Why are there laws against paedophilia?
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
06 Oct 2012, 9:06 am
Hopper wrote:
I am still bemused and confounded by this mix of 'throw out all the Muslims!' and 'won't somebody please think of the paedos!'.
Tequila and GGPViper - I am sort of serious. I think there is a question of what to do with those whose inclinations may harm others. From my life, I have long believed restorative justice is impossible - one cannot undo a harm. So the idea would be to have a society where the potential or need for harm is a minimum. However, if we accept some people are biologically oriented to find children sexually attractive (or perhaps simply to harm others), what is to be done? How is harm prevented?
My idea here involves a secure, pleasant community within each country.
Also, GGPViper, I cannot but problematise this idea of bringing 'science' into everything - to assume one can usefully do so involves and invokes a whole lot of other assumptions which may not be founded. However, I am not a barbarian (but I am both a little chagrined and heartened at being considered one by yourself), and would listen to any such 'science' you may present.
Tequila and GGPViper - I am sort of serious. I think there is a question of what to do with those whose inclinations may harm others. From my life, I have long believed restorative justice is impossible - one cannot undo a harm. So the idea would be to have a society where the potential or need for harm is a minimum. However, if we accept some people are biologically oriented to find children sexually attractive (or perhaps simply to harm others), what is to be done? How is harm prevented?
My idea here involves a secure, pleasant community within each country.
Also, GGPViper, I cannot but problematise this idea of bringing 'science' into everything - to assume one can usefully do so involves and invokes a whole lot of other assumptions which may not be founded. However, I am not a barbarian (but I am both a little chagrined and heartened at being considered one by yourself), and would listen to any such 'science' you may present.
science is observation, to say you cant use it is to say you shouldnt observe before acting, its ridicoulous.
am i correct in saying that you wouldn want anyone who feels attracted to children no matter what they have done to go to this community right?
so how do you ethically justify actually destroying the lives of people that havent done anything, as said before if they actually do abuse anyone they should be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
06 Oct 2012, 9:12 am
Tequila wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Hopper wrote:
I would suggest rounding the non-molesting ones up, carting them off somewhere fairly pleasant, and leaving them to it. Maybe some CGI stuff so they can make their own porn.
OK, that f**king does it.
Let's round up people who haven't done anything criminal at all and deport them out of our sight. Are you serious?
Sorry for being blunt, but such views scare me a hell of a lot more than paedophilia does. This also applies to the sadistic musings of several posters in this thread...
And what do you think will happen (I've discussed this with Hopper before) when the "host community" decides they have so much hatred for paedophiles (as will inevitably happen when they're considered to be such a disease on society) that they wished they hate the idea of paedophiles even existing anywhere in the world?
From ghettoising paedophiles on a tiny island, it's really not that much of a step to have 'em executed Out of sight, out of mind as it were.
Also known as history.
06 Oct 2012, 9:16 am
Hopper wrote:
I am still bemused and confounded by this mix of 'throw out all the Muslims!' and 'won't somebody please think of the paedos!'.
I have never suggested that all Muslims be booted out of the country. Not even once. Not close. I have said that this tidal wave of immigration without integration feels like an invasion to a lot of people (who never once asked for millions of people to simply turn up), but I've never once said anything about all Muslims being deported. Conflating the anti-multicultural/anti-mass immigration feelings of most of the country (most of the country are against multiculturalism now) with the BNP just shows how little argument you have.
If they were Christians from South Asia and they were behaving much the same as Muslims do here (without the terrorism), I'd be saying much the same thing. I'm sick of their bigotry, their entitlement complex, their constant defending of terrorists simply because they're their "brothers". How do you think it would look to them if EDL members were being held on terrorism charges and I and many others (though not all) came on online forums and defended them on the basis that they were good people with similar background to myself?
Honestly, if the non-Muslim population of this country shared the same levels of hostility and support for violence against Muslims as they do to us, it would be a national frigging scandal.
