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 20th April 2011, 02:24 PM   #121
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,099
Originally Posted by simper View Post
A pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to a 15 year old tennis star.
No. A pedophile is someone who's attracted to children. A 15 year old isn't, expect in possible freak cases, a child. It's an adolescent youth or possibly a young adult. But then again I've heard "pedophile" used to mean anything from someone who's in a relationship with a big age difference to someone who's attracted to anyone under 20.
__________________
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 20th April 2011, 02:30 PM   #122
quixotecoyote
Howling to glory I go
 
quixotecoyote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 10,379
I believe the point simper was trying to make is that the term pedophile has lost all meaning in common usage because of the various abuses of the word. I could, of course, be wrong.
__________________
If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea.
quixotecoyote 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 20th April 2011, 05:24 PM   #123
mike3
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,466
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
I clicked around there for a bit.

My previous experience with the really enthusiastic internet pedo-hunters makes me suspect that quite a few of them are that way inclined themselves, and that working themselves into a froth of hatred about "out" pedophiles (and obsessing over quotes from them) is a kind of coping mechanism for them.

This web site looks like more of the same in some places - I clicked on this link out of curiosity since it was the only Brisbane-area entry they had and I see no evidence there at all that the subject of the web page has done anything except some underage/underage gay sex and a lot of wanking. Yet nonetheless the people collating this info have engaged in "infiltration efforts" to obtain his personal information. Personally in this particular case I'm more worried about the internet vigilantes than I am about their target.

That said some of their other web pages do focus on people with an actual history of child molestation so that objection is not a universal one.
And what do you think of those pages?

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
Speaking more generally the inevitable problem with paedophilia is that as a society we have this rule that once you've done your time you have a mostly-blank slate and are entitled to live a mostly-normal life as long as you behave yourself. However people's sexual orientation isn't actually so plastic that a few years in jail will reorient someone who is attracted to kids into someone attracted to adults. So there's quite justifiable concern that this category of offenders will re-offend and thus people justifiably want to know if a child sex offender has moved in next door.

So the question is how we balance the risk of re-offending and people's desire to know about offenders against the offender's right (and I think they do have one) to live a mostly-normal life once they get out of jail if they behave themselves. I don't think there's such a thing as a perfect balance rather than an acceptable one but I am very sure that I don't want that balance decided on by internet vigilantes rather than by transparent social processes like courts.
But if this thing isn't something so easy to change, then how can you get them to "behave" themselves?
mike3 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 20th April 2011, 05:37 PM   #124
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by mike3 View Post
And what do you think of those pages?
I think I've already made my view clear. You can reread my earlier posts if you missed it.

Quote:
But if this thing isn't something so easy to change, then how can you get them to "behave" themselves?
If anybody knows how to do so perfectly they haven't told the rest of us. The re-offending rate is less than 100% so some manage to stay out of further trouble, but it's greater than 0% so some can't or won't manage to stay out of trouble.

The question is, should they have a chance to stay out of trouble and live a relatively normal life? That's a chance we afford murderers, for example. We accept the risk they will re-offend because we see it as the right thing to do.
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 20th April 2011, 11:55 PM   #125
slingblade
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,466
Originally Posted by quixotecoyote View Post
I believe the point simper was trying to make is that the term pedophile has lost all meaning in common usage because of the various abuses of the word. I could, of course, be wrong.
Then Simper should make his point and not be coy.

Coy often gets you corrected.
slingblade 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 21st April 2011, 01:21 AM   #126
simper
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
No. A pedophile is someone who's attracted to children. A 15 year old isn't, expect in possible freak cases, a child. It's an adolescent youth or possibly a young adult. But then again I've heard "pedophile" used to mean anything from someone who's in a relationship with a big age difference to someone who's attracted to anyone under 20.
Under the law of the UK and certainly with regards to the media someone over 16 who is attracted to a 15 year old is a "pedo". In common usage the word pedophile has little to do with the medical definition of the word "pedophile".
simper 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 21st April 2011, 01:29 AM   #127
simper
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by slingblade View Post
Then Simper should make his point and not be coy.

