|
Kajeesus posted:Kill everyone who supports the death penalty. There's no cure for supporting it, after all.
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:19 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:I think there is. Lots of priests and nuns live entirely celibate lives, for example. You can disagree but that's just your "horse sense," AKA opinion without value.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Most don't rape kids.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
I think that we should allow the execution of pedophiles as long as the person executing them is killed at the same time, so we may have valiant martyrs stemming the flood of child molestation, and they may be duly honored as true heroes. Or perhaps a cage match with various weaponry, and only the victor may leave, or be challenged again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
The only acceptable form of death penalty is execution by nuclear bomb. Must be a fully functioning warhead, at least one megaton, detonated manually by the executioner.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
The entire basis kicking off his conversation is completely ridiculous. How the gently caress can you have a conversation about pedophilia that kicks off with ways to help pedophiles as opposed to ways to prevent them from having victims or ways to circumvent the family circles that defend pedophiles. What universe do you live in where the victims problems are even remotely close enough to being resolved for us to even begin to address this problem by starting with the assumption that pedophiles are treated too harshly. They really, really aren't in practice, they often have social circles that will back them up and defend them at every chance. Hell, I've seen a very large family that all lived in the same drat town break apart because half of them decided to defend a guy who hosed a toddler (said toddler was also in the family). Another example: a preacher who defended a pedophile that was his friend and called the preteen girls liars in order to defend him. It's easy for plenty of people, even those who aren't pedophiles, to rationalize child molestation. Conversations about pedophiles should always revolve around helping and reducing harm done towards victims, period, and pedophiles themselves need to be viewed as objects that are just a means to an end in comparison to said victims. If being nice to known pedophiles helped out, or individually removing thier eyes with a spoon helped, or slapping a tattoo on thier foreheads helped, or giving them a delicious bowl of guacamole helped, then any of those options would be morally virtuous regardless of how you personally feel about them. But none of them should be based on the well-being of a known pedophile, just the wellbeing of thier victims and, depending on the chosen way to deal with pedophiles, the well being of potentially innocent falsely convicted people. This doesn't mean that people who advocate being nicer to pedophiles are necessarily wrong, but anyone approaching this problem based on the well-being of pedophiles is morally bankrupt, end of story. Anything else elevates the concerns of a child molester above the concerns of thier victims. If Black Baby Goku gets this thread closed many of you who are arguing with him should be glad that he saved you the embarrassment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
The two are not mutually exclusive? To advocate for a mental-illness approach to paedophilia in order to more effectively eliminate child molestation is not to prevent investment into victim support services? But I don't feel as though there is a lack of support for better investment into that area. Who is going to suggest that we should maybe not look after victims of crime? Except possibly whatever your country's right wing party is. However, there is a strong social opposition to the idea that crime should be prevented by removing the circumstances which produce it. And that applies here, fundamentally, the crime in question is rape, and the commission of rape is a personal choice, which it is possible to teach people not to do. If people are not being instilled with that need, then that suggests a sociological problem which needs addressing, if you are ever to achieve anything but a reactive approach to crime, instead of a preventative or proactive approach. Further, what does harshness or gentleness have to do with it? That is a completely irrelevant spectrum, the objection is not that paedophiles are treated too harshly, the objection is that the taboo nature of the subject to the point where anything other than emotionally driven violence is unacceptable, is counterproductive. The objective is not to make child molesters happy, the objective is to get rid of the idea that we can simply distance ourselves utterly from the problem and not have to understand why it happens. A failure to do that makes us culpable for every time a person is hurt because we haven't undertaken the study necessary to understand why people keep molesting children and how to prevent it. I support more money for victim support, I would prefer victim support was unnecessary. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Oct 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Bifner McDoogle posted:Conversations about pedophiles should always revolve around helping and reducing harm done towards victims, period, and pedophiles themselves need to be viewed as objects that are just a means to an end in comparison to said victims. If being nice to known pedophiles helped out, or individually removing thier eyes with a spoon helped, or slapping a tattoo on thier foreheads helped, or giving them a delicious bowl of guacamole helped, then any of those options would be morally virtuous regardless of how you personally feel about them. But none of them should be based on the well-being of a known pedophile, just the wellbeing of thier victims and, depending on the chosen way to deal with pedophiles, the well being of potentially innocent falsely convicted people. Well far from being random ideas like torture or guacamole, treatment is helpful and reduces the likelihood of harm to children. Nobody is suggesting treatment of pedophiles (and treating them like human beings) is intended primarily to make them feel better, it is intended to reduce harm by training them to resist their urges, and it works better than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
