ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 18th April 2011, 11:14 AM   #41
Jekyll's Guest
Master Poster
 
Jekyll's Guest's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,207
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
I swear, people need to take reading comprehension classes.
And unfortunately that includes the people making these laws.
Jekyll's Guest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 11:18 AM   #42
tesscaline
Illuminator
 
tesscaline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,024
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
Perhaps you don't know what the word pedophile is. It is someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. So when I say pedophile that is what I mean.
Then no one is an "actual, convicted pedophile". It's not illegal to be attracted to prepubescent children. It is, however, illegal to act on that attraction. The closest one can come to being an "actual, convicted pedophile" is to be charged with a child molestation or child pornography violation.

Quote:
And yes, I am aware that some people get put on sex offenders registries along with pedophiles for bs reasons. Has nothing to do with what I said though.
Except that, given the above context I've just provided for you, it does have to do with what you've said. It may not have to do with what you mean, but that's different.

Quote:
I swear, people need to take reading comprehension classes.
Before you get your panties in a bunch about reading comprehension, maybe you might wanna take a breath and realize that your understanding of the topic at hand is less than adequate, and that what you're posting isn't... Well, lets just say it's not exactly very clear.
tesscaline is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 11:18 AM   #43
Arcade22
Illuminator
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,844
Originally Posted by Calrid View Post
I think the age of consent should be 16 everywhere, lower or higher. Seems a reasonable age.
Yes. When a 15 year old boy post naked pictures of himself on the internet, not just trying to seduce some older man to have sex with him but also creating extremely evil child pornography, then throwing said older man in jail for having sex with him is not just reasonable but also the only just and moral response...
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 11:22 AM   #44
Kev The Green
Critical Thinker
 
Kev The Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 301
Originally Posted by Calrid View Post
I think the age of consent should be 16 everywhere, lower or higher. Seems a reasonable age. That said obviously there are some social standards that make a 42 year old seeing a 16 year old, age of consent or not seem just weird.
I think we need to take both parties ages into account. Instead of saying 16 year olds can consent to sex with anyone, make it so they can consent to sex with people within their general age group, Then you could expand the age range at 18 and make 21 year olds fair game for everybody. (Numbers are obviously examples.)
__________________
Kev

"Even if you've eliminated all the rational explanations you can think of, the first irrational one you think of isn't necessarily true."
"The universe doesn't care what you think."
Kev The Green is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 11:25 AM   #45
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by tesscaline View Post
Then no one is an "actual, convicted pedophile". It's not illegal to be attracted to prepubescent children. It is, however, illegal to act on that attraction. The closest one can come to being an "actual, convicted pedophile" is to be charged with a child molestation or child pornography violation.
Now you're just nitpicking with semantics. Predictable and boring.

Quote:
Except that, given the above context I've just provided for you, it does have to do with what you've said. It may not have to do with what you mean, but that's different.
Nope. Especially since some teenager sending nude pictures of herself, while technically child porn has nothing to do with pedophilia seeing as how she is not prepubescent.

Quote:
Before you get your panties in a bunch about reading comprehension, maybe you might wanna take a breath and realize that your understanding of the topic at hand is less than adequate,
Nope. My understanding is fine.

Quote:
and that what you're posting isn't... Well, lets just say it's not exactly very clear.
My words are very clear. If someone fails to understand them it is because they have extremely poor reading comprehension skills
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 11:43 AM   #46
tesscaline
Illuminator
 
tesscaline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,024
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
Now you're just nitpicking with semantics. Predictable and boring.
Hey, you wanna continue being misunderstood by people, fine... I'm just trying to clarify.

Quote:
Nope. Especially since some teenager sending nude pictures of herself, while technically child porn has nothing to do with pedophilia seeing as how she is not prepubescent.
And in those cases I linked that cited children as young as 13? How about then?

Quote:
Nope. My understanding is fine.

My words are very clear. If someone fails to understand them it is because they have extremely poor reading comprehension skills
Look. Either you're playing some sort of game by using a definition which automatically excludes every person that we could possibly be talking about, ever, in any circumstance so that you're actually disagreeing with the comments... Or you're not. If it's the former, grats on the troll. If it's the latter... *shrugs*
tesscaline is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 11:52 AM   #47
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by tesscaline View Post
Hey, you wanna continue being misunderstood by people, fine... I'm just trying to clarify.