Coy often gets you corrected.
Sorry but I thought my the meaning of my post was obvious.
simper 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 21st April 2011, 02:03 AM   #128
Calrid
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 184
Originally Posted by simper View Post
Under the law of the UK and certainly with regards to the media someone over 16 who is attracted to a 15 year old is a "pedo". In common usage the word pedophile has little to do with the medical definition of the word "pedophile".
Well yeah I certainly wouldn't see a 17 year old being attracted to a 15 year old as a paedophile, the common definition is obviously arbitrary and just inapt.

A 60 year old who is attracted to a 15 year old is odd and a bit creepy, a 60 year old who is attracted to a 8 year old is obviously suffering from a sexual aberration.

Last edited by Calrid; 21st April 2011 at 02:05 AM.
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 21st April 2011, 02:45 AM   #129
slingblade
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,466
Originally Posted by simper View Post
Sorry but I thought my the meaning of my post was obvious.
Nope, sorry. I honestly thought you were saying how you define a pedophile.
But I can agree with the sentiment you expressed. (lol, now that I get it. )
slingblade 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 21st April 2011, 02:59 AM   #130
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,930
Originally Posted by simper View Post
Under the law of the UK and certainly with regards to the media someone over 16 who is attracted to a 15 year old is a "pedo". In common usage the word pedophile has little to do with the medical definition of the word "pedophile".
I don't think the are any laws regarding pedophiles at all. Having sexual relations with someone under the age of consent is illegal, whether you're a pedophile or not.
Ryokan 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 21st April 2011, 03:52 AM   #131
simper
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
I don't think the are any laws regarding pedophiles at all. Having sexual relations with someone under the age of consent is illegal, whether you're a pedophile or not.
Ok perhaps Ive just been brainwashed be the British media but when someone is convicted of having sexual relations with someone under the age of consent they are certainly referred to as a pedophile.
simper 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 21st April 2011, 04:26 AM   #132
JFrankA
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,054
Originally Posted by simper View Post
Ok perhaps Ive just been brainwashed be the British media but when someone is convicted of having sexual relations with someone under the age of consent they are certainly referred to as a pedophile.
Pedophile is a sexual attraction. It is NOT the act. One can be a pedophile and never ever ever molest or have sexual relations with someone under the age of consent.

That's the difference.
JFrankA 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 21st April 2011, 04:28 AM   #133
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 9,062
Originally Posted by simper View Post
Under the law of the UK and certainly with regards to the media someone over 16 who is attracted to a 15 year old is a "pedo". In common usage the word pedophile has little to do with the medical definition of the word "pedophile".
I think you'll find that the UK law doesn't say anything of the sort. The media, on the other hand....
Information Analyst 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 21st April 2011, 04:30 AM   #134
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 9,062
Originally Posted by simper View Post
Ok perhaps Ive just been brainwashed be the British media but when someone is convicted of having sexual relations with someone under the age of consent they are certainly referred to as a pedophile.
The tabloids describe people in a lot of different ways that they shouldn't. They just rely on the fact that the targets of such mis-description are either in prison or too busy keeping their heads down to sue them for libel.
Information Analyst 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 21st April 2011, 05:13 AM   #135
simper
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by JFrankA View Post
Pedophile is a sexual attraction. It is NOT the act. One can be a pedophile and never ever ever molest or have sexual relations with someone under the age of consent.

That's the difference.
If you are on the internet then you can be convicted of being a pedophile and serve time in jail for your "sexual attraction". Whether it is right or wrong it is a crime for an adult to be sexually attracted to someone under the age of 16.
simper 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 21st April 2011, 05:19 AM   #136
simper
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
I think you'll find that the UK law doesn't say anything of the sort. The media, on the other hand....
My impression is that polititions play the same game when it suits them.
simper 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 21st April 2011, 05:21 AM   #137
Rasmus
Philosopher
 
Rasmus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,372
Originally Posted by simper View Post
If you are on the internet then you can be convicted of being a pedophile and serve time in jail for your "sexual attraction". Whether it is right or wrong it is a crime for an adult to be sexually attracted to someone under the age of 16.
I could explain to you how you are not only wrong but couldn't possibly be right. Let a simple

Evidence?

suffice for now, though. (Hint: You cannot know what anyone is attracted to unless they act in some way and at least *tell* you what they are attracted to.)