So, I used to work for a non-profit that provided the services people claim don’t exist and don’t work. Specifically, I was a live-in caregiver for a group home for pedophiles and sex offenders. I worked there for a couple of years before burning out and quitting--strangely, working with those people all day is emotionally exhausting--but it did give me a bit of insight into the actual way treatment functions. Now, keep in mind that I’m not a psychologist and I don’t have any insight into the scientific side of things. My job was essentially to be a warm body that could stay at the house and provide supervision, assist with their safe integration into the community, and generally help them do day-to-day tasks like transport them to therapy sessions, track their meds, make sure they were sticking to their treatment plan, etc. I also haven’t worked in the field for ten years, so I might not be up to date on the latest approaches and treatments. This is strictly my experiences about something that a lot of people in this thread seem to either not be aware of or not understand very well. The first thing to note is pretty simple: treatment programs for pedophiles and other sex offenders exist. They were not super common when I was working in the field, I was living in one of the largest cities in the state at the time and we were the only place that really offered a treatment program, but they do exist. They’re just invisible a lot of the time. The non-profit I worked for was actually not strictly dedicated to caring for sex offenders. They provided live-in care services to people with physical and mental disabilities. So, it wasn’t exactly advertised to the public that we operated group homes filled with rapists and people attracted to children. And our situation was similar with the therapists we worked with; there were actually about four or five in the area that provided one-on-one and group therapy sessions for our clients, but it wasn’t something they advertised in the phone book. In general, most of our clients came from either a therapist referring them to our service, family referrals in cases where a family member had guardianship, and compulsory treatment programs as a condition of probation or parole. Now, the people that bitch “well, you can’t cure people of sexual attraction” are sort of right. The program made no promises to cure people and was pretty open about the fact that our clients would always have to deal with these urges. The point of the treatment plans was to prevent our clients from offending or engaging in behavior that would escalate into offense. An average client had a one-on-one meeting with their therapist every other week, where they usually talked about their problems and practiced techniques to avoid dangerous patterns of thought and behavior, and a weekly group session where they discussed their treatment and problems in a supervised, open and encouraging environment that held them accountable for their behavior. A great number of them were on various medications, both drug therapies that reduced sexual urges and other medications to treat the various mental disorders that had a high co-morbidity with this sort of thing, and all of them had a certain level of monitoring that was evaluated monthly--based on tracked behavior, recommendation of staff, and recommendation of their therapists--that ranged from 24/7 live-in care to daily check-up visits. The clients had to basically give up any sort of privacy. The staff was expected to act reasonably and with cause, but everything was basically monitored. Internet was the biggest thing. Most clients were restricted to only getting online at certain times of day and there was heavy restrictions on what they could and could not do online. There was one client that was very upset that he wasn’t allowed to have a BitTorrent client on his computer, claiming that he just wanted to download music. It was a constant fight and I had to uninstall BitTorrent something like five times before he was given an ultimatum: disconnect the Internet or leave the program. I think it was something like three or four months of taking him to the library to use the computer--while I stood behind him and made sure he was just reading webcomics and sending emails--before he got permission to have a personal Internet connection again. The “leave the program” card might not sound like a big deal, but for a lot of our clients it was. Most of the people we worked with didn’t want to leave the program for various reasons. For a lot of them it was selfish. They either were on some sort of probation or parole that required they stay in the program or their families were demanding they stay there--usually when their family was the one paying their living expenses--but a few just wanted to stay because they honestly wanted treatment. Of course, their noble sentiments wouldn’t stop them from being a bunch of rationalizing weasels from time to time... And that’s what burned me out of working for the program. The way the program worked might remind people of the more extreme sort of addiction therapy--lots of cognitive behavior therapy, remove temptations and negative influences, accountability, monitoring, etc.