had to infer from that mess, is that chemically castrating suspected pedophiles is unconstitutional. Okay. Except nobody was saying castrate pedophiles on mere suspicion. So what exactly are you arguing?

I always wonder if pedophillia is the new homosexuality.... granted it's different, because of conscent and the power dynamic.

but I wonder if stuff like... future child-like sex robots, and photorealistic CGI "childporn" (but with no real human children involvement) will work? I mean, no children are getting harmed in the process. It's just another fetish, like moe.

plus it would essentially kill, or minimise real child abuse and whatnot. because now they can actually have child porn, without actually having any kids involved in the process.

It seems weird in my mind, but I've been conditioned to think being attracted to prepublecent children is wrong.... But am I that different to old people who've been conditioned to think being attracted to the same sex is wrong...?

Pedophilia is inherently different, due to the issues you raised such as consent and the poewr dynamic.

Homosexuality is analogous to heterosexuality.
Pedophilia is analogous to bestiality or sex with mentally disabled people. We cannot, ever, as a society, allow people to willy-nilly have sex with others who are inherently, intrinsically, essentially unable to give consent. Why not just legalize rape then?

The fake child porn is a different, separate issue that I'm not going to get into. Just wanted to clarify the clear distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia. Except for a superficial resemblance on the basis of past discrimination, there are no similarities. It's not like anybody is arguing that interracial sexual preferences are similar to pedophilia, are there? Why would homosexuality make more sense as an example to use?

 

[Izayoi]

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.

Let me get this straight.

You're advocating for mandatory testing of EVERY PERSON IN THE UNITED STATES to see if they are, and I quote, "Weird."

Using this as a basis, you want to institutionalize them for life, and possibly castrate them?

Are you fucking serious?

You want 24/7 monitoring of people who are considered "weird," and you want this weirdness to determine whether or not we fucking castrate them?

I can't be the only one who finds this completely outrageous, right? I hope and pray that you will never be in any sort of position of power at any point in your entire life, I can't imagine the suffering you would inflict.

Who gets to determine what is "weird," exactly? What criteria do we have for outlining weirdness? Are all people who play quirky Japanese games weird? What about people who watch anime? I mean, if you ask GAF, many would claim that they are pedophiles! Does that mean that if you want to watch anime you're going to be monitored for the rest of your life, and potentially castrated? What if someone masturbates to lolicon? Are you going to castrate them?

I'm sorry, but you're legitimately crazy.

That premise is entirely "false" because it's a strawman. All pedophiles present a potential danger to children because all pedophiles, by their very nature, want to have sex with children, therefore they want to rape children. How is this false?

Wait, are you saying it's impossible for someone to be attracted to something without wanting to have sex with it? You can't be serious.

 

[oneils]

...Wait, are you saying it's impossible for someone to be attracted to something without wanting to have sex with it? You can't be serious.

Pedophilia is sexual interest in prepubescent children. Lets not confuse things, here.

edit: I feel compelled to comment on the discussion/argument between Nigthstick and Kharvey et.al. I don't know why, really. My opinion
is really not worth all that much. But here goes.

Question of Legality/Constitutionality

Not sure why folks are wasting their time with this argument. If the United States wants to control the behaviour of a class of people, it will find
a way. Regardless of the constitution. Up until 50 years ago the constitution wasn't worth a hill of beans for a whole class of people. Even today
there is another class of people that can't even get married. Where the people have a will, they will find a way.

Policies for Monitoring Pedophiles

So what is left to argue? Well we can argue over the outcomes we want, and what policies we will implement to achieve them.
What exactly do we want to do about this? What is the ultimate outcome? From my perspective, the ultimate outcome is to prevent rape of children.

How do we get there?
Do we criminalise pedophiles?
Or do we treat them?

Which one will prevent the rape of children? I think this would require a whackton of study. So we aren't going to solve this on neogaf. Personally,
my own opinion is that treatment is probably the better option. However, I have no evidence for it. From what I understand, Nightstick is kind of
advocating a hybrid approach (although rudely). You identify the pedophiles, treat and monitor them. If they offend, punish them. When punishing them, you provide
options for punishment (jail or chemical castration).

It is the identification part that seems to be getting people riled up. If you don't like his approach, why not propose another?

Punishing Offenses

Should chemical castration be used as a voluntary option? I believe that it is already being done. However, from what I've read it doesn't
seem very effective. But what I've read is garbage from popular journalism. I haven't read any bonafide studies. If its effective, and if the
offender is willing then I don't really see the problem. If it is not effective, obviously another treatment has to be found.

2nd Edit

Why this Discussion, Now?

Well, if I understand the article correctly, researchers are now coming to the consensus that pedophilia is not curable. It is intrinsic
to the person. If it is not curable, that means the scope of treatment options can be narrowed. I guess the treatment
options are now related to the suppression/control of the sexual desires and not the "curing" of the desires. But, hey, I am not a Doctor.