And in those cases I linked that cited children as young as 13? How about then?

Look. Either you're playing some sort of game by using a definition which automatically excludes every person that we could possibly be talking about, ever, in any circumstance so that you're actually disagreeing with the comments... Or you're not. If it's the former, grats on the troll. If it's the latter... *shrugs*
I am not quite sure if you are actually unable to figure out what "actual, convicted pedophile" means or if you're just trolling.
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 12:20 PM   #48
Jekyll's Guest
Master Poster
 
Jekyll's Guest's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,207
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
I am not quite sure if you are actually unable to figure out what "actual, convicted pedophile" means or if you're just trolling.
He's is telling you that kids ARE actual, convicted pedophiles because of the way these laws work.
Jekyll's Guest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 12:25 PM   #49
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by Jekyll's Guest View Post
He's is telling you that kids ARE actual, convicted pedophiles because of the way these laws work.
If so, she doesn't know what she is talking about. Sex offenders sure, pedophiles, no.
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 12:59 PM   #50
bookitty
Philosopher
 
bookitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,732
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
I'm fine with any of those options. In fact, I would prefer it.But if we're going to let them out, society has a right to know who they are. If that means the rest of their lives suck, so what. Should have thought about that before molesting children.
I understand the emotion behind this, child molestation is a horrific crime and it is natural to want vengeance but it seems counter-productive. What we want from convicted child molesters is that they stop molesting children. Punishment can be a valid part of the process, but not if it is never ending. If a child molester has no chance at a normal life once they get out of prison, what social restraints are in place to keep them from doing it again? They have nothing to lose. They also won't have access to treatment if they can't get a job, find a home or otherwise build up a stable existence.
__________________
No more cupcakes for me, thanks.
bookitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 01:02 PM   #51
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
It is even worst than that. As far as I remember a few 16 year old giving their OWN naked picture got convicted as sex offender for "publishing paedophilia pornography".
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
I've got no problem with exposing pedophiles online so long as they are actual, convicted pedophiles. Don't want the whole world to know that you like to molest little kids? Well, not molesting little kids would be a good start.
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
You realize that not only pedophile are registered as sex offender, right ?
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
Yes. Nothing I said gave any indication otherwise.
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
I'm fine with any of those options. In fact, I would prefer it.But if we're going to let them out, society has a right to know who they are. If that means the rest of their lives suck, so what. Should have thought about that before molesting children.
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
So you would rather "stick it" to a young girl which commited the error of sending a video/photo to her same 16 aged boyfriend and ruin her life forever ?

Oh boy.... I am speechless.
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
I dunno where the hell you got that.
Now do you understand ?
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 01:10 PM   #52
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
I actually realize that this one made the post chain from me unclear :

"You realize that not only pedophile are registered as sex offender, right ? "

No reread with "you realize that not only pedophile are convicted with child pornography distribution" and similar conviction ?

So the 16 year old cited above would be undistinguishable on those list to those bad pedophile you say have no right after being released.

ETA: and it is still a DOUBLE whammy, mob justice, that no other crime bears. Even murder which is IMHO much worse than paedophilia.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 01:17 PM   #53
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
Now do you understand ?
Seeing as the first quote of mine was not a response to yours (or any others), your subsequent responses makes no sense whatsoever. I guess it is forgivable for you since you apparently are not a native English speaker.
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 01:21 PM   #54
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
I actually realize that this one made the post chain from me unclear :

"You realize that not only pedophile are registered as sex offender, right ? "

No reread with "you realize that not only pedophile are convicted with child pornography distribution" and similar conviction ?

So the 16 year old cited above would be undistinguishable on those list to those bad pedophile you say have no right after being released.