Here, I'll humor you: I am on the Internet. Let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that I am attracted to someone aged 14. I'll let you decide who that hypothetical target of my attractions should be.

What laws would I be breaking in that situation? What would I be sent to prison for?

I am reasonably certain I would be no more more guilty in that case than I am currently guilting of raping Salma Hayek.
__________________
"Well, the religious community could not just make it up." - JetLeg
Rasmus 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 21st April 2011, 05:36 AM   #138
simper
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by Rasmus View Post
I could explain to you how you are not only wrong but couldn't possibly be right. Let a simple

Evidence?

suffice for now, though. (Hint: You cannot know what anyone is attracted to unless they act in some way and at least *tell* you what they are attracted to.)

Here, I'll humor you: I am on the Internet. Let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that I am attracted to someone aged 14. I'll let you decide who that hypothetical target of my attractions should be.

What laws would I be breaking in that situation? What would I be sent to prison for?

I am reasonably certain I would be no more more guilty in that case than I am currently guilting of raping Salma Hayek.
(Hint: You cannot know what anyone is attracted to unless they act in some way and at least *tell* you what they are attracted to.)

If you have a number of photos of your hypothetical 14 year old on your computer then you can be convicted( at least theoretically) in the UK.
simper 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 21st April 2011, 05:55 AM   #139
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,930
Originally Posted by simper View Post
If you are on the internet then you can be convicted of being a pedophile and serve time in jail for your "sexual attraction".
No, you can't be convicted for being a pedophile.

Originally Posted by simper View Post
If you have a number of photos of your hypothetical 14 year old on your computer then you can be convicted( at least theoretically) in the UK.
What would his crime be? What specific laws?

Last edited by Ryokan; 21st April 2011 at 05:56 AM.
Ryokan 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 21st April 2011, 06:00 AM   #140
Rasmus
Philosopher
 
Rasmus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,372
Originally Posted by simper View Post
If you have a number of photos of your hypothetical 14 year old on your computer then you can be convicted( at least theoretically) in the UK.
That is a different claim. You said one could be convicted for being a pedophile on the Internet.

Also, no.
McCauly Culkin e.g. was 10 when he became famous. I could have tons of pictures of him on my PC and get in no trouble whatsoever.

Anna Chlumsky - same thing.

Should I dig up more child stars? Should I look at a current mail order catalog and see how many pre teen models they have for children's' underwear?

I could have all of that and not a thing would happen to me.
__________________
"Well, the religious community could not just make it up." - JetLeg
Rasmus 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 21st April 2011, 06:47 AM   #141
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 80,615
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
There are all sorts of negative consequences of being a felon once one gets out of prison. This is one of them.

Oh well. Should've thought about that before they started molesting children.

It wouldn't bother me.
I hope you never commit a crime, then.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 21st April 2011, 07:56 AM   #142
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,334
Originally Posted by Belz
Putting them on such a list not only indicates otherwise but opens them to violent abuse as mentioned earlier in the thread, which isn't surprising considering the current attitude concerning all things minor-related.
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
Oh well. Should've thought about that before they started molesting children.
Dtugg,

Why then the uproar when police officer's names, addresses and where their children go to school are published on the internet?

The issue is about exposing individuals to physical harm and there have been several cases of people using sexual offenders lists to indentify, locate and murder people.
__________________
"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 21st April 2011, 08:23 AM   #143
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,099
Originally Posted by simper View Post
If you are on the internet then you can be convicted of being a pedophile and serve time in jail for your "sexual attraction".
I'm pretty sure that one is allowed to be a pedophile on the internet as much as one pleases. Sure, trying to make kids have sex with you, buying and distributing (and in Sweden, even just looking at) "child pornography" is usually illegal but that goes beyond just a pure sexual attraction.

Originally Posted by simper View Post
If you have a number of photos of your hypothetical 14 year old on your computer then you can be convicted( at least theoretically) in the UK.
Any pictures of anyone who's 14? I doubt it, though I don't know the relevant British laws. If they were of a sexual kind, yeah probably. Problem is that what's considered "child pornography" might be outrageously broad. In Sweden cartoons and animations are also considered child pornography. Plenty of teenagers also post pornographic pictures of themselves on websites that are meant for people who are 18+ without giving away that they are actually underage, though if they are as young as 14 years old then it would probably be more obvious that they are underage.
__________________
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 21st April 2011, 08:42 AM   #144
DallasDad
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 810
Here's a hypothetical to ponder. Suppose a woman had a disease that prevented puberty. When she was 30, she still looked like a 9-year-old. She discovers that women who look like little girls have a tough time in normal job markets, but can make a lot of money doing porn, so she makes and distributes porn.