 

[Nightstick11]

Let me get this straight.

You really failed at this. Let's proceed.

You're advocating for mandatory testing of EVERY PERSON IN THE UNITED STATES to see if they are, and I quote, "Weird."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_the_United_States

Using this as a basis, you want to institutionalize them for life, and possibly castrate them?

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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration

Try again.

You want 24/7 monitoring of people who are considered "weird," and you want this weirdness to determine whether or not we fucking castrate them?

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.

I bolded the words and logical inferences that you apparently missed.

Also, refer to that chemical castration link I helpfully provided.

I can't be the only one who finds this completely outrageous, right? I hope and pray that you will never be in any sort of position of power at any point in your entire life, I can't imagine the suffering you would inflict.

And I hope and pray that you improve your reading comprehension and logical skills before you ever decide to vote, but here we are.

Who gets to determine what is "weird," exactly? What criteria do we have for outlining weirdness? Are all people who play quirky Japanese games weird? What about people who watch anime? I mean, if you ask GAF, many would claim that they are pedophiles! Does that mean that if you want to watch anime you're going to be monitored for the rest of your life, and potentially castrated? What if someone masturbates to lolicon? Are you going to castrate them?

Do you have bales of straw next to your keyboard or something?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders

 

[KHarvey16]

You said it was unconstitutional repeatedly, like a mantra, yet never explained how. What amendments does it violate? Which precedents does it overstep?

That premise is entirely "false" because it's a strawman. All pedophiles present a potential danger to children because all pedophiles, by their very nature, want to have sex with children, therefore they want to rape children. How is this false?

All people present a potential danger to children. You make no attempt to quantify or demonstrate in any way what this potential actually amounts to and if being a pedophile or not is what influences that potential danger primarily.

I've presented a shitload of precedents and contemporary examples tied to my proposal. None of them contradict anything. I'll recap them again, for your perusal.

Korematsu/Guantanamo Bay= Imprisoning entire races INDEFINITELY on the basis of suspicion of potentially harming society is constitutional under certain circumstances. Sexual orientation is not as protected as races, so I cite these to prove that my proposal falls wayyy under the bar allowed by the Supreme Court.

Addington= If a person is diagnosed with a mental illness and is at risk of harming himself or others, the state has the right to involuntarily commit them indefinitely, so long as it proves this danger through clear and convincing evidence. This is a low standard of proof, and sets the wiggle-room between the strictest cases like Korematsu, and unstrict cases like Addington.

Soldiers, convicts, reckless drivers, drunk drivers, spies, students, visitors, illegal immigrants, suspected gang members, etc.= Forcing/coaxing/bribing/strong-arming people to submit to a DNA database can be justified in a variety of circumstances.

Conclusion= Everything I proposed is already under constitutional grounds. For the umpteenth time, HOW is my proposal unconstitutional?

It doesn't meet even the clear and convincing evidence argument because simply being a pedophile is not clear and convincing evidence a person will rape anyone. I keep saying this but you just say "yes it is!" and pretend I never cited it as THE problem with your argument.

Convicts, reckless drivers, drunk drivers, illegal immigrants and suspected gang members can have actual conduct pointed out as evidence their DNA can be taken and cataloged. I have no idea why a student or a visitor should ever be subjected to involuntary extraction and cataloging of DNA.

This is a red herring, and confuses the strict scrutiny standard/rational basis standard/clear and convincing evidence into one big hodgepodge.

The only logical thing you said, which I had to infer from that mess, is that chemically castrating suspected pedophiles is unconstitutional. Okay. Except nobody was saying castrate pedophiles on mere suspicion. So what exactly are you arguing?

I'm not confusing anything. Strict scrutiny isn't the standard the court would even use in a case like this. There is no clear and convincing evidence when the only basis is that the person is a pedophile, so the label cannot destine them to involuntary commitment. This lack of clear and convincing evidence also keeps it from qualifying as an exception to HIPAA or a patient's rights to privacy as currently defined by precedent.

 

[Nightstick11]

All people present a potential danger to children. You make no attempt to quantify or demonstrate in any way what this potential actually amounts to and if being a pedophile or not is what influences that potential danger primarily.

You must've missed the part where I specified crimes of moral turpitude against persons.

It doesn't meet even the clear and convincing evidence argument because simply being a pedophile is not clear and convincing evidence a person will rape anyone. I keep saying this but you just say "yes it is!" and pretend I never cited it as THE problem with your argument.

Straw-man. Also, obvious lack of understanding of what the clear and convincing evidence standard, not "clear and convincing evidence", is.

Here we go again, for the umpteenth time. What I have to do is: (1) establish that pedophile suffers from mental illness; (2) establish, under the C and C evidence standard, that this person poses a risk to others.

