should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?

[joebbowers]

Joe, are you ignoring me? I'd like an answer to my last two posts to you (432 and 436).

I didn't find anything worth replying to. Just re-hashing the same arguments.

Did I say that adult-child sex is always harmful? No. But such sexual abuse is highly likely to be harmful, which is sufficient reason that it should never be permitted.

You've already said that. I've already disagreed. Nothing new to add.

Appeal to popularity? Really? Doesn't work when Christians use it, doesn't work on me either.

It was a simple statement of fact. And where the Law is concerned, numbers do matter; that's how democracy works.

Do you think I don't know how laws are made? What's your point? It sure looks like you're saying the law must be just because a majority of people support it. You're defending your appeal to popularity with an appeal to popularity.  The fact that a majority of people voted for a law doesn't make it a just law. If you put 'death to homosexuals' up for a vote, it would pass in some states. That's one of the major flaws of democracy, the majority can oppress the minority legally.
 

You can have all the impure thoughts you like, Joe, and you won't be breaking the law and you won't be arrested. But possesing child porn is an action, not a thought.

They can't punish thoughts because they don't know who's thinking them. But when the thoughts are made known through related actions, they can punish the actions. It is not the action that is being punished, it is the thought, via the action. Another example would be anti-sodomy laws. That is obviously a way of persecuting homosexuals for their thoughts, via their actions.

If it is not thought crime, then why are pornographic drawings and stories of children also illegal when there is no child involved in the production? Who is the victim?

Would you keep other teenage boys away from your daughter?

No. I'd keep her away from self-confessed paedophiles. So you don't have a point.

My point is that you don't mind your daughter having sex, you just don't want her having sex with someone older. It's pretty arbitrary in my opinion.

Well, you've spent a lot of time on this thread trying to justify adult-child sexual behaviour in some circumstances, and that's what I'm arguing against.

I was asked, and whenever I thought a question wasn't worth my time to answer I was accused of dodging. If you want me to stop talking about it, stop asking me to talk about it.

But as I just said, I agree with you that the punishments for possession are too high; nobody should go to prison for possession.

Then it's just an academic argument now. I'm a practical man. As long as you agree that jail is not an appropriate punishment I don't care to debate the minutia of it's morality any further.

I'm suggesting you get help regarding your delusional thinking about child sexual abuse.

I'm not deluded at all. I'm being reasonable. Your use of the word abuse here tells me that you have completely ignored something I have said twice now...

If you really want to force an answer out of me, I would say that if and only if, you could determine with 100% certainty that it was completely consensual, and that she understood what she was doing and both the short and long term ramifications of her actions, I think it should be legal. If there is no coercion, manipulation, threat, deception, malice, or abuse, how can it be called rape?

The fact that you are referring to it as 'child sexual abuse' and not 'adult-child sexual relations' indicates that you have concluded that every case is abusive, and that the very definition of 'adult-child sexual relations' equates to 'abuse' in your mind. My point is simply that there are cases where it is not abuse. I've already said that in most cases it is, so I don't see what you're harping on here.

It is never OK for a 31-year-old to groom an 11-year-old into a sexual relationship, because there is a high probability that the child will suffer pervasive harm. If you disagree with that, you are deluded.

I would agree that a 31 year old should not "groom an 11-year-old into a sexual relationship" but I think there are situations where it just happens unintentionally, and it is not always harmful. Teachers working with students may form a friendship that develops into something more, and find themselves in a sexual relationship that neither one intended.

There have been many cases where the 'victim' did not want to press charges, and when the 'abuser' was released from jail many years later, they resumed their relationship. Careers and families were destroyed, reputations ruined, for nothing.

You call me deluded, but I think your black-and-white thinking is very childish and ignores a pretty damn big grey area.

[joebbowers]

So tell us, Joe, why do you think the production of child-porn should be a crime?

On one hand I think the age at which one can participate in the production of pornography should be lowered to the age of consent, because I think it's ridiculous that you can have sex and even get married in some states at 14, 15, 16, etc., but if you filmed your wedding night shenanigans with your young wife you'd go to jail. There was a case a couple of years ago where a guy had a threesome with two sixteen year olds (legal in his state) and the girls themselves took photos with their cellphones. They sent him the photos and he was charged with possession of child pornography (the girls were not charged with production because that would have been ridiculous.)