--and one reason for that is that the clients suffered from similar behaviors of “seeking” and rationalization. We had one client that suddenly started spending his weekly entertainment allowance at the bookstore, carefully picking out stacks of novels. We didn’t think anything about it, they were all general fiction from the adult section so it seemed on the up and up, until someone noticed that he was only buying books with kids on the cover. His defense was one that you usually hear and might be familiar to some of you: “I don’t see what the big deal is. I’m not hurting anyone and I just like reading about kids because I love children. I would never hurt them.” Now, I don’t know what the actual research about this is, but according to what the actual doctors we worked with said, this was a load of crap. It usually starts with small, easily rationalized “seeking” behaviors: buying media that features children, walking by playgrounds or parks where children play, or other behavior they can claim is harmless. But after awhile this behavior inevitably escalates as the initial thrill they get from that isn’t enough and they end up offending. This is why the people that claim that stuff like the anime pedo poo poo is harmless are full of it, btw. It just provokes further escalations in predatory behavior. We saw this sort of cycle happen a lot and it can be pretty frustrating to deal with. Does that mean there’s no hope for these people? Not really. I mean, it’s not loving easy by any means but there were small success stories here and there. I know of a couple of guys that have successfully gone decades without incidents and one guy even managed to transition into a healthy long-term relationship with someone his own age. There’s always the chance that they might backslide, I suppose, and I’ll be honest that I don’t know much about the actual recidivism rates of past offenders participating in a program, but it seemed to be pretty effective and was a lot more ethical than the “eternal punishment/kill ‘em all” approach some people seem to favor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The two are not mutually exclusive? To advocate for a mental-illness approach to paedophilia in order to more effectively eliminate child molestation is not to prevent investment into victim support services? But I don't feel as though there is a lack of support for better investment into that area. Who is going to suggest that we should maybe not look after victims of crime? Except possibly whatever your country's right wing party is. The "not mutually exclusive" thing is bullshit. This thread couldn't wait to defend pedophiles. It's really, really loving sad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
After reading the guy who actually dealt with them, I can earnestly say: just loving kill them. They are a danger to children and society.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Bifner McDoogle posted:The entire basis kicking off his conversation is completely ridiculous. How the gently caress can you have a conversation about pedophilia that kicks off with ways to help pedophiles as opposed to ways to prevent them from having victims or ways to circumvent the family circles that defend pedophiles. . Having a paraphilia is not, and should not be, a crime. Defense, such as it was, was for human beings who happen to have unfortunate predilections, yet have committed no crimes. There is overblown outrage at the very existence of these people, and calls for their death or castration or imprisonment or other sanctions based only on an irrational (and supposed high-moral-ground) insistence that they are simply too dangerous to be allowed to live, unlike the murder obsessed people making the claims. Aside from being evil, this rhetoric is extremely counterproductive if the goal is protecting children rather than righteous fury at a socially acceptable other. No one in this thread, no one at all, has remotely suggested that treatment for pedophiles or treatment OF pedophiles is more important or even close to equally as important as protecting innocents or bringing rapists to justice. Some people are just falling all over themselves in their haste to announce their utter hatred for a subgroup of humanity and haven't even grasped the argument. Nothing unusual there, at least.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
If you cared about the victims at all, you would be for lowering the amount of predators out there. Therapy isn't cutting it. You saw the pose from the guy who worked with them. They use any excuse possible to be near children.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
It feels like if there was some level of Real Talk to be had about pedos it wouldn't be in a thread based around now two clickbait articles where a pedophile says that actually everyone who doesn't like him is the monster and liberals have a duty to accept him 100% without question. Also he may be a dude who works as an art teacher, talks about his 'little girl friends' and how great it is when they hug and squeeze him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
seriously no jokes, why not just have the government subsidize the manufacture and purchase of underage looking realdolls for pedos willing to fess up to it? Therapy is kind of a dumb idea as a solution. It might ease things a little bit but you can't therapize away their impuses so just buy them a gently caress doll. It would save money and trauma to kids in the long run. I mena obviously no society would ever fund such a thing so its a pipe dream, but oh well. Eventually when the sex robots come (quite soon) I imagine governments will make the underage ones illegal out for "the children" but you know, I doubt pedos enjoy children for the conversation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Robotnik Nudes posted:seriously no jokes, why not just have the government subsidize the manufacture and purchase of underage looking realdolls for pedos willing to fess up to it? Therapy is kind of a dumb idea as a solution. It might ease things a little bit but you can't therapize away their impuses so just buy them a gently caress doll. It would save money and trauma to kids in the long run. Because normalizing sex with children is probably a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Majority of Goddamn Thread: hey don't argue with Black baby Goku he's a troll. Sedan Chair, Trent, OwlFucker: Naw check it out, I bet THIS time things will be different!
