Intercept wrote: Belial wrote:
Meaux_Pas wrote:Sometimes I really just want to kill a lot of people. Will everyone insisting that this person can't possibly exercise self control for the duration of his life say the same for me?
If your drive to kill a lot of people is similar in duration and intensity as your desire to have sex, and you found it equally easy to rationalize, I'd suggest psychological treatment ASAP, yes.
But I imagine it's just short term, intermittent, and not as strong.
Likewise, it would be a lot harder to engage in some rationalization to make it okay in your head when you started murdering folk.
So you're probably okay.
Of course, it's always possible that, despite all that, this dude is a pillar of willpower and he'll be fine forever. But I prefer to assume most people are of average
willpower, and that therefore this guy will slip up.
As many people who have contemplated/committed murder or genocide will tell you, it's not that hard to rationalize.
I can attest to this, having contemplated some criminal acts in the past (though not murder or genocide... more along the lines of shoplifting or punching someone). The urges can get pretty strong, but I highly doubt that a person of "average willpower" as Belial said would not be able to overcome them. What average willpower is is highly debatable anyways, and I don't think we want to have that debate. Also, having no hard evidence as to the willpower required to not give in, we are relying on assumptions.
Belial wrote:Treatment is not punishment. Treatment is treatment. If you get typhoid or get run over by a car, you're not being *punished* when we take you to the hospital and hold you there until you're better, all the while using medicine and medical procedures on you to facilitate the process. You're being treated.
The semantics and uses of a statement like this scare the shit out of me. You're saying that taking away a person who is in a medical condition that likely makes them unconscious or near death is being taken prisoner when they're being treated to have their lives saved. You're then saying that preemptively locking someone up, which, by the way, is what you're doing, for some illegal desire or thing they have contemplated is equivalent. Forced treatment and prison aren't all that different. The worst part about prison? Losing your own freedom. I believe forced treatment also has that problem.
Agreed. Treatment that is not voluntary is the same as imprisonment. Perhaps it would help if the people who want him to have treatment would say if they want it forced on him or as a voluntary choice; I'm not sure but a lot of the arguments seemed to be in favor of optional treatment, not mandatory.
VirtualAardvark wrote:It is unfair to assume anyone with an attraction is liable to act on it. I have a close friend who has frequently fantasized about raping women. I know I fit into the type of chick he's attracted to. I also know that I could in no way resist him if it ever came down to that. This in no way prevents me from being comfortable around him.
I hope that works out for you. If I were a woman, knowing that 1 in 3 women are raped or sexually assaulted, most of them by someone they know, I
wouldn't hang out alone with the big guy with the rape fantasies and the unrequited attraction to me. But that's your risk to take. You're
deciding to take it, knowing the odds.*
The statistic you are using here has no bearing on the matter at hand; using it is affirming the consequent. Sure, one in three women get raped. This is a horrible fact. But that doesn't give any meaningful information about how many men rape women, or how strong the desires are to do so, and especially not the chances of a specific man raping someone. If you have statistics on this, that would be helpful, but if not, don't misuse existing statistics.
Belial wrote:Unfortunately, all a repressed pedophile has to do is go to a further-away playground to find some kids who don't know the odds or the factors, and put them at risk without that decision. By deciding we're okay with that, we're kindof making that choice for everyone.
Kids should be being supervised, no matter how far away the playground is from the nearest pedophile. That aside, you assume here that the person who we are speaking of is going to sexually assault children. Either that or you are unsure, but you think it is better to lock him up anyways. In that case, I refer you to the statement of judicial principle that it is better to let 10 guilty men walk free than to put one innocent man in prison.
Intercept wrote:As many people who have contemplated/committed murder or genocide will tell you, it's not that hard to rationalize.
Harder than pedophilia. As evidenced by the fact that 10% of our population hasn't been murdered in cold blood. And I'll wager that quite a few more people have considered killing people than have considered fucking 10 year olds.
I don't know if you'd win that bet, but it's really unimportant. how easy something is to rationalize isn't cause to effectively imprison anyone who thinks thoughts that way, especially if they're predisposed to it. I agree that he should probably seek help, but forcing it denies a person of basic human rights without any foreseeable gain *in the individual case*.
You're then saying that preemptively locking someone up, which, by the way, is what you're doing, for some illegal desire or thing they have contemplated is equivalent. Forced treatment and prison aren't all that different. The worst part about prison? Losing your own freedom. I believe forced treatment also has that problem.
Not really. Did you read the link JestingRabbit posted vis-a-vis treatment regimens for pedophilia? Most of it is outpatient. But the point is that someone is keeping an eye on this person, monitoring their condition, and working them toward either replacing or nullifying those urges.
*Which is not to say in any sense that it will be your fault if you get raped. That will rest squarely on him. I am merely contrasting with the lack of choice offered to unsuspecting children in a similar scenario.