I don't "pretend" you never cited it as "the problem" with my argument; factually, you never logically responded to my argument, and instead you're arguing against something I never said or implied.

Still waiting on those answers to those previous two questions, by the way.

Convicts, reckless drivers, drunk drivers, illegal immigrants and suspected gang members can have actual conduct pointed out as evidence their DNA can be taken and cataloged. I have no idea why a student or a visitor should ever be subjected to involuntary extraction and cataloging of DNA.

Did you miss the part of suspected gang members?
Can't illegal immigrants be an immutable trait?
Isn't reckless driving an infraction?

Also, talk to an international student once in a while. Expand your mind or something.

I'm not confusing anything. Strict scrutiny isn't the standard the court would even use in a case like this. There is no clear and convincing evidence when the only basis is that the person is a pedophile, so the label cannot destine them to involuntary commitment. This lack of clear and convincing evidence also keeps it from qualifying as an exception to HIPAA or a patient's rights to privacy as currently defined by precedent.

Straw-man. Also, obvious lack of understanding of what the clear and convincing evidence standard, not "clear and convincing evidence", is.

Here we go again, for the umpteenth time. What I have to do is: (1) establish that pedophile suffers from mental illness; (2) establish, under the C and C evidence standard, that this person poses a risk to others.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarasoff_v._Regents_of_the_University_of_California
You don't understand Tarasoff. Try and understand it. Then apply the rule to the issue we're discussing, even though it doesn't even apply except in the most obscure hypotheticals.

You also don't understand doctor-patient privilege.
http://www.lawhandbook.org.au/handbook/ch19s01s04.php

(1) it's not a law
(2) federal law does not recognize it
(3) it varies by state
(4) there are numerous exceptions to it

 

[Izayoi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_the_United_States

What's your point? There are a fuckload of people in the US? Good job! You're correct! Not sure how responding to that sentence with a link to the population is relevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration

Try again.

Uh huh. I know you went back and edited out mention of physical castration in your earlier posts. Nice try, though!

And I hope and pray that you improve your reading comprehension and logical skills before you ever decide to vote, but here we are.

Yeah, seeing through your immense and elaborate logical fallacies = lack of reading comprehension and logical skills.

Do you have bales of straw next to your keyboard or something?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders

Why use "weird" at all, then? Why not just say "if they are found to have a mental disorder,"?

And what if the study in the OP is on the right track, and pedophilia turns out to not be a mental disorder, and instead is something that people are genetically predisposed to? How is making people take a test for mental disorders going to catch it?

Your entire argument seems to hinge on pedophilia being a mental disorder, which, according to recent research, it seems that might not be the case at all. What do you propose we do? Subjugate these people who are completely sound mentally, from a biological standpoint, just because they were born a certain way?

 

[oneils]

What's your point? There are a fuckload of people in the US? Good job! You're correct! Not sure how responding to that sentence with a link to the population is relevant.

His point is that only a portion of the US could conceivably be a pedophile. We already know that males form the majority of pedophiles. So if you want to save a ton of money, you exempt women from nightsick's test.

Furthermore, if you do limit the testing to school-age males you further reduce the number of people that need to take the test. I guess you would test the 16 to 18 year olds while they are in highschool.

 

[Nightstick11]

What's your point? There are a fuckload of people in the US? Good job! You're correct! Not sure how responding to that sentence with a link to the population is relevant.

You quoted me saying "put a mental-health exam in junior high and high school", then said I want to do mandatory pedophile-screening for everyone in the United States, so I linked you that page to help. Does junior high+high school sound like 300 million people?

Uh huh. I know you went back and edited out mention of physical castration in your earlier posts. Nice try, though!

Yeah, I went back and edited all the times I mentioned "physical castration", including the ones where I pointed out that chemical castration is not permanent multiple times. Idiot.

Yeah, seeing through your immense and elaborate logical fallacies = lack of reading comprehension and logical skills.

I just pointed out, with proof, where you failed to comprehend my posts. You reply with a baseless snivel. Nice.

Why use "weird" at all, then? Why not just say "if they are found to have a mental disorder,"?

Did you not read the multiple instances where I explicitly and implicitly said mental health disorders? Did I ever mention anime?

And what if the study in the OP is on the right track, and pedophilia turns out to not be a mental disorder, and instead something that people are genetically predisposed to? How is making people take a test for mental disorders going to catch it?

What if Nightstick wrote multiple long responses detailing how Addington is but one way to implement his proposal, Izayoi actually read these responses, and Izaoyoi actually understood them? Would Nightstick have to respond to such a thick-skulled post?

Your entire argument seems to hinge on pedophilia being a mental disorder, which, according to recent research, it seems that might not be the case at all. What do you propose we do? Subjugate these people who are completely sound mentally, from a biological standpoint, just because they were born a certain way?

If you're going to say "entire argument", why don't you first read the entire arguments. There were several.