ETA: and it is still a DOUBLE whammy, mob justice, that no other crime bears. Even murder which is IMHO much worse than paedophilia.
Yeah, still doent make it make any more sense. Seeing as how I specifically refered to pedophiles. A 16 year old sending nude pictures of herself is not a pedophile.
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 01:46 PM   #55
bookitty
Philosopher
 
bookitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,732
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
I actually realize that this one made the post chain from me unclear :

"You realize that not only pedophile are registered as sex offender, right ? "

No reread with "you realize that not only pedophile are convicted with child pornography distribution" and similar conviction ?

So the 16 year old cited above would be undistinguishable on those list to those bad pedophile you say have no right after being released.

ETA: and it is still a DOUBLE whammy, mob justice, that no other crime bears. Even murder which is IMHO much worse than paedophilia.
This was the case for many years. The sex offender registry was little more than a list of names. But I just went through the sex offender registry for NY and CA (each state has their own) and each conviction is spelled out. There will still be cases in which lack of information will make a crime seem worse than it is but in general, it is easier to judge the degree of the offense.

The charge of mob justice still holds.
__________________
No more cupcakes for me, thanks.
bookitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 01:58 PM   #56
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 22,825
Originally Posted by Jekyll's Guest View Post
What we should not do is tell someone "you've served your time and are free to go," and then deny them any chance at a life, and most probably force them to live under a bridge.
*shrug* Freedom of association. It's not exactly a news flash that the vast majority of people find child molestation repugnant; it's unreasonable to insist that those repulsed by it should be somehow compelled to interact and coexist with a convicted, served, and released molester as if he never molested a child. dtugg is correct in this regard; actions have consequences. For some actions, prison time is one of the possibilities; but the prison time being over doesn't preempt or cancel out all the other consequences.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 02:08 PM   #57
Jekyll's Guest
Master Poster
 
Jekyll's Guest's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,207
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
*shrug* Freedom of association. It's not exactly a news flash that the vast majority of people find child molestation repugnant; it's unreasonable to insist that those repulsed by it should be somehow compelled to interact and coexist with a convicted, served, and released molester as if he never molested a child. dtugg is correct in this regard; actions have consequences. For some actions, prison time is one of the possibilities; but the prison time being over doesn't preempt or cancel out all the other consequences.
Let's just have prison colonies then. Because if you do your time and still spend the rest of your life living like a criminal they may as well not let you out.

I was thinking the other day with the article about the youtube guy who can't come within 700ft of a child now...where can he go?

Family and friends will all have kids, or neighbors with kids. Kids on the road and at the grocery store.

Our terror and irrational response to even the hint of a sex crime has lead to lifetime punishment hidden behind some legal sleight of hand. A rapist is scum, sure, but are we saying rape is worse than murder? Because murders don't get banned from being 700ft away from other people or listed on special websites.

Last edited by Jekyll's Guest; 18th April 2011 at 02:09 PM.
Jekyll's Guest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 02:32 PM   #58
AmandaM
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 470
I was all ready to say this seems like a violation of the person's rights, until I searched my home town and found a woman who is teaching dance to young, under 18 kids!! All of her "stories" and comments are linked. I was appalled. And now that "violation" seems a lot less important than preventing future violation of children.

Would I want to know if one of my child's teachers is writing livejournal posts about how she likes to masturbate little boys? Or how she thinks "child love" should be celebrated? Yeah, I think so. At least then I have the opportunity to either question her about it, or pull my child OUT of that class. This particular person hasn't been convicted of anything yet. YET. I sure as heck wouldn't want to provide her with her potential "first."
AmandaM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 03:08 PM   #59
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 22,825
Originally Posted by Jekyll's Guest View Post
Let's just have prison colonies then. Because if you do your time and still spend the rest of your life living like a criminal they may as well not let you out.
The legal system has rules it must conform to, such as sentencing limits; it must impose legally fair sentences. But it cannot force private citizens to like child molesters.

Originally Posted by Jekyll's Guest View Post
Our terror and irrational response to even the hint of a sex crime has lead to lifetime punishment hidden behind some legal sleight of hand.
People shunned child molesters before the creation of sex offender registries and would still shun child molesters even if no 'registry' exists; don't forget that the whole reason such registries exist is because people demanded them. If the government did not or does not continue to maintain it's own registries, people will create their own; that is an unavoidable consequence of the Information Age. People have the right to avoid associating with others for any reason.