So if it's an outpatient kind of treatment, then possibly it would be more accurate to classify it as house-arrest or parole or something along those lines. Which is still wrong.
If Chickens Were Purple... wrote:I think if I were attracted to children, I'd be less likely to act on it without medical/psychiatric intervention. Obviously I don't know that. But I'm guessing, if I kept it to myself I'd have the whole 'society has deemed this the most shameful thing you can ever possibly do' thing to keep me in check, whereas if some doctor was telling me "you're sick! I sure hope we can treat you sucessfully, you poor thing", I'd be more likely to accept raping children as a part of who I am, and I'd be able to justify it by thinking in terms of the treatment failing.
Confucius would agree with you-law is by far inferior to ritual and societal conformity in achieving stability.
qinwamascot wrote:Yeah...it really doesn't matter at all whether it's a disorder or orientation; it's just semantics at best.
You may be trying to make it 'just semantics', but it's really not, and you're showing just how deep your misunderstanding of what a paraphilia or other sexual disorder is in relation to a sexual orientation really is.
Homosexuality may have been classified as a mental disorder, but it was never classified as a paraphilia (as far as I know). There is a great deal of difference between 'orientation' and a mental disorder.
Great job. You have said they are different. But you haven't specified how. I'm so impressed I think I'll not believe you. Perhaps if you went more in depth than "homosexuality was never a paraphilia" then I *might* consider what you have to say.
qinwamascot wrote:and in the worst case scenario that one of them gets abused, I would know about it.
Child sex abuse is a very tramatic event in a child's life it's not merely 'oh well I'll know about it, it's okay' that's sort of like saying 'oh it's okay to have a serial killer over for babysitting, cause if he beheads one of my kids I'll know.'
You have missed the entire point. It is a worst-case scenario. In alternative worst-case scenarios, like someone who is secretly a pedophile and who I am not prepared for or observing, I would not know. Surely, you'd agree that knowing is better than not knowing. Either way, the fact that the child is abused is unavoidable in either your case or mine, so mine is superior because I know what happened.
Your analogy here is ridiculous, as anyone can see. I'm not even going to bother attacking it.
think we can do without the paranoia mongering. Hey, your average male high school teacher is going to find some of his female students attractive, yet he manages not to sleep with them, often times even when they're consenting and willing to keep it secret. I guess he's just not tempted?
Or he's capable of having sex with someone with similar attributes without it being a massive ethics violation.
Assuming we're talking about a full-on, not-interested-in-adults pedophile, we're basically asking someone to shut down or suppress their entire sex drive indefinitely, and just assuming that they can do that with no help. That's not quite the same as refraining from punching someone at work, or refraining from having sex *right now* with *that specific person*. Kindof like a giant squid is not quite a cuttlefish.
I'm not quite sure how many more ways I can say that, so I'm going to stop, and just assume that anyone who ignores it and makes a "I really want to eat 500 twinkies should they put me in the hospital against my will" argument rather than addressing it is impenetrable.
You are assuming how strong his willpower and sex drive are. Perhaps he has a very low sex drive? Or perhaps he has decent willpower. Either way, I don't see it as being impossible, or even extremely difficult, to not make a mistake. Temptations tend to get *easier* to resist over time due to the building of habits. It's a known and well-documented psychological phenomenon, and why when people try to quit smoking, 50% of those who make it past 3 days succeed. The desire never totally goes away, but it gets weaker over time.
btw I ate 500 twinkies over a 2 month period one time. Not. Fun. But that's another story for a more relevant time.
Kachi wrote:I think we can do without the paranoia mongering. Hey, your average male high school teacher is going to find some of his female students attractive, yet he manages not to sleep with them, often times even when they're consenting and willing to keep it secret. I guess he's just not tempted? Pfft. And I'm hard pressed to believe there's any difference between those teachers and the elementary school teacher who may have similar issues. (Note that in most high schools, it's grounds for termination to even plan to have a relationship with a student after their graduation.)
But a teacher is not, by definition, attracted to their students... and has other outlets for their desires (they are only restricted from relationships with their students, not others of legal age). A paedophile, by definition, has no such outlets.
Imprisonment, for someone who has not actually committed a crime is obviously incorrect... but I don't see why this guy shouldn't seek professional help to deal with 'this'.
A lot of male teachers are attracted to female students though. Sure, many aren't, but quite a few are, yet they manage to overcome it. However I agree with you that he should seek professional help. The problem most people here have is if he is forced to get professional help.
Nougatrocity wrote:I'll say this again: before society says "this is something you need to be treated for," it also needs to stop saying "this makes you a disgusting and terrible person and we need to fix fix fix it!"
I know that that's not what you're saying, Belial, but our society is full of people that are judgmental assholes about these sorts of things. I honestly think if we got to the point where society could be justified in demanding treatment, that society wouldn't have to demand it - there would be no negatives in seeking it.