I'll start you off on the right track. Classifying pedophilia as a mental disorder was to highlight a path in which I could avoid all the shrill is-it-constitutional-or-not sniveling that would come under a strict-scrutiny case.

 

[IHaveCandy]

His point is that only a portion of the US could conceivably be a pedophile. We already know that males form the majority of pedophiles. So if you want to save a ton of money, you exempt women from nightsick's test.

Furthermore, if you do limit the testing to school-age males you further reduce the number of people that need to take the test. I guess you would test the 16 to 18 year olds while they are in highschool.

It's still a ridiculous number of people to test. And how exactly do you test people who are going to be dishonest? And I'm not exactly hot about the idea of exempting women. It sends the wrong kind of message and is unfairly profiling half of the population.

 

[oneils]

It's still a ridiculous number of people to test. And how exactly do you test people who are going to be dishonest? And I'm not exactly hot about the idea of exempting women. It sends the wrong kind of message and is unfairly profiling half of the population.

Well, like nightstick said, all kids have to undergo standardised testing anyway. That is probably insanely expensive. I'm guessing any "test" that is developed for pedophilia would only increase costs incrementally. At the end of the day, society would have to decide if it is worth the cost.

As for dishonesty...I do know that folks have designed an evaluation for mental disorders that adjusts for dishonesty (I don't remember the name). Perhaps the same can be done for pedophilia.

As for profiling, well where is the limit? If research says 99% of pedophiles are male (I have no idea if that's true), why test women? Can't we just make that decision in the interests of being cost-effective?

 

[Izayoi]

You quoted me saying "put a mental-health exam in junior high and high school", then said I want to do mandatory pedophile-screening for everyone in the United States, so I linked you that page to help. Does junior high+high school sound like 300 million people?

Furthermore, if you do limit the testing to school-age males you further reduce the number of people that need to take the test. I guess you would test the 16 to 18 year olds while they are in highschool.

That's all well and good, but what about (assuming 1-5% is the correct number) the 5,691,800+ pedophiles who are older than 18? How do you propose we go about rounding them up and putting them through your proposed regimens?

Not to mention the logistics of doing any sort of test like that, no matter the criteria, on a national level. We're already struggling to find the money we need to keep the country running, I don't think that this would ever be something that anyone would allocate billions of our rapidly shrinking budget to.

Yeah, I went back and edited all the times I mentioned "physical castration", including the ones where I pointed out that chemical castration is not permanent multiple times. Idiot.

You're making yourself out to be a rational and level-headed person. Why did you edit out physical castration? Did you change your mind in the past few hours? Clearly you wanted it before this thread was made, why the change of heart now?

I just pointed out, with proof, where you failed to comprehend my posts. You reply with a baseless snivel. Nice.

I don't think I failed to comprehend your posts at all. What I fail to comprehend is the thought process behind making such unreasonable and ridiculous proposals in the first place.

What if Nightstick wrote multiple long responses detailing how Addington is but one way to implement his proposal, Izayoi actually read these responses, and Izaoyoi actually understood them? Would Nightstick have to respond to such a thick-skulled post?

Childish name calling definitely contributes to the conversation, nice job.

I'll start you off on the right track. Classifying pedophilia as a mental disorder was to highlight a path in which I could avoid all the shrill is-it-constitutional-or-not sniveling that would come under a strict-scrutiny case.

Those are questions that need to be answered, why are we avoiding them? A proposal such as yours will never pass in any case, but I think it's counter-intuitive to dismiss an entire avenue of discussion because you consider it "sniveling".

 

[Brian Griffin]

It's still a ridiculous number of people to test. And how exactly do you test people who are going to be dishonest? And I'm not exactly hot about the idea of exempting women. It sends the wrong kind of message and is unfairly profiling half of the population.

Teacher: Hey kids, today you are going to be taking a mental health test.
Students: Does this affect our grades?
Teacher: No.
Students: *troll mode activated*

Also, the men controling this country would never allow a men-only test that could result in them being labeled a pedophile. I don't care how witch hunty they are or how much they care about potentially saving kids, they will care about themselves more.

 

[IHaveCandy]

How can you not see a test that only tests men for pedophilia as wrong?

 

[oneils]

That's all well and good, but what about (assuming 1-5% is the correct number) the 5,691,800 pedophiles who are older than 18?

I guess they stay under the radar until they seek treatment voluntarily or if they offend.
It doesn't necessarily have to be an all or nothing approach. Again, a policy like this would not get implemented unless it had the support of the public. If the public was ok with testing everyone, there you go. If they like the school-age male option, fine.

All of these policies are just being tossed around as possibilities. At the end of the day, they don't have a chance if they don't have broad popular support.

Would a policy like Nightstick's have popular support? I don't know. I wouldn't think of supporting it until it had been completely fleshed out and I could properly examine it.