However, I think there is a good argument for having the age of participating in pornography higher than the age of consent because making porn can have much more significant and long-lasting ramifications than mere sex. Assuming you've used proper protection, sex can be quite casual and fun with no lasting consequences. Porn on the other hand, once it gets on the internet it will exist forever and can affect your reputation, your relationships, your future career. Of course this is much less likely with amateur porn which has no credits to name the actors.

While I believe young girls can consent to sex (literally the whole of human history confirms this) I don't think anyone can predict how a porn video may affect their future. Even many, many adults regret making porn, but hey once you're over 18 the law doesn't have to protect you from yourself anymore.

[Gnu Ordure]

Did I say that adult-child sex is always harmful? No. But such sexual abuse is highly likely to be harmful, which is sufficient reason that it should never be permitted.

You've already said that. I've already disagreed. Nothing new to add.

You were using a strawman. I was pointing that out, and you've ignored it.

And where have you disagreed that CSA is highly likely to be harmful? I must have missed that; in fact, you just said the opposite later on in your post (my bolding):

My point is simply that there are cases where it is not abuse. I've already said that in most cases it is

=======================================

You can have all the impure thoughts you like, Joe, and you won't be breaking the law and you won't be arrested. But possesing child porn is an action, not a thought.

They can't punish thoughts because they don't know who's thinking them. But when the thoughts are made known through related actions, they can punish the actions.

Then don't do the actions. Then you won't be caught or punished for the thoughts. It's quite simple, really.

If it is not thought crime, then why are pornographic drawings and stories of children also illegal when there is no child involved in the production? Who is the victim?

I've already said that fiction/virtual porn should be permitted.

Would you keep other teenage boys away from your daughter?

No. I'd keep her away from self-confessed paedophiles. So you don't have a point.

My point is that you don't mind your daughter having sex, you just don't want her having sex with someone older. It's pretty arbitrary in my opinion.

And my point is that my daughter is far more vulnerable to an adult such as yourself than she would be to a boy her own age. That's not arbitrary.

I'm suggesting you get help regarding your delusional thinking about child sexual abuse.

I'm not deluded at all. I'm being reasonable.

No, you're not, you're trying to exploit the grey areas of sexual development in order to justify paedophiles preying on children. 

The fact that you are referring to it as 'child sexual abuse' and not 'adult-child sexual relations' indicates that you have concluded that every case is abusive,

Joe, I work in this field, so it's normal for me to refer to CSA as a matter of course. Don't read too much into that. The fact is, most adult-child sexual reationships are harmful.

It is never OK for a 31-year-old to groom an 11-year-old into a sexual relationship, because there is a high probability that the child will suffer pervasive harm. If you disagree with that, you are deluded.

I would agree that a 31 year old should not "groom an 11-year-old into a sexual relationship"

Why not? All along you've been arguing the exact opposite, that a mature adult can teach a child the mysteries of sex. And now you say they shouldn't. Your position keeps moving.   

...  but I think there are situations where it just happens unintentionally, and it is not always harmful.

That totally misses my point. The reason it's never OK because of the risk of harm.

There have been many cases where the 'victim' did not want to press charges,

Many abused children love their abusers. Which makes them poor judges of the situation.

You call me deluded, but I think your black-and-white thinking is very childish and ignores a pretty damn big grey area.

What is childish is calling me names.

So tell us, Joe, why do you think the production of child-porn should be a crime?

On one hand I think the age at which one can participate in the production of pornography should be lowered to the age of consent, because...

And as I keep pointing out, you'd like the age of consent reduced to the age of criminal responsibility, or the onset of puberty:

I think that if they were able to get pregnant, that proves that they were ready to have sex.

In which case, all post-pubescent child pornography would become legal, wouldn't it?

