Why are there laws against paedophilia?

Post Reply New Topic

Pedophilia is kind of a triple whammy. It's violence, it's kids, and it's queer (in the sense of not being mainstream sexuality, I'm *not* trying to equate homosexuals with pedophiles so please don't get upset, I totally support gay rights), so of course it's going to be hated from pretty much all angles. And rightly so, but I still think being a murderer is way worse than being a child molester. Unless maybe like, you're comparing someone who murdered one person to someone who molested thousands of kids.

Without fear of consequences?

No. But you are free to do what you want (within reason, obviously)

OK, but now you're contradicting yourself. Essentially I'm not free to just do whatever I want, free of consequences. And, "within reason," well, there's the problem. If morality is subjective, then there is no reason behind it. Or if it is, then that means reasoning is also subjective. That would yield a relativistic narrative in which I can create my own world however I like without concern for the reality of others. Therein lies the trouble. No one else in my reality has the right to impose upon me to respect their so-called "rights," because in my reality I'm the only one entitled to anything. It appears I cannot control my own narrative, then, when out-of-the-blue I get served with an arrest warrant or I get maimed or killed when an individual or group attacks me for doing something they believe is subjectively wrong.

If the metanarrative is a shared experience, which it is if misdeeds exist and punishment awaits those who commit them, it is more likely an objective one.

Our personal views of morality ARE subjective. For moral codes to be effective, they have to be communicated. These aren't like unbreakable physical laws. It is possible for moral laws to become obscured through the generations, it is possible to rationalize an immoral action to the point you don't feel guilty about it, or you can commit the same crime enough that the underlying moral law loses its significance to the criminal. Most societies agree that unjustifiable homicide cannot be tolerated. It is wrong to willfully destroy human life. Even self-defense killing or wartime killing is wrong--the difference is that the aggressor in those situations only has himself to blame for his own death. Those are justifiable events. Even accidental death is wrong. But it would be unfair in many situations to put the person responsible for the accident to death over it. You just have to determine whether the cause of death was negligence (which can be willful) or if what happened was unavoidable given the circumstances. How we treat awful things that happen, from accidental death to cold-blooded murder, depends on the context in which awful things happen.

In no way does causing death=good thing. Death=bad thing. Anything that causes death=immoral. All I'd have to do to cause my own death would be wave a toy gun at a police officer. Is it the police officer's fault that he killed me? No. It's my own fault for looking threatening.

If it is only subjectively wrong, then it shouldn't matter to anyone but me. There shouldn't be consequences. Saying that "society says it's wrong" is really just an appeal to authority. Society could change its mind and it would still be wrong.

If you look at "society says it's wrong" objectively, then you have to answer the question of WHY society says it's wrong. Why do so many people say it's wrong? It seems to me that it's an oft-repeated tradition across thousands of generations and transcends culture and ethnicity. If it really is that important to continue to hold on to that particular common tradition for so long, it could be the importance and sanctity of life was communicated from a common source. And that source would have been an objective one, not a subjective one.

Perhaps all the child molesters should have their genetalia cut off.

Another barbarian.

THIS.


Castration is just not good enough. A castrato can still have erections and even ejaculate since they still have a prostate gland; the only thing they cannot do is produce sperm/impregnate somebody. The complete removal of the penis and testicles(which is called phallectomy) is the only sure fired way to prevent them from ever being able to rape again.

You'll probably want to go completely Sharia by removing both their arms and hands too.

And a *seriously* f**ked up barbarian.

[Begin of rant:] I might have felt guilty by highlighting Hopper's Gulag-like statements in connection to your posts, but in retrospect, I should apologize to *Hopper* for putting him in the same category as the rabid dogs known as AspieRogue and AspieOtaku.

If you lack the ability to approach a topic with at least a *fraction* of objectivity, you might want to reconsider using the word "Aspie" in your name at all. You are both a disgrace to autism.

Idiots. Now shut the f**k up and leave the discussion to people who have more computational capacities than the ones provided by the brain stem. [/End of rant]

I agree. And anyone who disagrees is, of course, a barbarian.