Originally Posted by Jekyll's Guest View Post
A rapist is scum, sure, but are we saying rape is worse than murder? Because murders don't get banned from being 700ft away from other people or listed on special websites.
If you feel that not enough is done to protect communities from murderers, the correct response is to advocate for such protection, not to demonstrate against the results of others' efforts in a different area that you feel is less important. I am 99% certain that you could muster enough community backing to compel the creation of a murderer registry if you made the effort.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 03:24 PM   #60
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
There's a good reason why justice should be left to the professionals and not carried out by mobs.
That's not really going to be possible in a democracy, though. At the end of the day justice is always carried out by the mob, however indirectly.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 04:04 PM   #61
Cainkane1
Philosopher
 
Cainkane1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The great American southeast
Posts: 8,511
One thing that concerns me is people can see the websites and know where to go if they have similar predilections.
__________________
If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.
Cainkane1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 05:39 PM   #62
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,234
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
He spent 5 years in prison for having consensual sex with a 15 year old? Oh wow...
You missed the part where he "met her in a bar" which is strange because I highlighted it for you.

That actually happened to a friend from high school. I think I have mentioned it before on the forum, only the girl was 13. It took two years to get to court and the judge threw it out saying that if he met her in a bar he had a reasonable expectation that she was at least 19, the legal drinking age.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 05:42 PM   #63
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,234
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
[I'm just going by your summary of the link, as the link itself doesn't seem to go anywhere.]
Try this one:

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?arti...fe_on_the_list
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 11:38 PM   #64
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 6,463
Thanks. It seems I was correct. "Sex offenders" may not have a high recidivism rate, but that says nothing about the people Lowe was talking about: "someone who is attracted to kids". What is their recidivism rate?
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2011, 05:17 AM   #65
Emet
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,295
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Thanks. It seems I was correct. "Sex offenders" may not have a high recidivism rate, but that says nothing about the people Lowe was talking about: "someone who is attracted to kids". What is their recidivism rate?
Hard to say:

Quote:
A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues

(...)
Just as the prevalence of pedophilia is not accurately known, the rate of recidivism against a child is also unknown. Recidivism is a term with many definitions, which affect reported rates of repeated offenses. For example, some studies look at additional arrests for any offense, others only look at arrests for sexual crimes, and some only look at convictions, whereas others analyze self-reported reoffenses.31,94,96 The data on recidivism underestimate its rate because many treatment studies do not include treatment dropout figures, cannot calculate the number of repeated offenses that are not reported, and do not use polygraphs to confirm self-reports.96 Another complicating factor is the period during which the data are collected. Some studies report low recidivism rates, but these numbers apply to individuals followed up during periods of active treatment only or for short periods after treatment is terminated (eg, 1-5 years).96,97

The published rates of recidivism are in the range of 10% to 50% for pedophiles depending on their grouping.7,16,17,31,43,94,96-98 Some studies have reported that certain classes of pedophiles (eg, homosexual, nonrelated) have the highest rate for repeated offending compared with other sex offenders.17,99 Generally, homosexual and bisexual pedophiles have higher recidivism rates than heterosexual pedophiles.31,94,98,100 Incest pedophiles generally have the lowest rate of reoffense.98 The more deviant the sexual practices of the offender, the younger the abused child; the more sociopathic or antisocial personality traits displayed, the greater the treatment noncompliance; and the greater the number of paraphilic interests reported by the offender, the higher the likelihood of reoffense.16,91,94,99-102 Several actuarial and self-report tests have been designed to help physicians and law enforcement officers predict which individuals are at higher risk for repeated offense, but currently no single test or combination of tests can accurately identify the future activity of an individual49,91,96,100-110 (Table 5).
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com.../82/4/457.full
Emet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2011, 05:48 AM   #66
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
@Dtugg I can't help you if you don't see that thee would be situation where your wish for mob justice would also throw innocent to the mob.

Originally Posted by Jekyll's Guest View Post
Let's just have prison colonies then. Because if you do your time and still spend the rest of your life living like a criminal they may as well not let you out.

I was thinking the other day with the article about the youtube guy who can't come within 700ft of a child now...where can he go?