However, I think there is a good argument for having the age of participating in pornography higher than the age of consent because making porn can have much more significant and long-lasting ramifications than mere sex. Assuming you've used proper protection, sex can be quite casual and fun with no lasting consequences. Porn on the other hand, once it gets on the internet it will exist forever and can affect your reputation, your relationships, your future career.

No, you're missing the point. All those negative consequences are a result of people possessing the porn. I'm asking you about its production.

If a 30-year-old photographer takes obviously sexual pictures of an 11-year-old girl, that constitutes producing child-porn. Whether he sends the photos to anyone else (i.e. publishes them, so that others may possess them) isn't relevant. You say the production itself should be criminal, and I still don't understand why you say that, given that you think the girl could be old enough to consent to sexual activity.

[joebbowers]

There is nothing new to respond to there. I've already explained my positions on all of those questions.

[Wrec]

Before we decide who can live and who can't, we need to establish a proper authority to preside over the matter. Who do you feel comfortable having sentencing people to death, and who should carry out the execution?

I'm as horrified as any other sane person when it comes to child molesters, but I know I couldn't pull the trigger or turn the knob on anyone while being absolutely sure I wouldn't have to dehumanise the person to be executed, or simply doing it out of vengeance. Which is no proper way to exercise any legal verdict.

I'd much prefer the alternatives before resorting to organised murder. Having said that, if anyone molested my child I'd be the first to advocate his/her death. But that's why I identify it as a dangerous road to take.

[joebbowers]

So not only do two wrongs make a right, but I guess a wrong and a much much wronger make a right.

[Truth OT]

Child as well as adult sexual abusers should not be blanketed with a death sentence. As with most things in life, to come up with the best solutions, we must look at things on a case by case basis. In the cases involving a male assailent and where guilt has been established, it has always been my position that the most reasonably punishment/rehab is castration. We have the technology in place today to do this by chemical means if whacking off the male sex organ is consisted too cruel and unacceptable, but personally, I think the cruel punishment serves as a deterent for many would be abusers that will make them count the costs prior to engaging in sexually abusive activity.

[albeto]

I'm as horrified as any other sane person when it comes to child molesters...

Why are you equating pedophilia with molestation? 

The question wasn't "should child molesters be allowed to live?" 

 I think this assumption is no less disrespectful than suggesting homosexuals actively try to "recruit" by molesting children. 

[jeremy0]

Since this question 'should pedophiles be allowed to live?' has gained so much attention, I'll say the following:

If someone did something terrible, should they be put to death?
What if that person did that in err, i.e. accident?
What if that person changed later in life?
What if that person were you?

I guess the real question that was meant to be asked was 'should we allow people we hate to live?'  And then the resulting question 'what justification do you have for committing as high a crime as murder when 1. it may have been made up and 2. we may have the wrong guy and 3. we are the only developed nation that justifies the death penalty for some given crime?'

[jeremy0]

So not only do two wrongs make a right, but I guess a wrong and a much much wronger make a right.

I don't see how people think they have the winning argument against what you have said here.  In my opinion what you stated was clearly correct.  Even this last statement, made after the fact that nobody is really listening...

[joebbowers]

I think the cruel punishment serves as a deterrent for many would be abusers that will make them count the costs prior to engaging in sexually abusive activity.

It doesn't work that way. Nobody thinks they're going to get caught. In fact, longer sentences lead to higher rates of recidivism as people who could possibly have been rehabilitated through counseling and community service are irreparably damaged by the inhuman prison system. They come out with a chip on their shoulder. Harsher penalties create an "us vs. them" mentality in criminals that makes them view themselves as outsiders and society as the enemy.

Remember that the vast majority of criminals are not going away for life. They will be back out on the streets among us. The question you should be thinking about is, what kind of person do you want living in your neighborhood? Do you want them getting the help they need to understand and correct their behavior, or do you want them getting locked in a cage and treated like an animal?

The kneejerk reaction is to severely punish lawbreakers, but this is stupidity that causes a never-ending cycle of crime. By the way, the government knows this, they've done the studies. They continue to lengthen prison terms because our prison system is a cash cow and our politicians are the biggest shareholders in the privatized for-profit prison system.