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Because normalizing sex with children is probably a bad idea. robots are ageless and cannot be victimized. Also they won't spend a half hour talking about the latest episode of Daniel Tiger before you convince them to let you stick it in. It's a win/win. Robotnik Nudes fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Oct 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:If you cared about the victims at all, you would be for lowering the amount of predators out there. Therapy isn't cutting it. You saw the pose from the guy who worked with them. They use any excuse possible to be near children. Just to be clear, you're up for offing this pedo too, right? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/schoolboy-groomed-teaching-assistant-we-6536549
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:Just for pedos Actually how about just for you
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 09:24
|
|
|
More cool poo poo from the guy in teh OP (not me, the guy who wrote the article). On interacting with a five-year-old:quote:Which is why I have stressed time and again that I believe it is imperitave to allow the CHILD to take the lead. In my situation with J, she "came onto" me (in her naive but rather aggressive way) rather obviously and for a prolongued amount of time--I mean over days. She obviously had given her desire alot of thought, and it was both to be touched by me and to touch me in return. She even plotted to trick me--more than once--into making it happen, though I, being 18 at the time, could see through her ruses fairly quickly. Now here is a situation where the child DESIRED to learn more about sex, and this would be no different than if she'd come to me and asked me to teach her to swim. I would oblige either one if society allowed it and didn't poison the waters, so to speak. And I would do it at her pace, working with her as much as she liked for as long as she liked. Now, would I get pleasure out of teaching her? Hell yes! In fact, I did teach a little cousin of mine to swim (not to mention read and write, at least in part) and I enjoyed the hell out of it. Does that make it wrong because it also benefits me?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 12:34
|
|
|
BBG is right, this Todd guy definitely should be mercy killed if he thinks teaching a 5 year old to gently caress is a good thing that is just hindered by society and that the next priority for progressives is to tear that barrier down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
Is it really therapy that's keeping recidivism down or just high ratios of supervision?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
CSPAN Caller posted:Is it really therapy that's keeping recidivism down or just high ratios of supervision? TheLovablePlutonis posted:BBG is right, this Todd guy definitely should be mercy killed if he thinks teaching a 5 year old to gently caress is a good thing that is just hindered by society and that the next priority for progressives is to tear that barrier down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:More cool poo poo from the guy in teh OP (not me, the guy who wrote the article). On interacting with a five-year-old: Ah yes, the "Lolita" defense. "No officer she came onto me!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Every time this comes up I try to have an open mind. If paedophilia is a proven sexual orientation then of course we should offer treatment and try to remove the stigma from paedophiles that don't abuse children! Then I read one or two things they say and I'm quite happy to be closed minded again. This loving guy? This is the positive face of paedophilia? The guy that ticks all the boxes of abuser behaviour? That goes out of his way to be around children? That views even the most innocent interaction with them through a sexual lens? If that's as fit for human consumption as they get then gently caress it - Paedo Island. Also they gotta provide their own boats or swim there. Also it's surrounded by sharks, mines and the island itself is a highly active volcano.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Kids are awful gross annoying little shits and anyone who is attracted to them obviously is a detriment to humanity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:More cool poo poo from the guy in teh OP (not me, the guy who wrote the article). On interacting with a five-year-old: i change my mind i think bbg has a point
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Funky See Funky Do posted:This loving guy? This is the positive face of paedophilia? You'll never hear about the positive face of paedophilia, because it's behind a mask to avoid getting stoned. Probably in no small part because of retards like this guy, but hey, I'm pretty sure he's super brave for speaking up about what kind of a sleazy creep he is. And that's the real tragedy in this whole thing IMO. The poster child of paedophilia might be a paedophile, but they're primarily a creep/molester/rapist. I've read somewhere that 10-15% of the population is attracted to minors of some sort. Yet we don't see even 1% of the population raping kids. Which makes sense to me, the vast majority of people are attracted to *something*, but they don't go on raping trips. In my opinion, the main problem around this whole thing right now is that in most cases, people don't even see a difference between someone who's physically attracted to children and a child molester. They're a synonym to most people. So, as has been pointed out, why put yourself out there if you're not already insane?