As far as I can see, in Sweden, U.S., or U.K., she'd be guilty of making child porn, and anyone who downloaded it would be guilty of possession.

Shouldn't the laws be a bit more concerned with protecting actual children, and less concerned about things that might look like children? The first is defensible; the latter seems mere prudery/disgust writ as law. The laws appear to make no exceptions for drawings, stories (in some cases, even autobiographies, even if the activity is portrayed as traumatic), anime, 18-year-olds who look young, emancipated minors who actually are young but have adult privileges, and so forth.

If a fully-developed sexually mature person whose age happens to be 14, 15, or 16, deliberately uploads nudie shots of herself/himself in lascivious poses to an adult website, why should that person be charged with a crime? Where's the victim?

I'm not saying that the teenager who does these things is either wise or prudent, and if it were my kid, there'd be a world of repercussions coming -- but I can't see how the law should be involved.
DallasDad 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 21st April 2011, 09:07 AM   #145
JFrankA
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,054
Originally Posted by simper View Post
If you are on the internet then you can be convicted of being a pedophile and serve time in jail for your "sexual attraction".
Nope. Doesn't fly.

You need to be specific, please.

For example if someone is a pedophile and she/he plays World of Warcraft and does not do anything at all to any players (other than normal WoW stuff), how can that person be arrested???

Quote:
Whether it is right or wrong it is a crime for an adult to be sexually attracted to someone under the age of 16.
No, it's not.

It's a crime to actually do it. There are people who are trying to make the thought illegal. And that's wrong.
JFrankA 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 21st April 2011, 09:15 AM   #146
simper
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
No, you can't be convicted for being a pedophile.



What would his crime be? What specific laws?
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_s...picting_minors

The Coroners and Justice Act of April 2009 (c. 2) creates a new offence in England and Wales and Northern Ireland of possession of a prohibited image of a child. This act makes cartoon pornography depicting minors illegal in the UK. This Act does not replace the 1978 act, extended in 1994, since that covered "pseudo-photographs" - images that appear to be photographs. In 2008 it was further extended to cover tracings, and other works derived from photographs or pseudo-photographs.[31] A prohibited cartoon image is one which involves a minor in situations which are pornographic and "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character."

Prior to this, although not explicitly in the statutes, the law has been interpreted to apply to cartoon images, though only where the images are realistic and indistinguishable from photographs.[32] The new law however covers images whether or not they are realistic.

Edited by Locknar:  <SNIP>, breach of rule 4; please do not post large amouts of text from other sites...and make sure you properly reference material you do quote.


The Government claimed that publication or supply of such material may be illegal under the Obscene Publications Act, if a jury would consider it to have a tendency to "deprave and corrupt".[35] However, the published bill makes no reference to the "deprave and corrupt test.
This law may be slightly insane but it does exsist and in theory you can go to jail for having cartoon images on your computer.

Last edited by Locknar; 21st April 2011 at 12:32 PM.
simper 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 21st April 2011, 09:18 AM   #147
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,930
Originally Posted by simper View Post
This law may be slightly insane but it does exsist and in theory you can go to jail for having cartoon images on your computer.
But that's not what you claimed, you claimed it was a crime to be attracted to someone under 16 and have pictures of them. That's not what this law says.
Ryokan 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 21st April 2011, 09:24 AM   #148
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,099
Originally Posted by DallasDad View Post
Here's a hypothetical to ponder. Suppose a woman had a disease that prevented puberty. When she was 30, she still looked like a 9-year-old. She discovers that women who look like little girls have a tough time in normal job markets, but can make a lot of money doing porn, so she makes and distributes porn.

As far as I can see, in Sweden, U.S., or U.K., she'd be guilty of making child porn, and anyone who downloaded it would be guilty of possession.
It's perfectly legal here in Sweden to make pornography with people who look like they are under 18 if they actually are 18 and over. The law defines a "child" in child pornography as:

"The child is a person whose pubertal development is not completed or is under eighteen years old."

