Many researchers taking a different view of pedophilia

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by WarriorDiplomat

If there is real scientific evidence that Pedophilia is a uncontrollable physical and Psychological response then it is clear these people should be shot. Children are innocents and protecting them is priority.

Science should trump the Bill of Rights ?

[frostfire]

Originally Posted by Agoge2

I have been investigating and arresting them for 26 years. From 16 to 84 years of age. They have every level of education and come from every type of employment...lawyers, plumbers, doctors, coaches, teachers, law enforcement officers.

To society...they were perceived as everyday, ordinary, and in many instances...outstanding citizens, BUT, what they did behind closed doors was known only to them and their victims...no one ever new but them. There is nothing honorable or moral about them.

this is 100% spot on.

I am on the opposite end of you, that is I work with the victims as the SAMFE. I've read reports on foster parent, step dad, coach, baby sitter, mom's co worker, and so on. You never see anyone the same again afterwards. I compartmentalize well and block much of the memory....until court session, that is. There are days I wish I work on your end

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Joker

I do not know this man, but I am sorry to tell you that he is NOT a morally good man. How would you feel/think if he did this to your child (God forbid)?

I know he's not the good person we thought he was and I believe he's where he needs to be.

Originally Posted by Agoge2

To society...they were perceived as everyday, ordinary, and in many instances...outstanding citizens, BUT, what they did behind closed doors was known only to them and their victims...no one ever new but them. There is nothing honorable or moral about them.

Agree.

The man I mentioned was an outstanding citizen, university professor, church leader, foster parent. He'd been through all the training, knew all the laws, had no excuses for what he did. It makes it worse, frankly.

We just shake our heads and wonder WHY? I don't think a normal human being could ever understand where those urges come from or why a person would act on them.

Susan

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

Everyone thinks they are creepy old men. Far from the truth, they are usually very likeable and easy to get along with. That is how they act, remember they are master manipulators that is how they convince children to do what they do and gain the trust of parents, children and neighbors. According to the bible the devil was the most beautiful angle, intelligent and charming. Never forget that these animals are like that.

True. He is not a creepy old guy, though at his sentencing he was certainly a lot smaller, grayer, and pitifully older. He'd lost whatever vitality he had in him. I just wanted to ask him, was it worth it? You've lost everything. You've ruined someone's innocence. What could be worth that?

S.

[BoomerUSMC]

Originally Posted by Paslode

One more point....

Chuck Manson, Jeffrey Dalmer, John Wayne Gasey, Pol Pot and Hitler were all just born with something and wired a bit differently....

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

You can't compare homosexuals with mass murderers. I am myself of the belief that homosexuality is something people are born into. As such, I see nothing wrong with normalizing it as it harms nobody.

I don't mean to speak for Paslode but his point was not a comparison. Using the phrase "they're just wired differently" sounds a lot like "that's just Manny being Manny". Manny's behavior was still that of an asshat.

We are all wired differently and we all have free will. Typically, as an individual, we will alter our behavior based on the rules and laws of society so that we are accepted into that society.

These days it seems that some want to force society to change their rules and laws and to force everyone to accept their deviant behavior as being normal. We're a nation of snowflakes.

[WarriorDiplomat]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Me too. But what if you have a decent guy who just for whatever reason finds himself sexually attracted to children? And this creates him a great deal of mental angst. He would never do anything to a child. Does this mean he is evil?



Anyone practicing pedophilia is not misunderstood IMO. Having the urge is one thing, acting on the urge and harming children is taking it to a totally different level.

It was SARCASM



What do you mean by uncontrollable? You mean uncontrollable in terms of the urge or in terms of acting on the urge? Also, what about their rights? If they don't commit a crime, then we can't have a society that just punishes.

I mean as in "wired different" uncontrollable as in nature has given them the perception to see children in a sexual light. Anyone who sees a child by choice or through biological "wiring" as sexual is a danger to the child, their future friends etc....

Those who never act on such thoughts are called law abiding citizens and there is no reason to hear about their desires. We cannot be confused with society as it moves towards exploitation of children as acceptable for money and fame. Dressing young children in sexual ways, making a 6 yr old girls makeup look like a centerfold or prostitute and taking pictures of provocative poses does not make the thoughts of sexuality involving them as OK.