 

[Izayoi]

How can you not see a test that only tests men for pedophilia as wrong?

Another excellent question. However, even excluding females, the logistics of actually implementing such a program are borderline impossible. If we're already talking in purely fantasy, why not also include females?

 

[oneils]

Another excellent question. However, even excluding females, the logistics of actually implementing such a program are borderline impossible. If we're already talking in purely fantasy, why not also include females?

I don't see it as impossible at all. Like was mentioned before, all kids have to undergo standardised testing while in school. That's not impossible. So why would the administration of a pedophilia "test" be logistically impossible?

Just want to be clear. I am only assuming that such a test is reliable and effective. The option only makes sense if the "test" is reliable and effective. If such a test does or could not exist, the whole option falls apart.

 

[KHarvey16]

You must've missed the part where I specified crimes of moral turpitude against persons.

What does that change? Anyone "could" rape or kill or abuse a child. The potential merely existing is not the discussion.

Straw-man. Also, obvious lack of understanding of what the clear and convincing evidence standard, not "clear and convincing evidence", is.

I understand what the standard is just fine. Your assertions don't satisfy it.

(2) establish, under the C and C evidence standard, that this person poses a risk to others.

Nice going, you've identified the thing I keep telling you you haven't done.

Did you miss the part of suspected gang members?

No. I said "can have actual conduct pointed out as evidence". Is English not the language I should use? Suspicion, assuming it somewhat surpasses your definition of the term, suggests there may be some actual reasons behind believing that person is a gang member. Depending on what those acts or scenarios are, it's possible they "can have actual conduct pointed out as evidence".

Can't illegal immigrants be an immutable trait?

Sure?

Isn't reckless driving an infraction?

Not usually.

Also, talk to an international student once in a while. Expand your mind or something.

Provide some context. Is it done to check incoming students for disease or something?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarasoff_v._Regents_of_the_University_of_California
You don't understand Tarasoff. Try and understand it. Then apply the rule to the issue we're discussing, even though it doesn't even apply except in the most obscure hypotheticals.

What am I not understanding? The court can't define an exception to the confidentiality, as it does, without acknowledging that expectation of privacy exists.

You also don't understand doctor-patient privilege.
http://www.lawhandbook.org.au/handbook/ch19s01s04.php

(1) it's not a law
(2) federal law does not recognize it
(3) it varies by state
(4) there are numerous exceptions to it

Why are you linking me to a "practical guide to law in Victoria"? Also, see above. Exceptions to HIPAA aren't based on your "could maybe potentially harm a child at some point, maybe" standard.

 

[Nightstick11]

That's all well and good, but what about (assuming 1-5% is the correct number) the 5,691,800+ pedophiles who are older than 18? How do you propose we go about rounding them up and putting them through your proposed regimens?

That would be a bit harder. We would have to rely on old-fashioned tips and police investigations based on those tips for that.

Not to mention the logistics of doing any sort of test like that, no matter the criteria, on a national level. We're already struggling to find the money we need to keep the country running, I don't think that this would ever be something that anyone would allocate billions of our rapidly shrinking budget to.

We can easily find money to tack on a national test on top of days when we already give out tests?

You're making yourself out to be a rational and level-headed person. Why did you edit out physical castration? Did you change your mind in the past few hours? Clearly you wanted it before this thread was made, why the change of heart now?

Do you know how to read? When did I ever edit out physical castration? Idiot.

I don't think I failed to comprehend your posts at all. What I fail to comprehend is the thought process behind making such unreasonable and ridiculous proposals in the first place.

And that's why you proved your comprehension by attempting to psychically read my mind based on no evidence, mischaracterize my arguments, emotionally rail about what you "thought" I was saying instead of what I actually said?

Childish name calling definitely contributes to the conversation, nice job.

About as much as not thoroughly reading someone's posts and straw-manning.

Those are questions that need to be answered, why are we avoiding them? A proposal such as yours will never pass in any case, but I think it's counter-intuitive to dismiss an entire avenue of discussion because you consider it "sniveling".

I'm not avoiding them. If this proposal were reality, though, I'd rather it be rammed through with the path of least resistance, rather than being shoulder-blocked at every turn by the likes of you and Kharvey, who proclaim something to be unconstitutional because the way you "feel", who have a six-year old's understanding of the legal system and concepts in our country, and who seem to lack basic reading comprehension skills.

If I can find a legal loophole to swiftly implement the policy, why shouldn't I sniff around for it?

 

[ShadyLurker]

Thanks guys! I'm still wondering if I'm going to regret this later...

I'm actually right-handed, by the way. Part of the 70% here!

If pedophilia is some kind of brain pathway mix up like the OP talks about, if it could be fixed or reversed so you are attracted to adults, would you get the operation?

Are you only attracted to one gender? I'm curious if the homo/hetero part of the brain is still relevant or if any child is potentially arousing regardless if gender.