So if you're over 18 then you're fair game for pornographers, no matter how young you look. In fact i know an 18 year old girl who, thanks to her small stature, look like she could possibly be 11-12 years old or something like that. She's not like one of those small pudgy dwarfs, she just looks really small and underdeveloped.
__________________
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

Last edited by Arcade22; 21st April 2011 at 09:31 AM.
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 21st April 2011, 09:34 AM   #149
simper
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
But that's not what you claimed, you claimed it was a crime to be attracted to someone under 16 and have pictures of them. That's not what this law says.
Of course it does as the law is so vague and intentionally so.
simper 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 21st April 2011, 09:39 AM   #150
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,930
Originally Posted by simper View Post
Of course it does as the law is so vague and intentionally so.
No, it doesn't even come close to suggest any of the things you have claimed.

This is what you have claimed so far:

- It's a crime to be a pedophile on the internet
- It's a crime to be attracted to someone under 16
- it's a crime to have pictures of someone under 16

All you have backed it up with is a law against pictures that sexualize children.

Some of your claims don't even make sense, unless you can get law enforcement to read the minds of people.

Last edited by Ryokan; 21st April 2011 at 09:40 AM.
Ryokan 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 21st April 2011, 09:42 AM   #151
Calrid
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 184
Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
I don't think the are any laws regarding pedophiles at all. Having sexual relations with someone under the age of consent is illegal, whether you're a pedophile or not.
They tend to turn a blind eye to kids of around the age of consent though having sex, seldom if ever taking it further than the warning stage if that.

Unlike in America where a 19 year old was given 9 years for getting a blow job from a 17 year old girl. One of the more puritan states though, certainly not indicative of the whole US.
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 21st April 2011, 09:44 AM   #152
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,930
Originally Posted by Calrid View Post
They tend to turn a blind eye to kids of around the age of consent though having sex, seldom if ever taking it further than the warning stage if that.
I think that varies from country to country, and even from area to area in each country. My country has the so-called Romeo and Juliet law, in which if the participants are only a few years apart, then it's ok if one is under the age of consent.

And if the older part is not too old, the police usually won't get involved unless the parents demand it.
Ryokan 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 21st April 2011, 09:47 AM   #153
Calrid
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 184
Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
I think that varies from country to country, and even from area to area in each country. My country has the so-called Romeo and Juliet law, in which if the participants are only a few years apart, then it's ok if one is under the age of consent.

And if the older part is not too old, the police usually won't get involved unless the parents demand it.
Well yeah I was referring to the UK and his post of course.

In Holland they'd probably hand out condoms, then go have a smoke and a pancake.
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 21st April 2011, 10:19 AM   #154
AmandaM
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by DallasDad View Post
Shouldn't the laws be a bit more concerned with protecting actual children, and less concerned about things that might look like children? The first is defensible; the latter seems mere prudery/disgust writ as law.
I'm with you on that, but the argument I've heard is that children ARE harmed, because faux-child pornography encourages pedos to seek out real children.

(Citation missing because I don't believe there is any legitimate research that actually suggests this, but as always I could be wrong.)

Personally, if I enjoy reading porn about women and pirates, I really honestly can't see how this will lead me to seek out an ACTUAL pirate to play with.

BUT

I really do not understand the mind of someone writing a story about how they like to masturbate young children.

There does seem to be a world of difference between wanting to have anal sex with a 4-year-old boy and being turned on by a 16-year-old cheerleader. The former is simply wired wrong. The latter is just being human.


Quote:
The laws appear to make no exceptions for drawings, stories (in some cases, even autobiographies, even if the activity is portrayed as traumatic), anime, 18-year-olds who look young, emancipated minors who actually are young but have adult privileges, and so forth.
Teenagers very often have sex. (I know, big shock there.) If I'm 16 and I blog about my sexual experience, am I creating child porn? It seems in my state, the answer is yes. If I am actually 40 and writing a blog about my MEMORIES of being 16 and having sex, is it child porn? The laws are so vague here that it could be considered such.