What I have asked for is more or less the American model - if you live here, you learn and use our language in daily life (with exceptions for family, of course) and don't constantly whinge and special treatment for yourselves, your ethnic group or your religion (like demanding segregated swimming classes and so on or by being "offended" at what people of other religions and none say about your religion), you don't commit crimes and the receiving country tailors its immigration policy to suit its own interests rather than the immigrant.
Genuine, good immigrants to the UK will have absolutely no problem with these conditions. They want to join the host nation and bring themselves and their skills to it. This, to me, is what immigration is all about. It can be a very positive experience for everyone if it's done within certain limits and monitored so as not to cause problems either for the host nation and so that immigrants don't receive racist hostility from others when they're here. There definitely is racism amongst the white population here, but it's not limited just to white people.
You're wilfully and deliberately lying about the arguments of your opponents again, aren't you? It's impossible to have a debate with people like you when you're so pickled by your own bigotry.
Last edited by Tequila on 06 Oct 2012, 9:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
06 Oct 2012, 9:28 am
I am not saying one can't use science. My point is that the science one uses or evokes depends already on one's beliefs and worldview. Assume I want to get rid of all child sexual abuse, so we have some dead-cert scientific test to find paedophiles, and I plan to test everyone and humanely kill all who test positive. Are you going to argue about the science, or about my worldview?
On the other hand, if someone were to present me with some study showing, say, 0.5% of the population are sexually attracted to children, and 'only' 5 or 10 or 30 percent of paedophiles act on their desires, they may say my 'pleasant community' plan is unfair, draconian etc.
06 Oct 2012, 9:31 am
Tequila wrote:
You're wilfully and deliberately lying about the arguments of your opponents again, aren't you? It's impossible to have a debate with people like you when you're so pickled by your own bigotry.
Tequila wrote:
Hopper should be giving out special yellow stars.
ETA: Sorry - it's been a busy day. I got my bigotry confused. Change 'Muslims' for 'illegal immigrants'.
I know we'll never agree on this - I don't think we could even agree to disagree. I see 'the Islam problem' or 'the immigration problem' as essentially false problems. That is, they are not something that occurs ex nihilo, but rather generated by the Capitalist programme of globalisation etc. They have very real occurences and consequences, but they are not going to go away if we keep things the same.
And re multiculturalism - there has always been multiculturalism, and there have always been problems arising from it.
Last edited by Hopper on 06 Oct 2012, 10:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
06 Oct 2012, 9:41 am
Hopper wrote:
I am not saying one can't use science. My point is that the science one uses or evokes depends already on one's beliefs and worldview. Assume I want to get rid of all child sexual abuse, so we have some dead-cert scientific test to find paedophiles, and I plan to test everyone and humanely kill all who test positive. Are you going to argue about the science, or about my worldview?
On the other hand, if someone were to present me with some study showing, say, 0.5% of the population are sexually attracted to children, and 'only' 5 or 10 or 30 percent of paedophiles act on their desires, they may say my 'pleasant community' plan is unfair, draconian etc.
On the other hand, if someone were to present me with some study showing, say, 0.5% of the population are sexually attracted to children, and 'only' 5 or 10 or 30 percent of paedophiles act on their desires, they may say my 'pleasant community' plan is unfair, draconian etc.
You missed the mark by... a cosmological constant larger than Graham's number.
My point is that the available evidence does *not* suggest that paedophiles are by default vicious monsters, nor that victims of child sexual abuse in general suffer damage which would justify handing out 20 year prison sentences left and right...
Oh, with respect to your specific example: In this case, I would not argue about the science or your world view. I would just kill you on the spot.
06 Oct 2012, 9:54 am
GGPViper wrote:
Hopper wrote:
I am not saying one can't use science. My point is that the science one uses or evokes depends already on one's beliefs and worldview. Assume I want to get rid of all child sexual abuse, so we have some dead-cert scientific test to find paedophiles, and I plan to test everyone and humanely kill all who test positive. Are you going to argue about the science, or about my worldview?
On the other hand, if someone were to present me with some study showing, say, 0.5% of the population are sexually attracted to children, and 'only' 5 or 10 or 30 percent of paedophiles act on their desires, they may say my 'pleasant community' plan is unfair, draconian etc.