Family and friends will all have kids, or neighbors with kids. Kids on the road and at the grocery store.

Our terror and irrational response to even the hint of a sex crime has lead to lifetime punishment hidden behind some legal sleight of hand. A rapist is scum, sure, but are we saying rape is worse than murder? Because murders don't get banned from being 700ft away from other people or listed on special websites.
That is already the case , if I recall correctly it might be Miami Dade , where due to law of not being allowed to live within 1 miles or something from school force actually sex offender in a carton-dump under a bridge.

Found it:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...957778,00.html

Quote:
But beneath the tranquil expanse sits one of South Florida's most contentious social problems: a large colony of convicted sex offenders, thrown into homelessness in recent years by draconian residency restrictions that leave them scant available or affordable housing.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2011, 05:50 AM   #67
Calrid
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 184
Oh yeah I forgot.

Paedophiles are worse than the Nazis to whom they bear some striking similarities with, but in comparison people who harass paedophiles are just like Hitler, almost identical in fact.

There you go.
Calrid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2011, 06:39 AM   #68
Arcade22
Illuminator
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,844
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
You missed the part where he "met her in a bar" which is strange because I highlighted it for you.
No i didn't miss it. I was just disturbed by the fact that he did 5 years in jail for something that's perfectly legal in my own country.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2011, 02:34 PM   #69
sillyhead
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 408
haha, thanks Calrid. This has been interesting so far. We've covered RSO hysteria, Romeo & Juliet situations, false accusations, teen sexting, prison islands and offender lists for non-pedos. We need someone to mention the McMartin cases now.

But how about this question: Say you are aware of pedophile activists online (most people aren't, and a lot of people even think that NAMBLA is simply a SP joke), and that you know the identity of some of them, for example, one who claims to have molested literally thousands of children, and maybe a couple who are a "couple" who "share" their "young friends," and maybe a BSA leader, and assume you go to LE and they either don't want to deal with it, or there's not enough for them to get warrants, what would you consider the most ethical option to be: To out and expose them, or keep it under your hat? Or is there another option?

In other words, would you want these people to be able to maintain their anonymity?
http://evil-unveiled.com/Dylan_Thomas
http://evil-unveiled.com/Aztram
http://evil-unveiled.com/Hyacinth
http://evil-unveiled.com/Gryffin
http://evil-unveiled.com/Wolfman


BTW, to the person who compared the site to PeeJ, the site used to belong to PeeJ, but they discontinued it due to problems with their volunteers, and some other folks started it back up. When PeeJ was unable to get these pedophile sites shut down (free speech and all), they began exposing the identities of these people (free speech and all).

Last edited by sillyhead; 19th April 2011 at 02:34 PM. Reason: splelling
sillyhead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2011, 03:17 PM   #70
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by sillyhead View Post
haha, thanks Calrid. This has been interesting so far. We've covered RSO hysteria, Romeo & Juliet situations, false accusations, teen sexting, prison islands and offender lists for non-pedos. We need someone to mention the McMartin cases now.

But how about this question: Say you are aware of pedophile activists online (most people aren't, and a lot of people even think that NAMBLA is simply a SP joke), and that you know the identity of some of them, for example, one who claims to have molested literally thousands of children, and maybe a couple who are a "couple" who "share" their "young friends," and maybe a BSA leader, and assume you go to LE and they either don't want to deal with it, or there's not enough for them to get warrants, what would you consider the most ethical option to be: To out and expose them, or keep it under your hat? Or is there another option?

In other words, would you want these people to be able to maintain their anonymity?
Let's keep the goalposts in one place.

Firstly if someone is claiming to have molested a child then you should report it to the police and the police should investigate it. I don't buy your story that the police "don't want to deal with it", there are police with enough time on their hands to troll chat rooms pretending to be implausibly sexually compliant teenagers so there are definitely police with enough time on their hands to follow up concrete claims of child molestation.

If they haven't molested a child then stalking them and outing them to their employers or other associates for their sexual orientation is deeply ethically questionable in my view. Unless and until they actually molest a child they have the same rights to be left alone as everyone else.