*Note to self: YippySkippy advocates the phallectomy of psychiatric patients.*

Do you want to kill all criminals? Because that's a way how to be sure they won't do it again...

You might as well kill the entire world population.

Sure, prevention is important...

Okay getting back to the original topic and to try to have a serious discussion about this. People that are pro-homosexual marriage need to pay attention, cause this typically gets associated with you guys (you can argue its unjustified but these groups have tried to associate themselves to you guys). Sometimes I hate having an encyclopedia-like mind, I felt extremely disgusted even looking at wikipedia to try to come up with a base synopsis about this topic.

The base argument a lot of these pro-pedophilia groups like NAMBLA use is that the reason children end up damaged psychologically is cultural, that this kind of stuff used to be acceptable and it didn't ruin children... They try to claim that if this kind of stuff was socially acceptable and the child would have no reason to feel humiliated and everything would be okay...

I highly doubt that is the case, and experimentation on children is very strictly regulated and the kind of experiment that would have to be conducted would be downright illegal (and for good reason because it endangers the physical safety of the child and/or could screw them up for life psychologically).

Often times this kind of argument is used to try to justify this kind of behavior being directed towards boys, saying something to the effect that this is actually healthy for boys... I think it is more likely the fact they realize the sexual double standard (as we can see women that sexually use young boys are less likely to get harsh sentences than men abusing young girls) and so they realize that if they started about this stuff with young girls people would go ballistic. The argument follows up that the child isn't as likely to be later murdered because the pedophile wouldn't have a reason to panic because they gave into their natural and uncontrollable instincts, the child would be safe cause no arrests would be made as long as there is no real physical injury to the child...

I actually think legalizing this would put children in even more physical danger, cause there isn't the added threat of legal ramifications.

Now if we look at historical context about this, it is true that there is a historical pattern of this being acceptable throughout the world.

Greece had it being acceptable (depending on city-state), but there seems to be a power dynamic to it, and while they glorified it, however since they also considered acceptible to use slaves in such a manner, this seems to be more of an exploitation that they attempted to rationalize.

Now this kind of garbage didn't end with Greece, in fact it got darker and a lot worse.

If you look at Ancient Rome and the Middle East this kind of exploitation was perfectly acceptable as long as the victim was a slave.

Fact of the matter is that while these groups are correct there is a historical pattern of this being considered acceptable, I'm not convinced that the children weren't seriously psychologically damaged. The lack of a record about them being traumatized probably has more to do with the fact that they were slaves, and not many people in those civilizations cared what a slave felt, they were property, and their masters could do to them what their masters wished.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Just cause a behavior can be found to be tolerated in ancient times, doesn't mean that behavior should be allowed.

From what we know today, sexual abuse screws up children (both boys and girls) badly, often for the rest of their lives. I really don't care what the theoretical argument is, an experiment on children concerning something like this is highly illegal, and for good reason. Rules regarding experimentation concerning humans are very stringent, and it gets exponentially more strict when it involves children.

It is my view that this causes permanent damage to a child psychologically, and there is no way to conduct a scientific experiment to show otherwise, because the test subjects would have to be children.


Btw, this is also a pattern of rationalizations for these groups.

First they tried to say in the case of boys that it was healthy for them (the boys), and that got shot down and drove these groups into the fringes. A few decades later they are back and now trying to resurface claiming that pedophilia is something that can't be controlled it is a sexual orientation (using the same rationale that people that are pro-gay marriage are trying to use). Since these groups try to wrap themselves up with the pro-gay movement, they are often considered to be tied together (rightly or wrongly the fact remains).

In my view people have the ability to choose whether or not to act on their "urges," I am quite frankly sick of people saying they have no control of their actions.

Now if people will excuse me I think I'm going to throw up...

Because people have to make stupid laws to try and ram their self centered morality down everyone else's throats.

A little historical perspective from Wikipedia:

While the age of consent is now set between 16 and 18 in all U.S. states, the age of consent has widely varied across the country in the past. In 1880, the age of consent was 10 in most states but ranged from 7 in Delaware to 12 across nine states and the District of Columbia.