Quote:
If a fully-developed sexually mature person whose age happens to be 14, 15, or 16, deliberately uploads nudie shots of herself/himself in lascivious poses to an adult website, why should that person be charged with a crime? Where's the victim?
The ARGUMENT is that the "child" doesn't have the emotional maturity to make those decisions. I think this is the basis of the age of consent. Prior to that magic age (whatever the state/country says it is) you aren't emotionally mature enough to decide for yourself. A minor can't enter a legally binding contract, but she can quit school. You can't drink until you're 21 but you can be drafted at 18. Go figure.


What I'd like to see with sex crime laws is a radical separation between the people who are molesting toddlers and the 18-year-olds having sex with their 15-year-old girlfriends. I'm bothered that both of these crimes are painted with the same brush. But I'm not sure where the "cutoff" should be, agewise. Maybe it should be something related to the age difference between the two parties -- I don't know.
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 21st April 2011, 10:23 AM   #155
MinnesotaBrant
Illuminator
 
MinnesotaBrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,598
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
Perhaps you don't know what the word pedophile means. It is someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. So when I say pedophile that is what I mean.

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.

I swear, people need to take reading comprehension classes.
I think the having a gun for an avatar says it all. There is no need to explain yourself
MinnesotaBrant 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 21st April 2011, 10:34 AM   #156
simper
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
No, it doesn't even come close to suggest any of the things you have claimed.

This is what you have claimed so far:

- It's a crime to be a pedophile on the internet
- It's a crime to be attracted to someone under 16
- it's a crime to have pictures of someone under 16

All you have backed it up with is a law against pictures that sexualize children.

Some of your claims don't even make sense, unless you can get law enforcement to read the minds of people.
"This act makes cartoon pornography depicting minors illegal in the UK.

These plans became part of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, sections 62-68,[39] and came into force on 6 April 2010.[40] The definition of a "child" in the Act includes depictions of 16 and 17 year olds who are over the age of consent in the UK, as well as any adults where the "predominant impression conveyed" is of a person under the age of 18. The Act makes it illegal to own any picture depicting under-18s participating in sexual activities, or depictions of sexual activity in the presence of someone under 18. The law has been condemned by a coalition of graphic artists, publishers and MPs, fearing it will criminalise graphic novels such as Lost Girls and Watchmen."

In addition there have been well published cases of people who have taken naked photos of their child to a profesional photographer and been prosecuted as a result.

The reason that I said that the law was vague was because you can interperet it anyway you want. A naked (or perhaps clothed) picture of someone under the age of 16 can be entirely innocent or evidence of pedophilia.
simper 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 21st April 2011, 10:38 AM   #157
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,930
Originally Posted by simper View Post
The reason that I said that the law was vague was because you can interperet it anyway you want. A naked (or perhaps clothed) picture of someone under the age of 16 can be entirely innocent or evidence of pedophilia.
Yes. But how does this back up anything you said? It doesn't. At all. Not even close.
Ryokan 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 21st April 2011, 10:56 AM   #158
simper
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
Yes. But how does this back up anything you said? It doesn't. At all. Not even close.
Its possible to be convicted of pedophilia for taking naked pictures of your child. Its possible to be convicted of pedophilia for looking at images of under 16 year olds on the internet.
simper 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 21st April 2011, 11:02 AM   #159
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,930
Originally Posted by simper View Post
Its possible to be convicted of pedophilia for taking naked pictures of your child. Its possible to be convicted of pedophilia for looking at images of under 16 year olds on the internet.
Yes, we all know that. That has never been in dispute.

What is in dispute is these silly claims of yours:

- It's a crime to be a pedophile on the internet
- It's a crime to be attracted to someone under 16
- it's a crime to have pictures of someone under 16

If you can't back any of these up, it's because none of them are true. And it's ok for you to admit that.
Ryokan 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 21st April 2011, 11:15 AM   #160
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,760
Originally Posted by simper View Post
Its possible to be convicted of pedophilia for taking naked pictures of your child. Its possible to be convicted of pedophilia for looking at images of under 16 year olds on the internet.
There is no "crime of pedophilia." Pedophilia is an attraction. Attraction of any type is not a crime in any civilized country.

It's not uncommon for people to talk past one another on these forums, but I'm getting the impression that you're not even listening to yourself.
I Am The Scum 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 11:52 PM.
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.