|
Pedo thread, not freep thread.
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:How many people do you think watch Murder, She Wrote because of a lust for murder? I'm not even dealing with the question you're asking, just pointing out that the comparison is ridiculous. Murder she wrote is a fairly mild example but have you seen the gossip magazines that people buy? When people coined the phrase "torture porn" I feel they misapplied it. A lot of people definitely have a really perverse fascination with human suffering, which is completely fine so long as you consume it in a socially acceptable way.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Gossip magazines with "torture porn"? What kind of gossip magazines are you talking about here?    Chat's pretty bad but it's not far off the normal. I mean I get the concept of catharsis in media but I can't help but feel as though this may not quite be sold with that in mind. I like the "90% Burns" pop out star like it's on special offer. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Oct 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Part of my job involves working with them so I get to look at all the terrible gossip mags every week.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Trent posted:I wonder if this same argument happens in countries where the arbitrary age of consent is different, but with a different line in the sand for normal vs total sicko Where do you live that the age of consent is high? I don't know many places where it's higher than 16.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
PaleIrishGuy posted:Looks like a lot of Africa has 18 as their age of consent. Additionally, Bahrain seems to be 21. Also the U.S. is mostly 18. I thought the US was all over the place ranging from 21 to like 12 or something? Or did they change that?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:You can't change someone's sexuality with therapy. There are very few reasons why you would ever need to change someone's sexuality.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:I can think of one big reason it would be useful. Can't you? It might be useful but it isn't necessary. Any more than changing people's sexuality is necessary to prevent rape in general? I don't think "rapeosexual" is a thing, or if it is it's probably not unique to paedophiles. Sexuality is an entitely amoral issue, it doesn't matter who or what you find attractive as long as you act on it appropriately, because thoughts aren't moral or immoral, only actions are. The problem is people committing rape which I'm pretty sure you can avoid doing. I've managed to avoid doing it, astonishingly, all my life. It's been pretty easy because I think it's wrong?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
I mean maybe they could buy hilarious quantities of gross japanese hentai or watch creepy schoolgirl fetish porno. Maybe they could even get a girlfriend who's into adult baby poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:the latter is still weird as hell but at least it's not molesting kids so whatever I guess Personally I'd say the former is weirder but that's broadly my point. Just because it's gross doesn't mean I have to ban it. If we did that then everyone would have very boring lives. Also we'd all die of scurvy. Black Baby Goku posted:Sure. That's probably what they do Who else funds the apparently industrial-scale production of creepy poo poo from Japan?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Well I mean strictly it really won't because without an understanding of what causes it the majority of paedophiles will probably go undetected so you'll mostly be killing the obvious and clumsy ones and not doing anything about the rest.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
I mean they might be molesting children and stuff while you don't know about them. That seems like something you shouldn't really just let happen.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Yes and maybe that's something we should stop? I'm just a bit skeptical about the efficacy of the "shoot everyone who looks a bit pedo" approach given that it hasn't really worked very well for wiping out underground and illegal activity ever before in history.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Does it work very well in China?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:Yes. They still have communist party don't they? I mean, that the Chinese Stasi have continued employment would suggest it doesn't work that well. They presumably don't seem to be making much of a dent?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
"Not much more effective but somewhat cheaper" is not exactly a ringing endorsement for a solution to the society-wide problem of rape.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Drop the preoccupation with punitive justice, while cathartic, it's never historically been shown to be effective to my knowledge. Reform-based justice is a quite old idea that was pioneered centuries ago and I believe showed a marked improvement in recidivism rates for all crimes. At the time I think it was basically lots of religion and work combined with clean and liveable conditions, rather than being locked up all the time in a lovely hole. Reform based justice doesn't make people feel as good as some nice torture and killing so it's never really taken off, but it does seem to work better, and of course if you aren't focused on tormenting your prisoners you can get so much more information out of them. Modern psychology can help to build up profiles of common historical incidents, feelings, methods of thought and action common among child molesters, helping police and social engineers to understand who is likely to be one, how they operate, what drives them to do what they do etc, and with that information you stand a better chance of catching people molesting children, as well as potentially giving you a nice laundry list of things which cause people to develop the predilection in the first place, which you can work to remove from people's life experiences and thereby reduce the number of child molesters which emerge. Basically a more holistic approach to crime prevention is always better than just "wait for them to do it and then shoot them" because you will have an endless stream of people to shoot, and by the time you get round to it they've already done what you want to prevent them doing. Black Baby Goku posted:Can you treat homosexuality? Yes? I mean "treat" implies it's a disease but you can certainly reduce the manifestation of the symptoms.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:There is no way a person goes through their whole life without acting on their sexuality. Treatment or no treatment. gently caress off with that poo poo. They don't have to go their whole lives without acting on it, they just have to go their whole lives without raping anyone or watching people get raped. That's not the hardest thing in the world. They're free to jack off as much as they like, do as much gross poo poo as they want with other consenting adults, and import as much schoolgirl tentacle anime as they feel necessary.