Quote:
Here the guy was a convicted child molester on the run from the law. I've got no problem with internet vigilantes stalking him and handing information over to law enforcement.

Bear in mind however that doing the right thing once does not give anyone a license to harass or persecute other people who haven't molested a child.

Quote:
He admits to molesting kids, police get tipped off, he gets jailed. No problem.

Quote:
This guy is just an internet pen name posting icky stories, which for all we know have no basis in fact. The site doesn't have any idea who he is.

Quote:
Now we're on shakier ground. This guy clearly was sexually attracted to kids but there's zero evidence he ever acted on that attraction. He got done for CP possession not for ever molesting an actual child.

Quote:
Same again. Attracted to kids, no evidence they ever hurt a kid, done for CP possession.

If that's the best you've got my opinion of the site hasn't changed much. Good on them for helping put the first two away. However if the majority of their targets are just people with an unfortunate sexual orientation who have never actually harmed a child, as seems to be the case, I stand by the position that the people running this site are ethically questionable at best and probably trying to exorcise their own demons by persecuting others.
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2011, 03:48 PM   #71
sillyhead
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 408
Quote:
I don't buy your story that the police "don't want to deal with it", there are police with enough time on their hands to troll chat rooms pretending to be implausibly sexually compliant teenagers so there are definitely police with enough time on their hands to follow up concrete claims of child molestation.
You don't have to buy it, I've experienced it first-hand.


Quote:
...done for CP possession.
Oh, right, I forgot this hasn't been brought up yet. It's so horrible when people are put in jail "just for looking at pictures."

Quote:
...stalking them and outing them to their employers or other associates for their sexual orientation
Quote:
...are just people with an unfortunate sexual orientation
Oh? So pedophilia is a sexual orientation? Hmm.
sillyhead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2011, 04:49 PM   #72
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by sillyhead View Post
You don't have to buy it, I've experienced it first-hand.
Frankly I'm skeptical. I think it's more likely that police weren't interested when you tried to tell them about cases where there was no hard evidence, rather than cases where they could see an easy arrest.

Quote:
Oh, right, I forgot this hasn't been brought up yet. It's so horrible when people are put in jail "just for looking at pictures."
I'm sure you're being sarcastic but that's exactly my view. Just looking at pictures harms nobody and nothing.

Paying people who produce hardcore CP, or producing hardcore CP, are entirely different. Lock those people up and throw away the key with my blessing.

Quote:
Oh? So pedophilia is a sexual orientation? Hmm.
As far as the moral perspective goes, yes, definitely. Like being gay or straight it's not a decision people made, it's just how nature wired them up.

You can classify it as a paraphilia or a sin or whatever other label pleases you but if it's not a conscious decision then I don't see any justification for morally condemning people who just happen to be wired up to see kids as attractive. There but for an accident of genetics or environment go you or I.

When they act on that inclination then they cross the line and they need to be arrested. Not before.

It's worth making a distinction between obligate paedophiles who just don't find adults attractive and who make up a minority of child molesters, and omnivorous sexual predators who will rape anything with a pulse who make up the majority of child molesters. The first category I feel sorry for, until and unless they molest a kid, and I think internet vigilantes who hound them for their orientation are significantly more evil (if we can use the term in the web site's title) than their targets. The second category deserve what they get, but I don't think you'll catch many of them by lurking on paedophile boards even if you have both hands on the keyboard while you do so.

(I'd be very interested in anonymously surveying the PJers and the Evil-Unveiled crew to see how many of them have healthy long-term sexual relationships with adults, and careers that take them nowhere near children. Also to see how many lack the relationship and have the child-related job).