On the other hand, if someone were to present me with some study showing, say, 0.5% of the population are sexually attracted to children, and 'only' 5 or 10 or 30 percent of paedophiles act on their desires, they may say my 'pleasant community' plan is unfair, draconian etc.
You missed the mark by... a cosmological constant larger than Graham's number.
My point is that the available evidence does *not* suggest that paedophiles are by default vicious monsters, nor that victims of child sexual abuse in general suffer damage which would justify handing out 20 year prison sentences left and right...
Oh, with respect to your specific example: In this case, I would not argue about the science or your world view. I would just kill you on the spot.
Thank you for making my point.
06 Oct 2012, 10:54 am
Hopper wrote:
Change 'Muslims' for 'illegal immigrants'.
Illegal immigrants shouldn't be here. They're not legally entitled to be in the country. There's nothing bigoted about saying to someone who has broken our laws (by arriving illegally on the back of a lorry) that you're not welcome here, so you'll be sent back. All countries across the world do that. If you want to come to our country (and we need people like you), go through the proper channels. If no country wants you, tough luck. You do not - or should not - simply have the right to turn up unasked and unwanted and demand to be treated like a citizen.
It's as simple as that.
06 Oct 2012, 11:23 am
Hopper wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Hopper wrote:
I am not saying one can't use science. My point is that the science one uses or evokes depends already on one's beliefs and worldview. Assume I want to get rid of all child sexual abuse, so we have some dead-cert scientific test to find paedophiles, and I plan to test everyone and humanely kill all who test positive. Are you going to argue about the science, or about my worldview?
On the other hand, if someone were to present me with some study showing, say, 0.5% of the population are sexually attracted to children, and 'only' 5 or 10 or 30 percent of paedophiles act on their desires, they may say my 'pleasant community' plan is unfair, draconian etc.
On the other hand, if someone were to present me with some study showing, say, 0.5% of the population are sexually attracted to children, and 'only' 5 or 10 or 30 percent of paedophiles act on their desires, they may say my 'pleasant community' plan is unfair, draconian etc.
You missed the mark by... a cosmological constant larger than Graham's number.
My point is that the available evidence does *not* suggest that paedophiles are by default vicious monsters, nor that victims of child sexual abuse in general suffer damage which would justify handing out 20 year prison sentences left and right...
Oh, with respect to your specific example: In this case, I would not argue about the science or your world view. I would just kill you on the spot.
Thank you for making my point.
You are not paying attention to my arguments (nor your own). Given your previous statement about deporting innocent people, I consider myself well within my rights to assume that it would be a higher priority for mankind to "remove" people like you than to "remove" paedophiles.
And if being compared to a barbarian is uncomfortable to you, then stop acting like one. You might want to go back and look at what you *actually* said. It is all on you...
06 Oct 2012, 11:45 am
GGPViper wrote:
Hopper wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Hopper wrote:
I am not saying one can't use science. My point is that the science one uses or evokes depends already on one's beliefs and worldview. Assume I want to get rid of all child sexual abuse, so we have some dead-cert scientific test to find paedophiles, and I plan to test everyone and humanely kill all who test positive. Are you going to argue about the science, or about my worldview?
On the other hand, if someone were to present me with some study showing, say, 0.5% of the population are sexually attracted to children, and 'only' 5 or 10 or 30 percent of paedophiles act on their desires, they may say my 'pleasant community' plan is unfair, draconian etc.
On the other hand, if someone were to present me with some study showing, say, 0.5% of the population are sexually attracted to children, and 'only' 5 or 10 or 30 percent of paedophiles act on their desires, they may say my 'pleasant community' plan is unfair, draconian etc.
You missed the mark by... a cosmological constant larger than Graham's number.
My point is that the available evidence does *not* suggest that paedophiles are by default vicious monsters, nor that victims of child sexual abuse in general suffer damage which would justify handing out 20 year prison sentences left and right...
Oh, with respect to your specific example: In this case, I would not argue about the science or your world view. I would just kill you on the spot.
Thank you for making my point.
You are not paying attention to my arguments (nor your own). Given your previous statement about deporting innocent people, I consider myself well within my rights to assume that it would be a higher priority for mankind to "remove" people like you than to "remove" paedophiles.