[jeremy0]

Would that explain why Denmark and Japan also saw reductions in sexual crimes against children after legalizing child pornography?

C'mon, Joe - we all know that americans are always right and we never need to pay attention to other countries.  That's why we don't have universal health care, and are trying to rid ourselves of retirement, pensions, social projects like social security, health insurance (M&Ms), etc.  We want to work until we croak.  We've already realized the we're the best - because we said so![1]

Nah - we just want the food...   

My actual answer to this would be that we need to take a closer look at understanding the problem rather than treating it like a life-sentencing criminal offense.  Also, there are many levels of child abuse - as Joe easily pointed out.  AFAIK, being attracted to children may be something caused by some youthful tragedy or trauma.  The fact is it hasn't been studied enough; likely because we're too busy freaking and not busy thinking...

1.

This is a pun on the lack of intelligence of my people, and the lack of recognizing what other countries have done/lack of any real learning from other countries/ total and blatant pride system thinking we're always #1 in spite of evidence to the contrary on many fronts, and the fact that most citizens are poorer than ever before, have lost most of their rights, and the constitution is starting to look like a little parchment of meaningless paper..

[Gnu Ordure]

There is nothing new to respond to there. I've already explained my positions on all of those questions.

Total dodge. There's plenty new to respond to there, Joe. Specific points, specific questions and requests for you to clarify your position. Which you refuse to do.

Your position is incoherent. You only want to talk about one aspect of all this, the possession of child pornography. You announce your paedophilia, but you don't want to discuss paedophile behaviour. You condemn the production of child pornography (for reasons still unexplained), and then focus on defending its possession. A thin end of the wedge strategy which is going to fool no-one.

Like most deluded paedophiles, you're trying to exploit the grey areas of sexual development in order to justify paedophile behaviour. In your heart you think you're right; you think your friend in prison is the victim.

You're deluded, Joe. I asked you the question:

It is never OK for a 31-year-old to groom an 11-year-old into a sexual relationship, because there is a high probability that the child will suffer pervasive harm. If you disagree with that, you are deluded.

And you disagreed, Joe. You wheedled and whined about exceptions - which means you disagreed. You replied:

I would agree that a 31 year old should not "groom an 11-year-old into a sexual relationship" but I think there are situations where it just happens unintentionally, and it is not always harmful. Teachers working with students may form a friendship that develops into something more, and find themselves in a sexual relationship that neither one intended.

There have been many cases where the 'victim' did not want to press charges, and when the 'abuser' was released from jail many years later, they resumed their relationship.

You say "it's not always harmful", and I agree with that. But you don't understand that it's always wrong.

It's not always harmful to drive your car at 150 mph on public roads; but it's always wrong.

That's not rocket science; but you still don't get it, do you?

Gnu.

PS As you dodged my last post, I'm not expecting a reply to this one.

[joebbowers]

Total dodge. There's plenty new to respond to there, Joe. Specific points, specific questions and requests for you to clarify your position. Which you refuse to do.

My position is clear. Feel free to go back and read through it again.

Your position is incoherent. You only want to talk about one aspect of all this, the possession of child pornography.

So my position is incoherent yet you seemed to get that I only want to talk about the possession of child pornography. That is awfully coherent incoherence.

You announce your paedophilia, but you don't want to discuss paedophile behaviour.

That is correct. I have said so many fucking times that taking advantage of children for sexual exploitation is bad. I have said, ad nauseum, that production of child pornography is bad. I have nothing more to say about that.

You condemn the production of child pornography (for reasons still clearly unexplained), and then focus on defending its possession.

Fixed that for you. I explained it. Multiple times. Pretending I didn't won't win you any points.

A thin end of the wedge strategy which is going to fool no-one.

Most people recognize that production is worse than possession. Not sure who you think is being "fooled" here.

Like most deluded paedophiles, you're trying to exploit the grey areas of sexual development in order to justify paedophile behaviour.

For most of human history, literally hundreds of thousands of years, and even still today in many countries, puberty was/is considered the onset of adulthood. The fact that a large portion of the population of developed countries have recently shifted their thinking does not alter that fact.