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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 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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Ok I'm not sure if I'm not being clear here or what. Sexualizing children is gross but it isn't a moral issue until someone gets hurt by it, it's not a good idea but I don't see really what the alternative is. You can't identify paedophiles on sight, they sort of have to out themselves to some degree. They aren't going to do that voluntarily if they think it'll get them killed or make them nonfunctional in society. You also can't really identify them other than when they commit crimes without an understanding of why they occur and how they function, which is also incompatible with the whole shoot/imprison them on sight approach. So a purely punitive approach is limited to waiting for paedophiles to molest children, waiting to learn they've done that (as they're probably not advertising it) and then killing them or locking them up. Which doesn't really stop children being molested, because you have this big lag time between when they become detectable and when you can do something about it, even with hypothetical anti-pedo death squads. Harsh punishment and little else just isn't a good crime prevention measure. It never has been. There's always social factors which cause people to commit crime, if child molestation is a big problem (and I'd say it probably is, certainly big enough to warrant a new approach) then it should get the best possible opposition we can give it, yes? That's going to have to involve figuring out why people do it and why they think it's ok to do it, and treating those problems. Just shooting everyone who does it doesn't actually change anything, because people don't learn by being shot or having other people shot. Except possibly how to be less obvious. So with that in mind I think a necessary first step is to start treating paedophilia like a mental illness rather than a crime. Child molestation is the crime but simply feeling an inclination towards it is mental illness and should be treated like it. Secure hospitals are appropriate for people with violent fantasies but it should be with the goal of understanding what causes the illness and how to prevent it forming, and controlling the symptoms. There are lots of mental illnesses which can lead people to become violent and they aren't effectively treated by shooting people for having them. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Oct 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:It'll prevent further acts of molestation by that pedophile though. So does institutionalization. Somewhat more expensive, perhaps, but possibly more productive. "Welp, he raped a kid, shoot him. Why does this keep happening?" seems like an unhelpful approach.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Robotnik Nudes posted:More on the simply fact you can't therapize away someone's sexual orientation. Also just telling them day after day year after year to repress it, don't think about it don't do anything is probably not the healthiest thing around. I think there's a difference between stigmatizing someone's sexuality and getting them not to act on it. The whole comparison to pray the gay away rubbish is not quite accurate because the goal there is to stop people thinking about gay stuff and telling them they'll be tortured for eternity if they do. Also they're not psychologists and have no idea how people work. There's a difference between that and "Your sexual proclivity is fine, it's going to make your life hard but there's nothing wrong with feeling the way you feel, but you can't under any circumstance act on those feelings with a child. You as a person are not evil, so long as you don't hurt people. Other than that you can do whatever you want, same as the rest of us." Which is entirely true, it's gross but as you say, making people feel like they're satan incarnate for something they probably can't help feeling is not a constructive way to treat them, and is going to do nothing to encourage them to integrate with and value the esteem of society. Without that integration they have minimal need to follow the customs of that society and are more likely to end up raping some poor kid. You may not be able to change people's sexuality but you don't need to, you just need them to be somewhat celibate, which is something people are more than capable of doing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Tell me how institutionalization of child molesters prevents child molestation, where their death does not. Study and research on them, their lives, their brains, their genetics, their psychology, can help to identify why paedophilia exists and why people feel able to commit child rape, with a view to finding preventative measures for both. Shooting them doesn't really do any of that. The considered response to a recurring problem should not be to keep shoving it under the rug, it should be to figure out why it keeps recurring.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:No one said anything about shooting. Executing them more expensively then, if you prefer?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Well, there is always your suggestion of vivisection. I don't believe there is generally much medical reason to do that while people are alive. Tezzor posted:What if after all that we confirm what we basically already understand, which is that they are inherently broken and there's nothing short of eugenics that is going to stop them from existing? Then we engage in eugenics like we do for other genetically transmissible conditions? I'm not sure "inherently broken" is much of a diagnosis though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Well what about the people who don't get the tests or don't want to abort their futurepedo fetus for whatever reason? And even if we get 100% compliance tomorrow there will be already-existing pedos running around for decades. If we got 100% compliance then the problem would resolve itself within a century. As to whether it should be mandatory, depends, I suppose, on whether you view childbirth as an inalienable human right. Humans already have the right to reproduce without regard to the wellbeing of their child or others, so apparently the answer is "oh well" but if you would like to advance a different view you are of course free to do so. It is not a perfect solution as it doesn't immediately stop the problem this second but if you have an option which does that please share.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
"Do you want your kid to have this disease which will make their live hell Y/N" while I'm sure is a very difficult choice, is also one you can't really ethically stick your fingers in your ears and pretend you haven't heard.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Funky See Funky Do posted:I have no idea I'm not a biologist or geneticist. In my feeble understanding of those things though if it's not a learned behaviour then it must be either genetic or caused by something the mother ingests during pregnancy or from brain damage. Given the sheer scale of paedophilia and that it exists universally among all human societies at all times during history the smart money is on it being genetic. If people have a gay gene that's no problem. A gene that cause paedophilia is a problem and it's needs to go. I mean technically it's also possible that being attracted to children is the "natural" state of humans and it's socialised out of most of us. Given that of course it wasn't always taboo (looking at you ancient greece) and might have been more common in cultures which didn't object to it? In which case you'd need to work on better socialisation for people to catch the people who don't get the idea. Same with killing people, we all obviously have the capacity for that and once upon a time it was legal under some circumstances, that it now isn't doesn't mean humans are naturally not inclined to murder, it just means we've mostly internalized the idea that it's wrong. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Oct 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
It could also mean that human experience within a society is greatly varied and no society is homogenous enough to produce the same beliefs and feelings in all of its members. It's also very possible that homosexuality is currently very socialised out of our society and that fluid or nonbinary sexuality is more common than we'd think, and there is statistical support for that idea. I mean if you're talking about stuff you'd expect to be rife but isn't you could add things like polygamy and bestiality but there is plenty of pushback to those ideas from many sources.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
Also you can penetratively rape someone without using your penis.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 15:08
|
|