And if being compared to a barbarian is uncomfortable to you, then stop acting like one. You might want to go back and look at what you *actually* said. It is all on you...
I will be generous and assume I am not making my arguments clear.
I am against the death penalty (if such killing could even come under 'death penalty'). I went to an extreme to make my point as clear as could be. Nor have I proposed deportation. I have proposed (at worst) something perhaps like that film, The Village. ['Ah', the wags will say, 'but 'The Village' was a terrible film.'. Which it wasn't]
I bold your remarks above to show you have a worldview into which you are slotting science. Invoking science does not necessarily make one's opinion more 'scientific' (being 'more 'scientific'' generally considered a Good Thing). A fruitful discussion of the subject would be better done talking about worldviews rather than x or y study.
What's more, I'd be interested to see the psychological study that included 'vicious monster' as a possible category for human behaviour.
And to think t'was only yesterday you invoked 'is/ought'.
06 Oct 2012, 12:40 pm
Hopper wrote:
I will be generous and assume I am not making my arguments clear.
I am against the death penalty (if such killing could even come under 'death penalty'). I went to an extreme to make my point as clear as could be. Nor have I proposed deportation. I have proposed (at worst) something perhaps like that film, The Village. ['Ah', the wags will say, 'but 'The Village' was a terrible film.'. Which it wasn't.
I am against the death penalty (if such killing could even come under 'death penalty'). I went to an extreme to make my point as clear as could be. Nor have I proposed deportation. I have proposed (at worst) something perhaps like that film, The Village. ['Ah', the wags will say, 'but 'The Village' was a terrible film.'. Which it wasn't.
Hopper wrote:
I would suggest rounding the non-molesting ones up, carting them off somewhere fairly pleasant, and leaving them to it. Maybe some CGI stuff so they can make their own porn.
Don't insult my intellect. I can read.
Hopper wrote:
I bold your remarks above to show you have a worldview into which you are slotting science. Invoking science does not necessarily make one's opinion more 'scientific' (being more ''scientific'' generally considered a Good Thing). A fruitful discussion of the subject would be better done talking about worldviews rather than x or y study.
What's more, I'd be interested to see the psychological study that included 'vicious monster' as a possible category for human behaviour.
What's more, I'd be interested to see the psychological study that included 'vicious monster' as a possible category for human behaviour.
No. A fruitful discussion involving facts can *only* be based on peer reviewed science... Otherwise, it is just a waste of pixels...
As for an actual study, see my post from a previous thread:
GGPViper wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Anyone else find the lack of suspicion disturbing?
Let me explain: The psychology of the pedophile/pederast is mainly one of an attraction to power and exertion of power over others. They seek out those that they perceive as weak and enjoy the sense of control and power. This same craving for control and power attracts these same pedos to religion and politics, striving to be heads of either. The larger the attraction to power (be it in the form of money, influence, or direct control) the more likely it is that they will also have another kind of attraction mentioned earlier. Why do we not investigate these people much, much more often? Why do we not keep much closer tabs on them? It's not like as if it should be a surprise....I guess maybe to the ignorant; but to anyone informed, it should be more of a surprise that there's so LITTLE convictions rather than so many.
So...why is this not something people talk about? They talk about politicians lying and being corrupted but they never actually get into what entails that addiction to power that goes beyond their control and into "addiction" territory.
Let me explain: The psychology of the pedophile/pederast is mainly one of an attraction to power and exertion of power over others. They seek out those that they perceive as weak and enjoy the sense of control and power. This same craving for control and power attracts these same pedos to religion and politics, striving to be heads of either. The larger the attraction to power (be it in the form of money, influence, or direct control) the more likely it is that they will also have another kind of attraction mentioned earlier. Why do we not investigate these people much, much more often? Why do we not keep much closer tabs on them? It's not like as if it should be a surprise....I guess maybe to the ignorant; but to anyone informed, it should be more of a surprise that there's so LITTLE convictions rather than so many.
So...why is this not something people talk about? They talk about politicians lying and being corrupted but they never actually get into what entails that addiction to power that goes beyond their control and into "addiction" territory.
