qinwamascot wrote: jestingrabbit wrote:
If its a tiny risk why is it that
Conservative estimates indicate that 20% of all females and 10% of all males have been molested prior to age 18 years.
That's a pretty significant portion of the populus. Moreover, its a very negative thing for a child to be sexually abused. It can lead to serious problems throughout the rest of the child's life. Finally, its not a risk that you are taking upon yourself, it is a risk that you are forcing upon your children. Its a pretty significant social rule that parents should protect their children, and to walk away from that, to see something which can be severly debilitating, that occurs to something like 15% of children, as a small risk is incredibly stupid.
The reason I think it is a relatively small risk is this: the person is openly a pedophile.
Allow me to explain. I'm assuming that the person knows that I know that they are a pedophile. Thus, I'd likely set up security systems (i.e. cameras, telling my kids about sexual abuse, etc) and have ways to check. Personally, I have security cameras set up in my dorm room 24/7 in case some one steals something. I'd likely do the same for my house. Also, my kids will be adequately prepared, and in the worst case scenario that one of them gets abused, I would know about it. The person who would knowingly accept these restrictions and be willing to babysit anyways would be constantly aware of the consequences and that I am adequately prepared.
On the other hand, an ordinary pedophile will think they can get away with something. It's not hard to get away with if the person isn't prepared. It's much harder if the person is. Perhaps I should qualify here that I was talking about children who are at least 10-11 years old and know about sex and abuse. I wouldn't particularly trust anyone outside my immediate family with children younger than that.
So its not simply because of the openness of the pedophile, its the fact that you would have that person under surveillance, prepare your children, and only subject children who are older than 10 to this risk.
To put it another way: you don't trust that a pedophile who is open about it wont offend, you trust that there are steps that you can take to minimise a risk that your hypothetical actions demonstrate you are well aware of.
But even this position is incredibly stupid. A lot of the work that pedophiles undertake on the way to actually abusing a child is called grooming, a process which is all about creating a relationship of trust between the pedophile and a prospective victim. You're basically putting someone in a position where the job that they're doing requires that they undertake actions that bring them closer to hurting people. The sort of treatment that's out there is all about stopping this sort of thing from happening, but you'd be fine with it. That's stupid.
btw, there is nothing to suggest that the dA poster is open about their pedophilia in their day to day life. They are at pains to not pay for things using their own accounts for instance. They felt that they were free to talk about it because they could not be identified via their account.
qinwamascot wrote: jestingrabbit wrote: qinwamascot wrote: jestingrabbit wrote:
As for what this individual should do, I think they should seek professional help. Every pedophile who acts on their urges was at one time a pedophile who did not act on their urges and you have acted too late if you wait for harmful behaviours to develop before getting help.
As for the idea that there is no treatment available: that's nonsense. Read this
I agree that if he has urges that are uncontrollable, he should seek treatment. However, forcing it on him is absolutely wrong.
If someone is suicidal, the state doesn't wait until those thoughts are uncontrollable. It intervenes before then if possible, and I think the state should do the same in this case. The usual requirement (we are all probably coming from different jurisdictions, so this will vary) for detaining someone against their will for psychiatric treatment is that they are a danger to themselves or others. Why should that standard be varied in the case of pedophilia?
I don't want to get into a suicide debate here, I have another topic
for that. Suffice it to say I'm not in favor of the current restrictions. I think a better restriction is immediate danger to others.
Fine, lets not discuss suicide.
Under the rule that you suggest, if a pedophile were to report that they were befriending a child and had had sexual fantasies regarding that child and was contemplating abusing that child, it seems like the right thing to do, on the basis of your rule, would be to restrict that person's freedom, yes? So there are cases where you can acknowledge that a pedophile should have their freedoms restricted for the safety of others and so that they can get psychiatric help, before they have offended, yes?
I realise that this is not the case for the specific individual being discussed here, but your discussion of babysitting was equally not about this individual.
qinwamascot wrote: jestingrabbit wrote:
qinwamascot wrote:Your argument here that every pedophile who acts on their urges at one point wasn't is true. But it doesn't contribute anything at all to the debate. From this we can not make any conclusions about how likely it is that he will at some point give in. To do so would be affirming the consequent.
You're correct that we can't make a statistical judgement of how dangerous any given individual non-offending pedophile is, though you seem quite comfortable claiming that they present a tiny risk, despite the fact that child sexual abuse is widely recognised as being highly detrimental, and without any supporting data, supporting you claims with repeated appeals to willpower.
But regardless of what the actual probability is, considering the possible harm that could be done, that individual has a moral duty to persue actions that minimise that probability. They should get psychiatric or psychological help.
But you're forgetting the other side of the equation. Putting non-offending pedophiles who will never offend into prison/treatment against their own will is also a negative. You have to balance this with the negative of harm to children. I agree that they should get help, but not that we should force them to.
Someone who isn't in the process of grooming a particular victim, and has never done so, shouldn't be forced into treatment imo. But someone who is undertaking this process should be stopped. As they haven't committed a crime, they can't be stopped by the police. Given that they are a risk to someone else, though, they can be detained due to their mental illness, and I think it is the right thing to do.
qinwamascot wrote: jestingrabbit wrote:
qinwamascot wrote:To show how this logic fails, I'll take another example. Everyone who is a murderer at one point was born. Thus, to reduce the number of murders, we should kill all the newborn babies. This will accomplish said goal, but it assumes that the converse of the statement is true. In reality, we have no way of telling the small percentage of people who will become murderers from the much larger set of people who are born. Just like we have no way of telling the small number of people who will rape children relative to the larger number who have urges to do so.