[BoomerUSMC]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

What makes things like homosexuality deviant? IMO, it really is nobody's business how a person is unless it harms others.

That is certainly true enough and I have no issues with that way of thinking (it's the Libertarianism in me). My objection lies with the fact that those who endorse and partake of this behavior are forcing me to accept that behavior as normal. If I don't agree or like it then I must shut up and deal with it because my way of thinking is wrong.

Based on my faith, I actually do think this behavior is deviant and immoral although I don't go around proselytizing to gays and lesbians that they must change their behavior. IMHO - do what you gotta do but don't force me to accept it as normal.

It's nobody's business unless it harms others is correct, but that should work both ways. According to LGBT groups my opinion is wrong and must be stamped out, this is contrary to your statement. So it's live and let live unless you don't agree with us. Liberalism in a nutshell.

Pedophilia, however.....that's a whole other level of wrong.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

From a Darwin point of view they take up resources ie food etc but do not contribute to the furthering of the species. Remember to people of the same sex can not have kids. .

By the logic of your argument, anyone who does not want to have kids or cannot have kids is a drag on the human species. Your POV disregards the fact that people can make contributions to society without having kids and that these contributions help parents to raise children.

And people who cannot have kids can adopt children who might otherwise be aborted.

[Sigaba]

Edited

[Airbornelawyer]

Sigaba, please rephrase your question in a way that shows a genuine interest in reasoned argument and conversation, that is, if you are genuinely interested in such. If there is a premise or conclusion with which you disagree, please state (or quote) it, present your reason for disagreeing, and ask the person whose argument you are challenging to defend such position.

[WarriorDiplomat]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Science should trump the Bill of Right?

This question reads sarcastic and condescending but allow a commoner like myself to respond.

Are you suggesting that the bill of rights included a pedophiles freedom and inalienable rights as well?? A liberal might even suggest that these people also have a right for their own pursuit of happiness and according to the research and NAMBLA this may include innocent children.

The comment was aimed at the alleged research presented that suggests that people are born with a predatory desire aimed at children. This suggests the liberal type of reasoning that the choices made by a chester are not really their fault.

The Burden of being free within a society is protecting those who do not have the ability to protect themselves so that a child's right to feel safe and protected is kept sacred.

Finally if their was scientific proof that a person lacks choice due to his "wiring" the suggestion not only shrugs responsibility of deviant behavior but supports that we as a society must take action to protect the innocent.

For clarity we are talking about someone who would act on this behavior.

And for further clarity I firmly believe that someone who sees a child as a sexual object is sick and a deviant.

[WarriorDiplomat]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

I agree, but the problem is that people's rights still have to be protected unless/until they commit a crime. It's like when gun control people say that all mass shooters are law-abiding citizens until they go on their killing spree. It doesn't justify the banning of arms.

People do have rights deviants have rights until they act the problem is a deviant is not one until they prove they have the capacity. The research suggests a lack of personal responsibility. This argument that Pedophiles are "wired" different and therefore may not be responsible for their thoughts, attractions is naive. A grown man who looks at a 6 yr old child and gets an erection and fantasizes about sexual interaction and the like that makes me wonder how someone with these thoughts could be moral?!?! Ever think that someone "wired" like this cannot understand why we don't see children the way they do??

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

That is not my argument that is Darwin's argument. I believe in God. According to Darwin we should not have welfare etc because only the strong and smart survive and we should let the others starve to death and die of disease. One more hypocritical element to liberal logic.

That's not Darwin's argument - that's the argument of the so-called 'Social Darwinist' movement, and especially that of the late 20th Century views of those who agree with the theories historian Richard Hofstadter put forth in the mid-1940's combined with those of 19th Century sociologist Herbert Spencer (who coined the phrase 'survival of the fittest') .

And so it goes...

Richard

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

Actually it is Darwins theory taken to its final and logical conclusion.

I think you have some more reading to do on the topic (Darwinism vs Social Darwinism), its convoluted history, and its perceived congruence among popular culture.

Gutes lesen.

Richard

[NurseTim]

Is this part of the plan to trivialize pedophiles?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tG-AwQAvbRo