I think a more complex picture emerges if you look at pedophile offenders compared to other sexual offenders. In Porter et al (2000) Profiles of psychopathy in incarcerated sexual offenders, the authors reach the conclusion that those who solely molested children on average had much fewer psychopathic traits than those convicted of raping adult victims and the general prison population - measured by the Hare Psychopathic Checklist - Revised (PCL-R).
Of those offenders who raped both adults and children, however, almost two thirds met the criteria for psychopathy (well in line with the generally observed feature of criminal versatility among psychopaths). The prevalence of psychopathy among pedophile offenders was, however, still higher than then population estimate of approx. 1 percent.
The paper is available for free here (see page 225, figure 1 - the difference is quite striking):
http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/27/2/216.full.pdf+html
Summary: One cannot draw a direct influence between "attraction to power and exertion of power over others" and "psychopathic traits" (although positive correlations have been found between narcissistic personality disorder and psychopathy - surprised?), but there does not seem to be a clear-cut pattern of pedophile offenders of having (other) vicious traits. The Handbook of Psychopathy (2006) lists other studies reaching similar conclusions.
Oh, and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy
Hopper wrote:
And to think t'was only yesterday you invoked 'is/ought'.
How quaint.
06 Oct 2012, 1:35 pm
Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
GGPViper wrote:
Hopper wrote:
I will be generous and assume I am not making my arguments clear.
I am against the death penalty (if such killing could even come under 'death penalty'). I went to an extreme to make my point as clear as could be. Nor have I proposed deportation. I have proposed (at worst) something perhaps like that film, The Village. ['Ah', the wags will say, 'but 'The Village' was a terrible film.'. Which it wasn't.
I am against the death penalty (if such killing could even come under 'death penalty'). I went to an extreme to make my point as clear as could be. Nor have I proposed deportation. I have proposed (at worst) something perhaps like that film, The Village. ['Ah', the wags will say, 'but 'The Village' was a terrible film.'. Which it wasn't.
Hopper wrote:
I would suggest rounding the non-molesting ones up, carting them off somewhere fairly pleasant, and leaving them to it. Maybe some CGI stuff so they can make their own porn.
Don't insult my intellect. I can read.
Yes, you can. Whatever you care to into what someone says, it seems. 'Carting them off somewhere fairly pleasant' =/= 'deportation'.
ETA: Don't get me wrong (!) - a fair bit of isolation would be involved. But not deportation.
GGPViper wrote:
Hopper wrote:
I bold your remarks above to show you have a worldview into which you are slotting science. Invoking science does not necessarily make one's opinion more 'scientific' (being more ''scientific'' generally considered a Good Thing). A fruitful discussion of the subject would be better done talking about worldviews rather than x or y study.
What's more, I'd be interested to see the psychological study that included 'vicious monster' as a possible category for human behaviour.
What's more, I'd be interested to see the psychological study that included 'vicious monster' as a possible category for human behaviour.
No. A fruitful discussion involving facts can *only* be based on peer reviewed science... Otherwise, it is just a waste of pixels...
And said facts in such a matter as this occur carry with them a nexus of assumptions and beliefs that some may thus assume are necessarily implied.
I might believe someone who sexually assaults a child should be imprisoned for, say 40 years. You might believe less than 20. Quite how would this be decided 'scientifically'? We each might make appeals to certain literature (many a time one finding contradicting another), but that judgement of the right length of the custodial sentence will come from us, not some peer reviewed paper.
GGPViper wrote:
As for an actual study, see my post from a previous thread....Oh, and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy
That sagepub one wants me to subscribe.
The Wikipedia shows the problematising of this sort of thing. To suppose anyone against child sexual abuse is somewhat 'hysterical', and that there is a 'rational' take on it is to already shift the moral ground under the pretense of being 'rational' or 'scientific'.
Do either give a sense of what proportion of people are paedophiles, and what proportion of those attack children?
GGPViper wrote:
Hopper wrote:
And to think t'was only yesterday you invoked 'is/ought'.
How quaint.
Ooh good. When/where do you intend to present the solution?