 

[IHaveCandy]

Before you say it is feasable, you have to actually design the test. This does not sound easy. How do we know if something is pedophilia or something else? What happens to those misclassified?

 

[mantidor]

I think I also read somewhere that the percentage of lefty homosexuals was also higher than the general population?

See, when reporting these numbers to make it look flashier and headline worth it they play with the numbers. So they say something like "homosexuals are 30% more likely to be left-handed than heterosexuals", technically true, but this makes it look like 30% of all homosexuals are left handed, they are not. What this really means is that while in the heterosexual population, say, 10% are left handed, in the homosexual population it would be 13%. basically:

Now what the article says about pedophiles is actually a huge number, it means out of three pedophiles one will be left-handed. The normal rate in the general population is 1 left handed in 10 people. of course the article uses "its triple the normal rate!" to make it sound bigger.

 

[Izayoi]

I guess they stay under the radar until they seek treatment voluntarily or if they offend.

That doesn't really help the problem, though. If we're doing this to somehow protect children, is it just "tough shit" until the last of the unscreened pedophiles dies of old age?

Frankly, the entire idea strikes me as eerily Nineteen Eighty-Four-esque in that we are giving harsh, life-altering punishments to those who commit thought crime. It's sets an incredibly dangerous precedent.

I don't see it as impossible at all. Like was mentioned before, all kids have to undergo standardised testing while in school. That's not impossible. So why would the administration of a pedophilia "test" be logistically impossible?

Just want to be clear. I am only assuming that such a test is possible and effective. The option only makes sense if the "test" is reliable and effective. If such a test does or could not exist, the whole option falls apart.

Even standardized testing is notoriously inaccurate and ineffective, and that's something for which the results are based solely off of knowledge.

Logistically impossible, because if you are going to realistically test for pedophilia, you will need each person to sit down with a psychologist. The psychologist is going to need to ask questions that most parents would balk at, they're going to need to perform invasive testing (the penis blood flow test mentioned in the OP). Testing each student would take hours of time with professionals, and the results would need to be screened by other experts to ensure accuracy. Do you want to think about the cost of doing something like that on a national level? I sure don't.

Of course, that's assuming we have fool-proof testing, which we most definitely do not. At that age, most kids know better than to self-incriminate. Everyone will lie, and unless we can find a consistent identifier through genetics, we will never be certain. All of current testing methods are inaccurate, and performed almost exclusively on people who are known to be pedophiles through actual violence. It's entirely possible that the minds of different pedophiles work differently, something that we don't know, and with the current stigma, will likely never know. How are you going to sort out the liars from those who are telling the truth? How are you going to encourage people to tell the truth, when they know that doing so will grant them only a life of misery?

 

[oneils]

Before you say it is feasable, you have to actually design the test. This does not sound easy. How do we know if something is pedophilia or something else? What happens to those misclassified?

For sure this discussion is assuming a lot. The test does have to be reliable and effective.

Currently the test is this:

A man sits alone in a room viewing a series of images and listening to descriptions of various sexual acts with adults and children, male and female, while wearing a device that monitors blood flow to his penis.

I don't think parents would be open to subjecting their sons to this test. So the test would probably have to be less invasive.

 

[IHaveCandy]

For sure this discussion is assuming a lot. The test does have to be reliable and effective.

Currently the test is this:



I don't think parents would be open to subjecting their sons to this test. So the test would probably have to be less invasive.

Boners are not always a good sign you know...

 

[UrbanRats]

Are you only attracted to one gender? I'm curious if the homo/hetero part of the brain is still relevant or if any child is potentially arousing regardless if gender.

The article in the OP says it's still relevant.

Like men attracted to adults, nearly all pedophiles respond most strongly to one gender or the other — females far more often than males.

 

[Drazgul]

Interesting bit about the age of consent and its history at Wikipedia:

In the United States, by the 1880s, most states set the age of consent at 10–12, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only 7. A New York Times article states that it was still aged 7 in Delaware in 1895. Female reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the age of consent to 16–18 by 1920.

Social (and the resulting legal) attitudes toward the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times. For example, while ages from 10 to 13 were typically acceptable in Western countries during the mid-19th century, the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century were marked by changing attitudes towards sexuality and childhood resulting in raising the ages of consent to around 16.

I had somehow thought that AoC being somewhere in the high teens would've been a somewhat older convention.

 

[Nightstick11]

What does that change? Anyone "could" rape or kill or abuse a child. The potential merely existing is not the discussion.

You said "all people present a potential danger to children", which is idiotically overbroad, vague, and unspecific.

I narrowed it down to people who are likely to commit a crime of moral turpitude against children.

I understand what the standard is just fine. Your assertions don't satisfy it.

Protip: your strawman was debunked yesterday.

Nice going, you've identified the thing I keep telling you you haven't done.