Last edited by Kevin_Lowe; 19th April 2011 at 04:51 PM.
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2011, 06:30 PM   #73
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
ETA: I'd have sworn the Hyacinth page lacked details of the person's identity when I looked at it, but it currently has evidence linking the Hyacinth screen name to a real person and says it hasn't been edited since January. Mea culpa - possibly I had a few tabs open and was thinking of the wrong one.
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2011, 07:40 PM   #74
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,488
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
Perhaps you don't know what the word pedophile means.
Her point, if I may be so bold, is that the law seems to have no idea what the word pedophile means. These people have been convicted for laws intended to prosecute pedophiles, when they are not, in fact, pedophiles. She is pointing out that, in the eys of the law, these people are "actual, convicted, pedophiles" when in fact they are not pedophiles of any sort.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2011, 09:47 PM   #75
tesscaline
Illuminator
 
tesscaline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,024
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Her point, if I may be so bold, is that the law seems to have no idea what the word pedophile means. These people have been convicted for laws intended to prosecute pedophiles, when they are not, in fact, pedophiles. She is pointing out that, in the eys of the law, these people are "actual, convicted, pedophiles" when in fact they are not pedophiles of any sort.
That is my point exactly.

To expand up on that point: Being a pedophile is not illegal, as simply having a thought or a desire is not (yet) illegal.

Pedophile is not a legal term.

No one can be convicted of being a pedophile. It's simply not covered in any law (as far as I've seen, if someone has one that uses the term "pedophile" specifically, I'd be grateful for a link).

However, there are specific actions that are illegal, which pedophiles may take part in. These actions include molesting children, making child porn, distributing child porn, owning child porn, and viewing child porn.

When someone is convicted of those actions, they are labeled by society as "a pedophile".

The problem though, is that not everyone who is convicted of those crimes is actually a pedophile. In some cases (as I've already cited), the perpetrators of those crimes are children themselves, interacting with other children their own age, and often the victim of their own crime (young children being prosecuted with making and distributing child porn of themselves, for example).

So, by advocating action against "actual, convicted pedophiles" you are advocating the same actions against these same children.
tesscaline is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2011, 10:02 PM   #76
sillyhead
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 408
Quote:
Frankly I'm skeptical. I think it's more likely that police weren't interested when you tried to tell them about cases where there was no hard evidence, rather than cases where they could see an easy arrest.
It's okay to be skeptical. A lot of people think that all LE agencies are high tech like on CSI or something. Believe it or not, not all LE agencies are doing internet stings. A ton of pedophile busts have actually been done by FBI and ICE. Some local agencies are very up on tech, some, not so much.

Quote:
As far as the moral perspective goes, yes, definitely. Like being gay or straight it's not a decision people made, it's just how nature wired them up.
Kind of like foot fetishists are 'wired up?' Something like that? Nah, I don't believe the "I was born this way" thing about pedophilia, but there's no proof either way. I do know that I would be horrified if I were a pedophile, and would try to get help for it, rather than posting on pro-pedophile websites about the "rights" of pedophiles, comparing themselves to jews and gays. I don't think that helps their situation much, personally, or in the eyes of the "hysterical" public. That's the problem I have with these sites is that pedophiles congregate on them and justify whatever they like to each other. I guess if you want to blame it on genetics, this would be akin to a bunch of alcoholics gathering together to talk about how good alcohol tastes, and how good the buzz feels. Not a recipe for abstaining, I'm afraid.

Quote:
I'm sure you're being sarcastic but that's exactly my view. Just looking at pictures harms nobody and nothing.
Well, besides the supply and demand argument, there is also the fact that pedophiles gain trust and "fame" in pedophile circles by providing "new material." No, I do not have the belief that viewing cp "reharms" the victim of cp, but I do know that many child molesters show cp to the children they are grooming or abusing. There are a lot of articles and studies and etc which say that viewing cp emboldens pedophiles to act on their urges, but there is also the idea that, if someone really is a pedophile and really does not want to molest children, maybe cp or virtual cp will give them an outlet. There is still a lot of research that needs to be done, but people who haven't been caught, convicted or identified are unwilling to participate in these studies, for the most part.

Quote:
The second category deserve what they get, but I don't think you'll catch many of them by lurking on paedophile boards even if you have both hands on the keyboard while you do so.
I'll disregard your attack against the people who are able to stomach the things they read on pro-pedophile boards in order to identify them, but, yes, that particular type of pedophile does frequent and post on those boards. Here's one: http://evil-unveiled.com/Jizzony

Quote:
(I'd be very interested in anonymously surveying the PJers and the Evil-Unveiled crew to see how many of them have healthy long-term sexual relationships with adults, and careers that take them nowhere near children. Also to see how many lack the relationship and have the child-related job).
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I will assume you mean that people who go after pedophiles online are pedophiles themselves. So would that mean that the armchair sleuths over on websleuths are latent (or active) murderers, kidnappers, rapists, etc? What I've actually seen is that people who do this kind of work are, many times, CSA victims themselves, and would like to prevent children from suffering what they did.