Last edited by Hopper on 06 Oct 2012, 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
06 Oct 2012, 1:52 pm
They should just deport all the pedophiles to countries where it is legal case closed ill just be sure not to set foot in those countries.
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
06 Oct 2012, 2:26 pm
Hopper wrote:
Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Don't insult my intellect. I can read.
Yes, you can. Whatever you care to into what someone says, it seems. 'Carting them off somewhere fairly pleasant' =/= 'deportation'.
ETA: Don't get me wrong (!) - a fair bit of isolation would be involved. But not deportation.
GGPViper wrote:
Hopper wrote:
I will be generous and assume I am not making my arguments clear.
I am against the death penalty (if such killing could even come under 'death penalty'). I went to an extreme to make my point as clear as could be. Nor have I proposed deportation. I have proposed (at worst) something perhaps like that film, The Village. ['Ah', the wags will say, 'but 'The Village' was a terrible film.'. Which it wasn't.
I am against the death penalty (if such killing could even come under 'death penalty'). I went to an extreme to make my point as clear as could be. Nor have I proposed deportation. I have proposed (at worst) something perhaps like that film, The Village. ['Ah', the wags will say, 'but 'The Village' was a terrible film.'. Which it wasn't.
Hopper wrote:
I would suggest rounding the non-molesting ones up, carting them off somewhere fairly pleasant, and leaving them to it. Maybe some CGI stuff so they can make their own porn.
Don't insult my intellect. I can read.
Yes, you can. Whatever you care to into what someone says, it seems. 'Carting them off somewhere fairly pleasant' =/= 'deportation'.
ETA: Don't get me wrong (!) - a fair bit of isolation would be involved. But not deportation.
Same s**t, different day. It takes more than just semantics to defeat me.
Hopper wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Hopper wrote:
I bold your remarks above to show you have a worldview into which you are slotting science. Invoking science does not necessarily make one's opinion more 'scientific' (being more ''scientific'' generally considered a Good Thing). A fruitful discussion of the subject would be better done talking about worldviews rather than x or y study.
What's more, I'd be interested to see the psychological study that included 'vicious monster' as a possible category for human behaviour.
What's more, I'd be interested to see the psychological study that included 'vicious monster' as a possible category for human behaviour.
No. A fruitful discussion involving facts can *only* be based on peer reviewed science... Otherwise, it is just a waste of pixels...
And said facts in such a matter as this occur carry with them a nexus of assumptions and beliefs that some may thus assume are necessarily implied.
I might believe someone who sexually assaults a child should be imprisoned for, say 40 years. You might believe less than 20. Quite how would this be decided 'scientifically'? We each might make appeals to certain literature (many a time one finding contradicting another), but that judgement of the right length of the custodial sentence will come from us, not some peer reviewed paper.
But if that judgement is based on some assumptions about the character of the molester and the victim, then it contains a factual component which can be investigated by using the scientific method.
Hopper wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
As for an actual study, see my post from a previous thread....Oh, and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy
That sagepub one wants me to subscribe.
I do not know which article you are referring to, but the original work is available here:
http://digilib.bc.edu/reserves/sc563/mcgu/sc56310.pdf
Hopper wrote:
The Wikipedia shows the problematising of this sort of thing. To suppose anyone against child sexual abuse is somewhat 'hysterical', and that there is a 'rational' take on it is to already shift the moral ground under the pretense of being 'rational' or 'scientific'.
The moral ground is irrelevant to the results presented by science.
Hopper wrote:
Do either give a sense of what proportion of people are paedophiles, and what proportion of those attack children?
I have no idea. That was not the subject of the articles I referred to.
Hopper wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Hopper wrote:
And to think t'was only yesterday you invoked 'is/ought'.
How quaint.
Ooh good. When/where do you intend to present the solution?
Once again, how quaint.
06 Oct 2012, 2:41 pm
AspieOtaku wrote:
They should just deport all the pedophiles to countries where it is legal case closed ill just be sure not to set foot in those countries.
... Which would likely *increase* the prevalence of child sexual abuse, as these individuals would no longer face any legal restrictions.