What was normal is now perverted to you. Sorry if I fail to succumb to society's brainwashing.

In your heart you think you're right;

I do my thinking in my brain, perhaps you should try that. It may clear up some of your confusion.

you think your friend in prison is the victim.

Six years in prison for a man who never harmed a child, and never paid for child porn. He is a victim.

You're deluded, Joe. I asked you the question:

It is never OK for a 31-year-old to groom an 11-year-old into a sexual relationship, because there is a high probability that the child will suffer pervasive harm. If you disagree with that, you are deluded.

Well, first, that is not a question...

And you disagreed, Joe. You wheedled and whined about exceptions - which means you disagreed. You replied:

I would agree that a 31 year old should not "groom an 11-year-old into a sexual relationship" but I think there are situations where it just happens unintentionally, and it is not always harmful. Teachers working with students may form a friendship that develops into something more, and find themselves in a sexual relationship that neither one intended.

There have been many cases where the 'victim' did not want to press charges, and when the 'abuser' was released from jail many years later, they resumed their relationship.

You say "it's not always harmful", and I agree with that. But you don't understand that it's always wrong.

I repeat:

I would agree that a 31 year old should not "groom an 11-year-old into a sexual relationship" but I think there are situations where it just happens unintentionally, and it is not always harmful.

And that's exactly what I meant to say.

It's not always harmful to drive your car at 150 mph on public roads; but it's always wrong.

Meh. There are straight stretches of public highway that go on for miles in the desert, sometimes hours go by between cars. It's always illegal, but wrong? Nah, I don't feel guilty. Maybe because my motorcycle only does 130.

PS As you dodged my last post, I'm not expecting a reply to this one.

And yet you got one! Always expect the unexpected!

[joebbowers]

AFAIK, being attracted to children may be something caused by some youthful tragedy or trauma.  The fact is it hasn't been studied enough; likely because we're too busy freaking and not busy thinking...

It's been studied plenty. The conclusion is that it is an involuntary sexual orientation, like all other sexual orientations. It is not caused by tragedy or trama. Pedophiles are equal or even outnumber homosexuals, and that's just the ones that meet the clinical definition.

People make the same excuses for homosexuals. They can't accept the fact that it is natural.

[Timtheskeptic]

Pedophiles are NOT equal or even outnumber to homosexuals, and that's just the ones that meet the clinical definition.

People make the same excuses for homosexuals. They can't accept the fact that it is natural.

This really irritates me. Homosexuality and pedophilia are mostly different! All LGBT and pedophiles have that is the same is the hate and discrimination, but pedophiles are NOT Equal or the same as homosexuals! You good a good show of "oh we pedophiles wouldn't touch a hair on a child, we're just attracted to them." while in another thread, you went, "Oh mommy was wrong to stop the 15 year old from becoming the legendary awesomeness!" Two men or two women who are adults are capable of healthy, stable relationships. The pedophiles are just one way relationship.

[Timo]

@Tim

Claiming that both pedophilia and homosexuality are similar in that, like heterosexuality, they are not chosen and occur naturally isn't the same as claiming that sexual contact between an adult and a child and sexual contact between two adults of the same gender are morally equal.  There are good reasons for those that are attracted to children to do everything in their power to resist having any sexual contact with children.  These are reasons that most people with those urges find compelling, even many of those that succumb to them.  More importantly, these are reasons that do not apply to sexual contact between consenting adults, regardless of gender.

Also, if you're talking an attraction to 15-year-olds, even a primary attraction to 15 year-olds, you're not really talking about pedophilia.  There are other clinical terms for that.


Peace

[Truth OT]

I think the cruel punishment serves as a deterrent for many would be abusers that will make them count the costs prior to engaging in sexually abusive activity.

It doesn't work that way. Nobody thinks they're going to get caught. In fact, longer sentences lead to higher rates of recidivism as people who could possibly have been rehabilitated through counseling and community service are irreparably damaged by the inhuman prison system. They come out with a chip on their shoulder. Harsher penalties create an "us vs. them" mentality in criminals that makes them view themselves as outsiders and society as the enemy.