If someone was regularly fantasizing about killing people, I would think that person needed help too. Beyond that, your analogy is completely specious.
Such a person should seek help, but the difference is whether or not the government should force them to get it. I don't think so, but it ultimately isn't very relevant to this topic. I don't see the problem with the analogy. Unless you're using the older, obsolete meaning of specious (showy), in which case admittedly it is.
qinwamascot wrote:So in short, this argument absolutely fails in formal logic. The premise is true, but the steps to get to the conclusion are invalid, so the conclusion is not valid.
Given that I wasn't trying to formally prove anything, I am comfortable with this. But you should realise that formal logic has its limits, and that your own argument is riddled with assumptions that seem to have no basis in fact.
The point is that if an argument fails in formal logic, it doesn't make sense. My argument may be based on faulty premisses, but it is logically consistent within these premisses. So in short, neither argument is necessarily correct. However, if my (admittedly unresearched) premisses are correct, then the conclusion follows. For yours, the premisses don't imply the conclusion as written.
Here's my argument presented in a formal Baysian framework with some standard syllogisms
X="Some individual adult"
D="X is a pedophile"
M="X is a child molester"
T="X is undergoing psychiatric or psychological treatment for pedophilia"
P(M | X and (not D)) = P(M | X and (not D) and T) = P(M | X and (not D) and (not T)) < P(M | X and D and T) < P(M | X and D and (not T))
This, coupled with the assumptions that "Someone who can reduce the chance that they will molest children without gross imposition should do so" and "Psychiatric treatment is not a gross imposition" leads to the conclusion that "Pedophiles should undergo psychiatric or psychological treatment for pedophilia".
But hey, why don't we stick to english. You claim that an analogy that has death being substituted for psychiatric treatment is a reasonable analogy. I claim that its specious bullshit, in the sense of specious where I mean that you are pulling stuff from your arse and claiming that it is the crown jewels of the king of rationality.
I mean, you have an analogy where you've got (child abuse, pedophile, treatment)~(murder, human, death). That's a really bad analogy.
qinwamascot wrote:I don't agree with Oklahoma state policy on a lot of things, but there isn't a lot I can do about it since I vote in New Jersey. But the policy you mentioned dealt with people with mental illnesses which obstructed decision-making ability. I'd argue that this doesn't fall into such a category since the person in question knows what the right decision is.
Fine. New Jersey it is.
New Jersey Mental Health Law wrote:
m. "In need of involuntary commitment" means that an adult who is mentally ill, whose mental illness causes the person to be dangerous to self or dangerous to others or property and who is unwilling to be admitted to a facility voluntarily for care, and who needs care at a short-term care, psychiatric facility or special psychiatric hospital because other services are not appropriate or available to meet the person's mental health care needs.
Nougatrocity wrote:Does that 20% of women/10% of men statistic mean ACTUAL abuse, or does it include instances where it's only a crime because the law dictates it? (For example, if a 17 year old has consensual sex with an 18 year old in state where 18 is the age of consent, does that technically illegal act constitute sexual abuse?)
The source that is being cited reads as follows:
Pedophilia is the most common paraphiliac act involving the touching of a victim against his or her will or who is unable to give consent. Conservative estimates indicate that 20% of all females and 10% of all males have been molested prior to age 18 years (Finkelhor et al. 1986).
This seems a bit hard to interpret. All that is required are 1) touching the victim and 2) victim unable to give consent. So my parents, who touched me when I was a baby, are pedophiles by this wording. I don't know how to fix it. If I find a copy of that study I will try to locate the exact definition used because this is a poor definition overall.
There is another way to read it, that "involving" is operative and not qualifying, meaning this isn't even a definition at all. In that case they haven't offered a better one.
I think this probably answers your question though, even if it is poorly worded. So yes, it would, assuming it was reported.
Why don't you, instead of trying to read the tealeaves of a pair of sentences, read the excerpt from the book
that amazon provides?
If you'd done that, you'd realise that that figure is the distilled wisdom of the entire first chapter of "A Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse". A range of studies are cited, with figures as low as 6% and 3% and as high as 62% and 31% for females and males respectively. The 20%/10% figures are a best, low ball, guess taking into account all the data.
Later work by Finkelhor is summarised in an abstract for a paper.
Finkelhor, D. (1994). The international epidemiology of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18, 409-417. wrote:Abstract: "Surveys of child sexual abuse in large nonclinical populations of adults have been conducted in at least 19 countries in addition to the United States and Canada, including 10 national probability samples. All studies have found rates in line with comparable North American research, ranging from 7% to 36% for women and 3% to 29% for men. Most studies found females to be abused at 1.5 to 3 times the rate for males. Few comparisons among countries are possible because of methodological and definitional differences. However, they clearly confirm sexual abuse to be an international problem."
Even if we take the low numbers here, they are pretty big numbers. They're considerably larger than 1 in 100, more like 1 in 20. That's a pretty significant part of the population.