Anyway, thank you, everyone who's responded. I'm interested in more responses if people are inclined to comment. I probably won't respond to every post, but I'm reading.

I'm sure my position on the subject is obvious: If someone is going to go around the internet posting pro-pedophile propaganda, I think it's very fair, and even a public service, to let their communities know what they are.

However, I am not for mob rules, such as any violence towards anyone. I have been in a position where my own child was harmed, and have had the occasion to do harm to the person responsible, but I haven't, and wouldn't. I don't think that the system is perfect, by any means, but I think that the system should handle the justice part of this whole thing, not just random citizens. I do, however, believe that random citizens have the right to investigate anything that is on the public internet and remark about it in whatever form they wish.
sillyhead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2011, 10:06 PM   #77
sillyhead
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 408
I agree with you, tesscaline, though news outlets will frequently say that someone's been "convicted of pedophilia," which I think is confusing to a lot of people.

I also think it's ridiculous to sentence children for crimes they can't consent to, and I grew up in areas where, if a 17 yr old was dating a 15 year old her daddy didn't like, he could go to jail, and I think that's wrong, too.

However, if you take a look at the RSO, you'll see that those are not nearly the majority.
sillyhead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2011, 10:17 PM   #78
tesscaline
Illuminator
 
tesscaline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,024
Originally Posted by sillyhead View Post
However, if you take a look at the RSO, you'll see that those are not nearly the majority.
They may not be the majority, however, I have had friends who's lives were ruined over these sorts of convictions.

One friend was abused as a young young child, and then, as if that weren't bad enough, when he was barely a teenager (13 iirc) was convicted of child molestation of a cousin only 2 years younger than himself. As a result of that inappropriate conviction by an overzealous prosecutor looking to pad his record in an election year (he was still in the process of appealing the conviction at age 21, by the way), this friend of mine was required to be listed on the sex offender registry. He could not go to a regular high school, and spent his "time" in a psychiatric facility. He's virtually unemployable because he's labeled as a "pedophile", can't get relationships going, had an extremely hard time finding a college that would accept him... And that's not even going into the sorts of harassment he's gotten from people who go to sites like the one you linked and decide to "take justice into their own hands."

ETA: For clarity, said friend is not attracted to children in the least. He's very much attracted to fully matured women.

Last edited by tesscaline; 19th April 2011 at 10:22 PM.
tesscaline is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2011, 10:28 PM   #79
sillyhead
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 408
I'm very sorry to hear that. I watched Just Ask My Children recently, and it was heartbreaking. I had a friend who was very nearly convicted of molesting his own children, but they came forward and said that their mother was telling them to say it (messy divorce). That was a huge deal for a long time, and I'm sure it's still going on. It's the same thing as convicting an innocent person for murder.


However, I am totally for the RSO, if handled properly. I think we should know when there is a child molester in our midst.

Last edited by sillyhead; 19th April 2011 at 10:29 PM. Reason: dot
sillyhead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2011, 10:37 PM   #80
tesscaline
Illuminator
 
tesscaline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,024
Originally Posted by sillyhead View Post
I'm very sorry to hear that. I watched Just Ask My Children recently, and it was heartbreaking. I had a friend who was very nearly convicted of molesting his own children, but they came forward and said that their mother was telling them to say it (messy divorce). That was a huge deal for a long time, and I'm sure it's still going on. It's the same thing as convicting an innocent person for murder.


However, I am totally for the RSO, if handled properly. I think we should know when there is a child molester in our midst.
The problem is the "handling properly".

I don't think that sites like the one listed in the OP are "handling things properly". In fact, that's rather the point of them -- they're going entirely outside of due process. And given how much trouble we have with false convictions even with due process... I'm sorry, but going vigilante and ignoring it is liable to result in even more false "convictions." I can't get behind that.
tesscaline is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:44 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.