Let me start by saying that I am not a huge fan of incarceration, the adult version of "time out." For the most part all it does is serve as a melting pot for those with qualities deemed dangerous and unwelcomed in society to spend time together in a toxic and oftentimes zoo-like environment that serves to harden criminals in the long run as opposed to rehabilitation.

With that said, as opposed to incarcerating men that are sexual abusers for years, I would advocate castration by chemical means followed by some levels of counciling. The first level should be done in a medical/prison facility and should last no longer than a year. The second is optional continuing education of sorts that the offender can avail themselves to after their release. This will serves to offer society a degree of protection from the offenders while at the same time both punishing the transgression while promoting better behavior going forward.
I wouldn't even be opposed to allowing the offenders to have the castration proceedure reversed (on their own dime of course), AFTER completing the required post 'societal quaranteen' (sp) counciling programs.

Remember that the vast majority of criminals are not going away for life. They will be back out on the streets among us. The question you should be thinking about is, what kind of person do you want living in your neighborhood? Do you want them getting the help they need to understand and correct their behavior, or do you want them getting locked in a cage and treated like an animal?

The kneejerk reaction is to severely punish lawbreakers, but this is stupidity that causes a never-ending cycle of crime. By the way, the government knows this, they've done the studies. They continue to lengthen prison terms because our prison system is a cash cow and our politicians are the biggest shareholders in the privatized for-profit prison system.

What I want or who I want living in my neighborhood is largely irrelevant because I have very little control of this. People generally realize this and that is why I believe the kneejerk reaction of wanting the criminally undesirables of society removed from society is not irrational or stupid.
We do have a tendancy as people to overstate the positive impact of and need for punishment. The threat of punishment is but a tool used as a deterent to unacceptable behavior and punishment itself serves as a means of following through with the consequences deemed appropriate for detering unacceptable behavior. We would do well as a society if we allowed our ways of thinking to evolve beyond that of taking pleasure in or drawing some sort of satisfaction from the punishment of others.
Our ability and willingness to truly forgive needs to increase. We need to do a better job of promoting forgiving attitudes and mindsets in one another by starting to majorly emphasize this to our young offspring with the hope being a future where society looks to fix and restore as opposed to punishing and satisfying our animalistic desires for vengence.

[Nick]

If not you would lose over half of the priests in the priesthood.

[jeremy0]

OK.  Joe corrected my assumption with factual evidence.  Now I concur that pedopheliacs are a naturally-occuring sexual preference.

So now on to justification of murdering a person based on their sexual orientation.  Clearly that is a losing argument.

Second - we discussed many times child pornography.  Why is this such a high offense?  IF it is in the nature of some individuals to have a sexual preference towards children, then pornography gives them the outlet to pursue that orientation, without doing anybody any harm.  For example - I'm an adult.  I watch pornography to satisfy a sexual NEED.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with what I'm doing.  It's completely legal.

Now take that, and say because the person is gay and watching pornography, that it is somehow a crime.  Now say it's child pornography.  See any difference?  I do not.  The fact is everyone is persuing a sexual need, and doing it in a healthy manner that doesn't harm anyone, except for maybe the individual themself.  They are not pursuing said sexual act on real individuals.

Now look at homosexuality.  Two men having sex isn't a crime, we know it isn't a condition of the brain.  Joe pointed out that numerous research has been done that indicates pedopheliacs merely have a sexual preference towards younger individuals.

That said - why would possessing child pornography be considered a crime?  Additionally, if two people were concentually having sex - a 13 year old and an adult, does that constitute a crime?  Not in Kansas, apparently.  There is no difference past that.  Joe is also exactly correct - in the 'older days', this was not considered unusual.  Now we consider it a crime, and further state that it has various negative rammifications on the child. 

Sometimes child rape does cause drastic negative symptoms later in life.  That we know.  However, if the child was concenting, then what distinction does that make from forceable rape?  It makes a big distinction..

That said, I do not see any reason for the rest of your statements like 'Should we kill these people', 'should we have the death penalty', 'should we percieve it as a justifiable reason for long prison sentences', 'what level of crime is this', 'I don't want these people living in my neighborhood', etc, etc...