Another very Confucian argument (in case you're wondering, I mean that as a compliment). I think *almost* everyone would agree that a situation where he can come forward himself and seek treatment without being shunned by society is the best case scenario. Unfortunately, we aren't there. Not even close. I think it's partly because everyone wants to force treatment on them that they will never come forward. And, of course, partly because of a society that shuns people who have done nothing wrong.
jestingrabbit wrote: 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.
I don't trust anyone to not offend, so I'd take the same steps to avoid it regardless. Perhaps I'm a control-freak, but for me the limitations above would be the standards for anyone watching my children, not just a known pedophile. Under these assumptions, having a known pedophile is not a significant risk. Perhaps others aren't as paranoid of people in general as me, but since I am already as paranoid as I am, I see no reason to be more paranoid because someone has admitted that they are attracted to children.
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.
I'd respectfully disagree. Perhaps if the person was actively trying to rape someone, this would be the case. But he isn't. And from what I can tell, the "treatments" that are out there really don't have any great impact anyways, especially after we factor in the placebo effect. If such a person, who is actively trying to avoid abusing children, would be unwilling to do it, as they might be, that'd be understandable, but if they have enough willpower to avoid doing anything, which I personally don't think is very much, there is no problem.
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.
Yes, but the reason for this is because he doesn't want to face the condemn and criticism of the public, many of whom attack his very existence. Judging by just the posts here and there, both somewhat liberal online communities, that is highly understandable. I don't think that 'coming out' on an internet community or real life signifies a different desire to not rape children; just that he doesn't want to be attacked himself in real life. I'm sure there are a lot of lunatics who would do things like set fire to his house just because of something he has no control over. But it doesn't change any of my argument before.
jestingrabbit wrote: 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.
Sexual fantasies do not constitute an immediate danger in my opinion. As for the contemplating abusing the child portion, this would depend on the nature of the contemplation. *as a (relevant) example* I have contemplated punching people in the face, but that doesn't make me an immediate danger to them. If I get to the point where I am resolved to do so, then I would be an immediate danger. And yes, at that point, I think we should treat them. Notably, this line is also when it becomes a crime i.e. attempted molestation. So until they have committed *a* crime, we shouldn't treat them. Once they have, even if it is only a crime of attempt, then it is perfectly fine.
I guess we've kind of shifted into a discussion of pedophilia in general now anyway, so it's probably alright. So long as we recognize the difference in the two cases.
jestingrabbit wrote: 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.
I believe this would qualify as attempted molestation legally. It'd be hard to decide, but a jury can convict if they find that he was acting based on a plan to do so. After that point, they should absolutely be detained. But not before.
...wow, I'm agreeing with you now. Either one of us changed positions or I didn't understand your position before.
jestingrabbit wrote: 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 Bayesian 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".
...I really meant that your logic assumed that the converse of a true statement is also true, which is a formal logical fallacy. Not that you have to use logical framework, but that you have to recognize the fallacies in standard english. Certainly the above is unnecessary for a forum-style debate (I don't think I even use that in structured debates very much tbh)
That being said, I agree with this. Pedophiles should undergo treatment. But it shouldn't be forced.
btw I corrected your spelling mistake when you wrote Bayesian
jestingrabbit wrote: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.
Perhaps. That analogy really was only somewhat important to my argument though.
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.
Ok, so people can be admitted against their will if they pose a serious danger to themselves or others. So like actually planning and/or attempting to molest someone. Just being a pedophile doesn't qualify here if I understand correctly. Not that pedophiles shouldn't seek treatment, but just as much, it shouldn't be forced on them.
jestingrabbit wrote: qinwamascot wrote:
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.
Thank you. I didn't find it on a quick search, and was pressed for time. Reading that has expanded my knowledge of the subject. My opinion doesn't really change though. Unfortunately they didn't provide a single definition for child molestation, but rather conglomerated statistics, so the definition is ambiguous. Ultimately how we define sexual abuse is a relatively minor problem though.
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.
True. It's a tragedy the amount abuse goes on, but I'd guess (and this is purely a guess with no evidence supporting it) that a large number of these cases were committed by a relatively small group of people, even compared to the total pedophile community.
Gelsamel wrote:In general I like short, thin, cute and small breasted or flat-chested girls.
Maybe I should elaborate.
Those traits that I like are usually associated with children or prepubescence. Under the definition of paedophilia you're using, would I be a paedophile?
I don't think we can discuss this until we agree on a definition to use for the discussion.
I doubt anyone will object regardless of what definition you pick. If you want to argue that you are a pedophile, choose a definition that frames it in that context. From what I've read about the dA person, I can't really gather much about him. although he does call his interests "lolicon" at one point.
edit: I finished typing this up and there are like 4 new posts. I'm not going to respond to these right now as I have to do some homework.
edit: redid some formatting so that people won't complain.