Split Thread Language and labels - paedophile or child-molester

[Checkmite]

Really? Why is it irrelevant?

Because their interest does not involve having sex with children, which therefore eliminates the application of their "control of their urges" to the risk assessment of the child getting had-sex-with by them. When they decide to act on their urges it won't involve the child, so it doesn't matter.

And yet they can act on their urges with a completely non-consensual victim. The fact that they can otherwise DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION.

You're right - but you seem to be misunderstanding what I'm doing - which is not attempting to answer your question but rather explaining why it's an irrelevant question.

 

[Belz...]

I'm starting to think that you simply don't understand the answer's you have been getting.

Why do you keep ignoring every single clarification I make? You've failed to see me answering Cullennz question and failed to apologise for your accusation, and now that I've made yet another attempt to get you to understand where you're wrong in your analysis, you ignore it altogether.

 

[smartcooky]

I should add again.

That in MY OPINION a pedo who needs to satisfy their urges by watching child porn is not much better than a kiddie fiddler

The Law certainly agrees with this. Its why making, distributing and being in possession of child pornography is a criminal offense, while making, distributing and being in possession of adult pornography is entirely legal.

 

[Belz...]

Because their interest does not involve having sex with children, which therefore eliminates the application of their "control of their urges" to the risk assessment of the child getting had-sex-with by them.

It was never part of the question that the urges had to be about children specifically. You do know that adults also get raped sometimes, yes?

You're right - but you seem to be misunderstanding what I'm doing - which is not attempting to answer your question but rather explaining why it's an irrelevant question.

It's far from irrelevant if you can't demonstrate the existence of a higher risk. All you've done so far is claim that the risk exists by definition.

 

[Belz...]

The Law certainly agrees with this. Its why making, distributing and being in possession of child pornography is a criminal offense, while making, distributing and being in possession of adult pornography is entirely legal.

No, the reason why child pornography is illegal is because it harms children.

People can and have satisfied their urges without even consuming pornography or having any sort of sexual contact with actual humans for millennia.

 

[smartcooky]

Why do you keep ignoring every single clarification I make? You've failed to see me answering Cullennz question and failed to apologise for your accusation, and now that I've made yet another attempt to get you to understand where you're wrong in your analysis, you ignore it altogether.

I'm not ignoring your clarifications, I just think they are wrong and I completely, utterly and totally disagree with your entire position on this issue.

I assess that ANY person, no matter who he is, who admits to having a predilection for sexual contact with young children will NEVER be allowed to be alone and unsupervised with ANY child that I have responsibility for.

I will NEVER be swayed from that view, not EVER!

 

[Checkmite]

It was never part of the question that the urges had to be about children specifically.

But the conversation is about children specifically. You assert your question is solely about risk, but you seem not to want to admit that you asked your question in answer to the original question, which was indeed about whether it is riskier to leave children alone with pedophiles versus non-pedophiles. You now want to pretend that context doesn't exist and somehow isolate your question into some kind of rhetorical Faraday cage. Fine if you want, but that turns the answer to your question into a meaningless data point with no bearing on the larger discussion.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not ignoring your clarifications, I just think they are wrong and I completely, utterly and totally disagree with your entire position on this issue.

I assess that ANY person, no matter who he is, who admits to having a predilection for sexual contact with young children will NEVER be allowed to be alone and unsupervised with ANY child that I have responsibility for.

I will NEVER be swayed from that view, not EVER!

Then there is no point in having a conversation with you. You have admitted to being utterly close-minded on this issue, and have engaged in thought policing more than once.

 

[Belz...]

But the conversation is about children specifically.

My question wasn't about children specifically.

 

[cullennz]

My question wasn't about children specifically.

OK

Lets say your also talking adult female

The fact is

The bloke with the urges can just go shag an adult legally. Watch some legal porn etc

If the bloke does act illegally

Females can try to defend themselves. Females can run away. Females can scream. Females can inform police. Females can get the offender sent to prison.

Little kids can do nothing

So the analogy is irrelevant

 

[Belz...]

OK

Lets say your also talking adult female

The fact is

The bloke with the urges can just go shag an adult legally. Watch some legal porn etc

If the bloke does act illegally

Females can try to defend themselves. Females can run away. Females can scream. Females can inform police. Females can get the offender sent to prison.

Little kids can do nothing

That is completely irrelevant to the question: are they or are they not more at risk of acting on their urges. I'm asking for statistics, not guesswork. It's clear that no one here has any idea what the answer to the question is, so we're at an impasse.