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Execution may be a bit severe but the pedophiles should definitely be surgically castrated after their first offense even if it is just prossession of child pornography instead of full blown molestion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:BBG is right, this Todd guy definitely should be mercy killed if he thinks teaching a 5 year old to gently caress is a good thing that is just hindered by society and that the next priority for progressives is to tear that barrier down. A shitload of leftists used to unironically think that back in free love days because 'sexual repression is what led people into being nazis'. I wouldnt be surprised if theirs a few old red professors still preaching that opinion. I mean if a literal terrorist like Bill Ayers can still get hired as one I dont know why being a child sex advocate wouldn't. Actually isn't their a leftist sex party in canada that still advocates for child sexual liberaltion?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Robotnik Nudes posted:Majority of Goddamn Thread: hey don't argue with Black baby Goku he's a troll. Internet arguments are rarely about convincing your interlocutor. There are usually way more than ten times as many people just lurking and reading. I rarely catch up on good d&d threads these days, so don't post much, but I still appreciate well crafted arguments and not letting bullshit slide. Sometimes it's frustrating wanting to pick up a dropped point or call out un-called-out bullshit, but when you're a hundred pages behind, it'd usually be counterproductive at best. Got on on the ground floor of this one, so I post. Yes, the guy in the OP is a creepy poo poo, but a tale of a nice guy goon who presses up against grown women (or men) in the subway or watches yoga classes through a crack in the wall or puts cameras on their shoes would be similarly awful. The awfulness is in the violations of agency more than the targets, and only idiots would be categorically attacking all hereto (or homo)sexuals about it because a pervert posted a misguided screed
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
I mean my argument was sort of that "shoot everyone I hate" hasn't ever historically worked so maybe we could do with an alternative? That's sort of the opposite of "maybe this time it'll work?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Trent posted:Yes, the guy in the OP is a creepy poo poo, but a tale of a nice guy goon who presses up against grown women (or men) in the subway or watches yoga classes through a crack in the wall or puts cameras on their shoes would be similarly awful. The awfulness is in the violations of agency more than the targets, and only idiots would be categorically attacking all hereto (or homo)sexuals about it because a pervert posted a misguided screed
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Child molestation is worse than perving on people but the commensurate adult crime for child molestation is rape, not perving. Presumably the article guy is just a loving creep currently. Though from the sounds of it he's apparently not very serious about controlling himself so he might not be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
The core thing is the reason some goonlord copping a feel at yoga isn't representitive of a greater problem with his entire community (straight people, it is a greater problem in the general 'we should stop treating women like poo poo' sense) is because at his base level his urge is to gently caress a woman. This guy, even if he wasn't mega creep supreme, has the base urge of wanting to gently caress a child. A woman can consent to sex, goonlord should find one of those and have some nice consensual sex and that will probably help him not be such a scumbag. This guy can't find a kid who can magically consent to sex, so he represents a different kind of issue, and it's really disingenuous to compare the two.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
The trouble with that is that it suggests the only thing stopping all men from being rapists is that they have consensual sex, rather than because they think rape is bad. Which I think is possibly not true, or at least I would very much like to believe it is not true.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:A woman can consent to sex And she can also not, and yet there isn't a flood of news about those drat 90% straight men raping women all the time. What's the difference when someone doesn't and someone can't consent? A rape is a rape. e: OwlFancier posted:The trouble with that is that it suggests the only thing stopping all men from being rapists is that they have consensual sex, rather than because they think rape is bad. Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, most people are normal, not rapists. Truga fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Oct 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The trouble with that is that it suggests the only thing stopping all men from being rapists is that they have consensual sex, rather than because they think rape is bad. Truga posted:And she can also not, and yet there isn't a flood of news about those drat 90% straight men raping women all the time. What's the difference when someone doesn't and someone can't consent? A rape is a rape. My point is that the base concept of sexualities here is different, where one involves a human being that has the ability to consent to sex at some point in some hypothetical, and one involves one that cannot. The reason there's not news about rapists all the time (except for all the times there are I guess) is because we don't have people going 'you know, rapists are bad, but the problem is they literally can't help but want to rape'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:19 |
|
|
There are people who say that though? And they're loving abhorrent? Also there's the whole concept of rape culture which suggests that a significant portion of rape occurs because it is normalized, which points to a social cause for rape, and suggests that rape can be reduced or even eliminated for the most part by better social conditioning to get it into people's heads that, whatever they might want and whatever ifs or buts they might try to weasel in there, rape is unacceptable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 20:11
|
|