You're finally showing some shadow of hope that you are backing away from your moronic strawman, and finally, FINALLY, realizing what I've been saying all along: those two elements are all I need to prove to institutionalize a pedophile, if pedophilia was classified as mental illness.

No. I said "can have actual conduct pointed out as evidence". Is English not the language I should use? Suspicion, assuming it somewhat surpasses your definition of the term, suggests there may be some actual reasons behind believing that person is a gang member. Depending on what those acts or scenarios are, it's possible they "can have actual conduct pointed out as evidence".

Sigh.

It's also possible they can't.
It's also possible they have no basis for investigating someone, and are doing it to harass.

Regardless, I saw your responses to international students, illegal immigrants, and reckless driving. Obviously, I just pointed out that it isn't some HUGE INVASION OF PRIVACY to involuntarily enter people into a database, DNA or otherwise, even if they haven't done something wrong.

What am I not understanding? The court can't define an exception to the confidentiality, as it does, without acknowledging that expectation of privacy exists.

Arguing against nobody in particular, you said : "This lack of clear and convincing evidence also keeps it from qualifying as an exception to HIPAA or a patient's rights to privacy as currently defined by precedent", which would have been relevant had anybody implied that pedophiles are somehow not protected by the doctor-patient privilege.

Tarasoff set the precedent where a doctor could violate that privilege if a third person was in imminent danger.

Why are you linking me to a "practical guide to law in Victoria"? Also, see above. Exceptions to HIPAA aren't based on your "could maybe potentially harm a child at some point, maybe" standard.

Congratulations, you just scored your first point. My mistake, linking you that.

Regardless, the four bullet points apply to the doctor-patient privilege in the USA.

Also, as pointed out multiple times, refrain from saying stupid things like: "Exceptions to HIPAA aren't based on your "could maybe potentially harm a child at some point, maybe" standard" when nobody is saying what you're arguing against. That's called a "straw-man".

 

[teh_pwn]

Hah!

But you should re-read it, it says 30% of pedophiles are left-handed or ambidextrous, not that 30% of left-handed people are pedophiles.

Uh huh, and Slytherins aren't necessarily magical nazis, sure...

 

[oneils]

Izayoi, IHaveCandy, I think you may be misunderstanding me. I am not all that invested in the "test" option.

For 10 years I worked in government policy (in a much less controversial field). I am now in administration. Government policy does not have much chance of success unless it is clear, fair, effective, and enforceable. It also usually requires broad support.

I am playing a bit of devil's advocate here because from my experience as a bureaucrat I can see how that this option is plausible. But, again, it assumes a lot. It assumes that it would have broad support and that the "test" is actually reliable. Without that, it doesn't have a chance.

 

[Brian Griffin]

Nightstick, I can tell that you are very passionate about this idea of yours but you have to realize that what you are proposing will almost certainly never happen. People won't stand for it. I know I wouldn't.

And what about the damage simply testing kids for this will do to them? Requiring innocent children to take a test to find out if they might rape a kid someday should not be a part of a productive and positive learning environment.

 

[Izayoi]

We can easily find money to tack on a national test on top of days when we already give out tests?

Design me a test that works like our current standardized testing and is 100% accurate for catching pedophiles. Or, see my above post to see why it is completely unreasonable.

Do you know how to read? When did I ever edit out physical castration? Idiot.

Your earlier posts implied that you would be fine with either, but I now see that the mention of physical is missing. I was merely inquiring into why that was the case.

And that's why you proved your comprehension by attempting to psychically read my mind based on no evidence, mischaracterize my arguments, emotionally rail about what you "thought" I was saying instead of what I actually said?

Huh, that sounds an awful lot like what you want to do to pedophiles...

I'm not avoiding them. If this proposal were reality, though, I'd rather it be rammed through with the path of least resistance, rather than being shoulder-blocked at every turn by the likes of you and Kharvey, who proclaim something to be unconstitutional because the way you "feel", who have a six-year old's understanding of the legal system and concepts in our country, and who seem to lack basic reading comprehension skills.

Again with the insults. Are we unable to keep the conversation civil?

 

[ShadyLurker]

The article in the OP says it's still relevant.

So it does. I must have forgotten that part. Still, I'm interested to hear what his personal views are.

 

[Ziltoid]

Obviously, I just pointed out that it isn't some HUGE INVASION OF PRIVACY to involuntarily enter people into a database, DNA or otherwise, even if they haven't done something wrong

But it is.

This notion that basic human rights and privacy is to be tossed aside for the "safety" of children is downright offensive.

 

[Zyrusticae]

If pedophilia is some kind of brain pathway mix up like the OP talks about, if it could be fixed or reversed so you are attracted to adults, would you get the operation?

Prooobably not.