 

[luchog]

Females can try to defend themselves. Females can run away. Females can scream. Females can inform police. Females can get the offender sent to prison.

Little kids can do nothing
So the analogy is irrelevant

This is patently ridiculous.

The fact that so many child molesters are or have been in prison or other criminal-justice programs make that at best a statement of gross ignorance, and at worst a flat-out lie. Children are capable of informing police, or other adults, and some do. They can also scream, if you think they can't, you've never actually been around children, or anywhere in the vicinity of children.

It also ignores the amount of sexual abuse of other vulnerable people, male or female, such as the elderly, hospitalized adults, developmentally disabled adults, and so on. Worse, it ignores the prevalence of the use of drugs to subdue adult victims, and prevent them from doing any of what you describe (alcohol being the most popular, and the most likely to result in accusations of sexual assault being dismissed or ignored by authorities).

Really, your evasions have become outright laughable with that post.

 

[cullennz]

That is completely irrelevant to the question: are they or are they not more at risk of acting on their urges. I'm asking for statistics, not guesswork. It's clear that no one here has any idea what the answer to the question is, so we're at an impasse.

No

You are at an impasse

Everyone else knows it's a pointless question, as a Pedo is not comparable to a normal adult given my post

 

[cullennz]

This is patently ridiculous.

The fact that so many child molesters are or have been in prison or other criminal-justice programs make that at best a statement of gross ignorance, and at worst a flat-out lie. Children are capable of informing police, or other adults, and some do. They can also scream, if you think they can't, you've never actually been around children, or anywhere in the vicinity of children.

Some.

It depends how old they are

Can a 2 year old?

It also ignores the amount of sexual abuse of other vulnerable people, male or female, such as the elderly, hospitalized adults, developmentally disabled adults, and so on. Worse, it ignores the prevalence of the use of drugs to subdue adult victims, and prevent them from doing any of what you describe (alcohol being the most popular, and the most likely to result in accusations of sexual assault being dismissed or ignored by authorities).

Which is absolutely horrible, but

That's because it isn't the topic

Really, your evasions have become outright laughable with that post.

Evading what?

 

[Checkmite]

That is completely irrelevant to the question: are they or are they not more at risk of acting on their urges. I'm asking for statistics, not guesswork. It's clear that no one here has any idea what the answer to the question is, so we're at an impasse.

We aren't. Since nobody is able to give the answer you seem to be looking for, and you refuse to entertain hypotheses for the sake of argument, then I can only suggest that you recognize the question is unanswerable and move on. You could also do worse than to explain just what the point of this question that has nothing to do with children, as you say, was supposed to be if it had been answered after all.

 

[Belz...]

No

You are at an impasse

Everyone else knows it's a pointless question, as a Pedo is not comparable to a normal adult given my post

It's only an impasse because you hear "pedophile" and it conjured more emotion for you than reason. If the question is "would you trust a pedophile with a child" then it's fair to ask whether you would trust a man with a woman, or a man with a child (he could beat the child up, for instance, and the child, by your own admission, is defenseless).

 

[Belz...]

Since nobody is able to give the answer you seem to be looking for, and you refuse to entertain hypotheses for the sake of argument, then I can only suggest that you recognize the question is unanswerable and move on.

It's quite answerable. It's just a matter of whether the evidence exists. If it doesn't, why would you assume one answer or another?

 

[Checkmite]

It's quite answerable. It's just a matter of whether the evidence exists. If it doesn't, why would you assume one answer or another?

Because in the absence of hard and credible numbers, logic is a perfectly acceptable way of making decisions like risk assessments. I really do not know what your problem with extrapolative reasoning is, if there's no evidence directly contradicting its conclusions.

 

[cullennz]

It's only an impasse because you hear "pedophile" and it conjured more emotion for you than reason. If the question is "would you trust a pedophile with a child" then it's fair to ask whether you would trust a man with a woman, or a man with a child (he could beat the child up, for instance, and the child, by your own admission, is defenseless).

If the man had let it be known he has urges to hit kids as the pedo did then I wouldn't let them near kids either

 

[Belz...]

Because in the absence of hard and credible numbers, logic is a perfectly acceptable way of making decisions like risk assessments.

Sure. But in the absence of said numbers, there's no objective conclusion, which is what I'm looking for.

Honestly, I actually expected someone to come up with a study showing that pedophiles and people with other "deviant" sexual attractions showed less restraint in acting upon their urges. Seems it was a good idea to ask.