debate: what makes a pedo a pedo

[Bucks5]

David you might want to reconsider your views on legalising simulated child porn for pedophiles..... It is my understanding that the possession of child porn is illegal because it can be used to induce a child into copying the acts portrayed in the picture/video, the pederast can use it convince the child that it is 'normal' behaviour.

Also, i believe that they will become de-sensitised to the stimulated stuff at some point, and crave something more hard-core which could drive them into getting the real stuff or acting out.

[pietillidie]

That's a very unfair post, PP. How else can I reply?

*If we don't use philosophy and academics to solve problems, what else should we use? Both of those really mean "careful and systematic thought", and I don't think anyone opposes those.

*What is the difference between "destructive abuse of power" and "destroys people's lives"? Do you think the destructive abuse of power directed at Aborigines did not destroy their lives? I am simply trying to develop a morally consistent term. Earthquakes and random accidents destroy people's lives, but they're not destructive abuses of power.

*Surely there are no risks of trying to explain or understand anything, let alone something we all agree actually exists and is a serious problem. I agree sometimes PR is a valid consideration, but only once you've got a solution, otherwise you're just defending the present level of abuse (which I would agree with, if it were actually in decline). Do you believe the current rate of abuse is acceptable?

*How is elevating something to disease status minimising it?

*I don't think this problem has statistically declined at all under the old approach (perhaps someone has data, though it's hard to measure hidden and reported phenomena), so as I've argued, defending the old approach equates to defending the current level of child abuse.

*The approach I've put forward means we both reduce the rate child abuse (our primary goal), and see our own morality in a more comprehensive light, and that can only benefit society.

[Pied Piper]

Sorry pietillidie, you may have taken my intention the wrong way. I don't think I was being unfair; I tried to frame what I said quite carefully. Maybe I didn't succeed.

I can only admire your bravery in taking on this topic with David and trying to understand and suggesting a different approach to a problem that's never gone away. However, I do have to comprehensively and strongly disagree with David's suggestion of animated child pornography; I think that's quite repulsive and no way to solve the issue. I also don't agree that defending current ways of dealing with the problem amounts to a defence of child abuse - that is surely illogical.

The point I was trying to make was that this is such an emotive issue that discussing it in terms so divorced from the actual consequences will inevitably draw fire from others, particularly anyone who has been touched by pedophilia personally. That's a risk you take. I'm not querying your motivations at all but I'm sure you're aware of the need to tread carefully.

[pietillidie]

^Agree I was unfairly equating the status quo with "defending" the current rate of abuse. That was my provocative bit.

I'm ready to take the fire on my medical approach and definition of morality; it's a good test of people's thought processes. Before too long I believe something along those lines will be more widely held. I would hate to be hired to do PR for it at the moment, admittedly

Where is David? LOL.

[Piethagoras' Theorem]

Perhaps a little off topic here but it got me thinking.. just yesterday while at work one of the guys was listening to some golden oldies AM radio station and it was playing that song 'You're sixteen , you're beautiful and your mine..' sung by some bloke who sounded very much over-age.
Fairly innocent stuff, you'd think, but it did raise a couple of questions, like -
Would someone today, let's say in their 30's, get away with writing a song like that and if not, (personally, I believe he'd be in a bit of trouble) what's changed so much in 50 yrs that would now make it unacceptable?
Secondly, would that 60's version be scrapped from say, a youtube under some government internet filter?
I'm probably going a little over the top here but hey, it's a crazy world, you just never know

[Pied Piper]

^ And Cold Chisel replied with an EP titled "You're 13, You're Beautiful and You're Mine". I'm not sure what they were thinking but it created no outrage I know of at the time.

[stui magpie]

Wow, this thread has taken a spin since this morning

David, I agree and disagree.

A person can't choose who they're attracted to. On that point I agree and on that point a paedophile is no different to a hetrosexual or a homosexual. The key difference exists in acting out that attraction, it's an unequal and illegal act.

I do not agree that some form of animated or computer generated kiddyporn should be made to help the people who have these attractions, that's just a form of legitimising it. Offer them counselling, support in how to deal with it without acting it out, explanation as to why it's wrong, and prosecute those who do act it out.

I have no doubt that some pederasts to take delight in their orientation, I would not be surprised to learn that these people have a form of personality disorder as well.

[Piethagoras' Theorem]

whoa, I don't recall that one, Piper.. unbelievable!

[Pied Piper]

^ My guess is the title was a parody of the Sherman Brothers song you refer to, popularised by Ringo Starr. It was creepy enough as it was.

[pietillidie]

[stui magpie]

[Piethagoras' Theorem]

hehe, it did sound a little creepy, wrong even, although I've probably heard it a hundred times over the years and never gave it a 2nd thought. Interesting

[David]

[David]

[stui magpie]

^

The only way to deal with emotional issues is logically first, then overlay the emotion. If you deal with them emotionally first it all turns to shit.