Statements like that clearly show that none of you are understanding what Joe B. is putting forward to you.  He has given you clear studies, facts, and information.  That's not to say that me and Joe get along and always agree - it means as a third party I'm reading both sides of this token and there is:

NO justification for the OP subject line, no justification for your arguments, given the evidence, that this should be considered a large crime unless the child happens to be forceably raped.  period.  In this one forum topic, at this point you all should have concluded that child porn is not a bad thing, and serves a purpose to fulfill a natural human need.  That means our high punishments on child pornography are invalid.  It also invalidates most of your other claims, contradictory to what Joe has been trying to say to you.

I would have quoted a lot of this just to make it clearer, however I cannot go back far enough to spell it out for you.  As opposed to facing the facts and an opinion from someone vastly more intelligent than the rest of you, you fail to understand his points, refer to arguemnt-based strategies just to win a fucking argument, and you have reached no level of understanding that Joe is trying to bring to you.

Now, continue; only this time when you argue use your brains...

Joe:  Good argument.  These are, in fact, clear points.  Thanks for sharing.  The rest of you - just because you can't understand what someone more intelligent than you is trying to say doesn't mean you are correct.  Thank you.

[Truth OT]

 In this one forum topic, at this point you all should have concluded that child porn is not a bad thing, and serves a purpose to fulfill a natural human need.  That means our high punishments on child pornography are invalid.  It also invalidates most of your other claims, contradictory to what Joe has been trying to say to you.

I would have quoted a lot of this just to make it clearer, however I cannot go back far enough to spell it out for you.  As opposed to facing the facts and an opinion from someone vastly more intelligent than the rest of you, you fail to understand his points, refer to arguemnt-based strategies just to win a fucking argument, and you have reached no level of understanding that Joe is trying to bring to you.

I have never met such a person as described by you the the bold font above..........

Child porn is not a bad thing as it pertains to being an outlet for those who "get off" on sex involving non adults. To that I guess we can agree, however, that is not the be all and end all to it. We must also take into consideration other factors like whether or not the availibility of child porn would serve to increase pedophiles acting upon their internal desires putting children at risk of emotional/sexual assualt because of its pervasiveness. In addition, in order for child porn to be readily available, there will need to be many recordable incidents of sex with children. I cannot see how that is a good thing for the children or the society which the children are a part of.
More access leads to more curiousity, and more curiousity leads to an increased likihood of incident, and that is problematic!

Like it or not, the reality is that pedophilia may be as much about attraction as it is about being able to control and manipulate a vulnerable mind; and that is the problem with having adults act out their sexual desires with children.

The individuals that "suffer" from being attracted to kids needs to make it a point to hold themselves accountable to the society to which they are apart of and refrain from acting out their desires out of RESPECT for the long term well being of the children they are attracted to as well as the desires of the families that take care of and have to deal with raising, supporting, teaching, and loving these young people.
That said, if a grown man were to touch my 11 year old neice, he's gonna have some issues with Uncle D, the police, and society as a whole. She lacks the life experience and the maturity that comes from it and she has not been blessed with a level of wisdom beyond her pre-adolecent years that equips adults to make sound relationship and sexual decisions. Because of this, having a man attempt to get her into a sexual situation is not only mental and emotional manipulation, it's also predation that is not tolerable!

[jaimehlers]

Let's not forget about how child pornography is created.  If it's made using an actual child, then it is very easy to argue that it is harmful and damaging to that child.

[One Above All]

<snip>
someone vastly more intelligent than the rest of you
<snip>
someone more intelligent than you
<snip>

You must point out this individual to me.

[Timtheskeptic]

<snip>
someone vastly more intelligent than the rest of you
<snip>
someone more intelligent than you
<snip>

You must point out this individual to me.

I agree. It's not only insulting, but ignorant.

[Gnu Ordure]

Like most deluded paedophiles, you're trying to exploit the grey areas of sexual development in order to justify paedophile behaviour.