Besides the fact that it's actually fairly easy for me to live with (I mean besides constantly being put down by people who have no clue as a 'monster', even for something as innocuous as stating my preferences), I have a huge collection of material already that would probably freak me the fuck out if I got such an operation, haha. Just the thought of deleting it all fills me with dread.

More to the point, I feel no real shame over my attraction. I would feel shame if I acted on it, but fortunately I do not. And no small part of me feels like taking such an operation would fundamentally alter who I am in very uncomfortable ways.

I'm okay with myself. It's the rest of the world I'm more concerned about.

Are you only attracted to one gender? I'm curious if the homo/hetero part of the brain is still relevant or if any child is potentially arousing regardless if gender.

I'm going to avoid saying I'm heterosexual (because of my ambiguous gender situation - my brain is fucking weird, man) but will say that I am primarily attracted to females.

 

[Boogie]

Thanks guys! I'm still wondering if I'm going to regret this later...

Depends.

Are you in possession of child porn on your computer?

 

[i-Lo]

Some pretty broad strokes and implantation one's own ideals of black and white here pertaining to aspects of human sexuality and circumstance, well beyond paedophilia.

 

[Emitan]

Prooobably not.

Besides the fact that it's actually fairly easy for me to live with (I mean besides constantly being put down by people who have no clue as a 'monster', even for something as innocuous as stating my preferences), I have a huge collection of material already that would probably freak me the fuck out if I got such an operation, haha. Just the thought of deleting it all fills me with dread.

More to the point, I feel no real shame over my attraction. I would feel shame if I acted on it, but fortunately I do not. And no small part of me feels like taking such an operation would fundamentally alter who I am in very uncomfortable ways.

I'm okay with myself. It's the rest of the world I'm more concerned about.
I'm going to avoid saying I'm heterosexual (because of my ambiguous gender situation - my brain is fucking weird, man) but will say that I am primarily attracted to females.

...

 

[KHarvey16]

You said "all people present a potential danger to children", which is idiotically overbroad, vague, and unspecific.

I narrowed it down to people who are likely to commit a crime of moral turpitude against children.

Oh, now it's "likely"! A term you still have not defined or supported with a single shred of evidence.

Protip: your strawman was debunked yesterday.

Uh huh.

You're finally showing some shadow of hope that you are backing away from your moronic strawman, and finally, FINALLY, realizing what I've been saying all along: those two elements are all I need to prove to institutionalize a pedophile, if pedophilia was classified as mental illness.

What? I've been telling you your inability to supply sufficient evidence for the claim is the problem.

Sigh.

It's also possible they can't.

Agreed! So?

It's also possible they have no basis for investigating someone, and are doing it to harass.

And...what impact does this have on anything I typed?

Regardless, I saw your responses to international students, illegal immigrants, and reckless driving. Obviously, I just pointed out that it isn't some HUGE INVASION OF PRIVACY to involuntarily enter people into a database, DNA or otherwise, even if they haven't done something wrong.

It certainly can be. And a database set up based on the assumption a person needs to be monitored and determined only by interactions with a doctor would in fact be wrong.

Arguing against nobody in particular, you said : "This lack of clear and convincing evidence also keeps it from qualifying as an exception to HIPAA or a patient's rights to privacy as currently defined by precedent", which would have been relevant had anybody implied that pedophiles are somehow not protected by the doctor-patient privilege.

Tarasoff set the precedent where a doctor could violate that privilege if a third person was in imminent danger.

Tarasoff cannot establish that exception unless it's an exception to something. If we agree that pedophiles are protected by doctor-patient confidentiality you also need to present sufficient evidence to warrant an exception if you intend to use that medical information.

Congratulations, you just scored your first point. My mistake, linking you that.

Regardless, the four bullet points apply to the doctor-patient privilege in the USA.

Also, as pointed out multiple times, refrain from saying stupid things like: "Exceptions to HIPAA aren't based on your "could maybe potentially harm a child at some point, maybe" standard" when nobody is saying what you're arguing against. That's called a "straw-man".

Your first bullet point said doctor-patient privilege isn't a law, yet the courts felt it necessary to write a bunch of words detailing an exception to this idea that isn't a law. Did they waste their time? You also said federal law does not recognize it, but HIPAA is federal law and outlines the privacy regulations applied to medical information.

 

[Boogie]

...

Ya, noticed that.

 

[Zyrusticae]

...

It's all drawn/rendered/2D/fake material, if that's what you're getting at.

I don't think it would be very bright of me to admit to collecting actual CP.

 

[Emitan]

It's all drawn/rendered/2D/fake material, if that's what you're getting at.

I don't think it would be very bright of me to admit to collecting actual CP.

Oh. Loli stuff doesn't bother me.

 

[Boogie]

It's all drawn/rendered/2D/fake material, if that's what you're getting at.

I don't think it would be very bright of me to admit to collecting actual CP.

Your second sentence gives me no reason to believe the first.