For most of human history, literally hundreds of thousands of years, and even still today in many countries, puberty was/is considered the onset of adulthood.

You're merely proving my point.

What was normal is now perverted to you. Sorry if I fail to succumb to society's brainwashing.

Oh sure, we're all brainwashed and you can see clearly. Most paedophiles believe the same.

You're deluded, Joe. I asked you the question:

It is never OK for a 31-year-old to groom an 11-year-old into a sexual relationship, because there is a high probability that the child will suffer pervasive harm. If you disagree with that, you are deluded.

<snip>

I would agree that a 31 year old should not "groom an 11-year-old into a sexual relationship" but I think there are situations where it just happens unintentionally, and it is not always harmful.

And that's exactly what I meant to say.

Thus again proving my point. "Happens unintentionally"? Oh sure, that's how it happens...

It's not always harmful to drive your car at 150 mph on public roads; but it's always wrong.

Meh. There are straight stretches of public highway that go on for miles in the desert, sometimes hours go by between cars. It's always illegal, but wrong? Nah, I don't feel guilty. Maybe because my motorcycle only does 130.

It's always wrong because of the high risk of causing harm, regardless of whether any harm is actually caused in any particular instance. Same with adult-child sex.

[Azdgari]

Additionally, if two people were concentually having sex - a 13 year old and an adult, does that constitute a crime?  Not in Kansas, apparently.  There is no difference past that.  Joe is also exactly correct - in the 'older days', this was not considered unusual.  Now we consider it a crime, and further state that it has various negative rammifications on the child.

In the 'older days', it was legal and commonplace to enslave children to work in factories.  Now we consider it a crime, and further state that it has various negative rammifications on the child.  Hence the laws against child labour.

Sometimes child rape does cause drastic negative symptoms later in life.  That we know.  However, if the child was concenting, then what distinction does that make from forceable rape?  It makes a big distinction..

Hence it should be a different crime.  Isn't it already?

I would have quoted a lot of this just to make it clearer, however I cannot go back far enough to spell it out for you.  As opposed to facing the facts and an opinion from someone vastly more intelligent than the rest of you, you fail to understand his points, refer to arguemnt-based strategies just to win a fucking argument, and you have reached no level of understanding that Joe is trying to bring to you.

Now, continue; only this time when you argue use your brains...

This text is comprised solely of insults.

[joebbowers]

Pedophiles are NOT equal or even outnumber to homosexuals, and that's just the ones that meet the clinical definition.

People make the same excuses for homosexuals. They can't accept the fact that it is natural.

This really irritates me. Homosexuality and pedophilia are mostly different!

Not only did you not understand why I was saying that homosexuality and pedophilia are similar, but the part of my quote that you "corrected" was only comparing their numbers.

[joebbowers]

Sometimes child rape does cause drastic negative symptoms later in life.  That we know.  However, if the child was concenting, then what distinction does that make from forceable rape?  It makes a big distinction..

Hence it should be a different crime.  Isn't it already?

I don't think it is in most states, or even on a federal level. From my understanding the punishment for statutory rape (ie. consensual sex with a minor) is the same as for forcible rape with a minor. I think they are the same class of felony, though I'm not sure.

[Samothec]

Several points.

Child porn is a thought crime - at least in part. That child porn CGI and illustrations are illegal proves that.


I'm curious as to the math used where 3-9% (supposed %age of pedophiles among the population) is greater than 4-10% (%age of homosexuals among the population). Also, where does the 3-9% statistic come from?


In a rational society we could collect all existing child porn and catalog it. Inform all pedophiles that if they register and turn over copies of the existing porn for cataloging they will not be imprisoned. That will also register them for a web connection to the catalog and an allotment of 2-5 pics per day download. Videos would 'cost' a number of pics based on the length of the video. Download frequency would be tracked and changes (mainly a drop-off) would be a red-flag for surveillance to determine if the pedophile had moved on to actual contact. The database would also be a resource for finding the victims. And new materials submitted by pedophiles (who would also be required to report their acquisition source) could be used to more quickly track down new producers. The registered pedophiles would also be a research resource for determining the causes of pedophilia.