Casuistry: The Good Pedophile?

[Dogdoctor]

Now hold on a minute, that is not the same thing. I do not support child pornography. Additionally, we are arguing about the freedom to be innocent until proven guilty, based on the case given in the OP. You say much more then simply locking up all those who view child pornography. You say that we should take preventitive measures against those that even have the possibility of becoming dangerous to society, and in this I cannot more strongly object.

Playing with child pornography is a crime or at least it used to be. We don't allow people to play with weapons of mass destruction not because harm will come from it but because it is too dangerous to society. We don't allow drunk driving not because they cause harm but because they might. We don't allow drug use same story. I disagree with your opinion period.

 

[Taffer]

Possession of child pornography is illigal, and is punished accordingly. Child molestation is a serious criminal offence, and is punished accordingly. Do not make the mistake of assuming one given the other. Lets assume the (arbitrary) probability that anyone caught with child pornography will go on to molest a child within 5 years is 75%. I can see no way to justify the claim that all convicted possessor of child pornography should be jailed as if they were convicted child molestors. Additionally, as we have seen, the law distinguishes between 'real' child porn and 'fake' child porn.

ETA: And, obviously, the supreme court agrees with me, as it has made child pornography and child molestation seperate offenses. This stops, once again, 'thought crimes'.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Possession of child pornography is illigal, and is punished accordingly. Child molestation is a serious criminal offence, and is punished accordingly. Do not make the mistake of assuming one given the other. Lets assume the (arbitrary) probability that anyone caught with child pornography will go on to molest a child within 5 years is 75%. I can see no way to justify the claim that all convicted possessor of child pornography should be jailed as if they were convicted child molestors. Additionally, as we have seen, the law distinguishes between 'real' child porn and 'fake' child porn.

Well we have a list of other stupid laws created. Fake child porn being legal is another stupid law. Child pornographers should be treated like the pedophiles that they are (a threat to society). I guess I am not interested in protecting anyones right to child pornography.

 

[Taffer]

Well we have a list of other stupid laws created. Fake child porn being legal is another stupid law. Child pornographers should be treated like the pedophiles that they are (a threat to society). I guess I am not interested in protecting anyones right to child pornography.

It is not peoples "right to child pornography" that we must protect, but the right to be innocent until proven guilty. Drink driving is illigal becuase there is strong, emperical evidence that links alcohol to vision imparement, reduced thought capacity and slower reaction times. This is different from a pedophiles choice to not molest children.

 

[epepke]

I would not be surprised to find out that a difference exists in "brain wiring" between those who are attracted to young adolescents, who are sometimes called ephebophiles rather than pedophiles, and those attracted to pre-pubescents. (I also think I've been watching too much Law & Order: SVU.)

Well, yeah. Of course, traditionally, ephebophilia has been an attraction to adolescent males, but in modern parlance, it's extended to adolescent females as well.

Of course, in modern parlance, "pedophilia" includes "ephebophilia." It means lusting after anyone under the age of 18, even if the age of consent is two to four years younger.

And everyone is an ephebophile. If, at age 16, you weren't sexually attracted to others of age 16 to some extent, you were either diseased, or you are lying, or you are a member of the extremely rare group of asexuals. That's just a basic fact.

Of course, there's good reason once you get to be a reasonable age not to go after anyone under 18 (or 25 for that matter), not the least of which is that they tend to be really stupid and are still experimenting with Borderline Personality Disorder.

Yet still, a basic reaction to seeing budding breasts or early facial hair is hard-wired into the human mind.

 

[Dogdoctor]

I am a psychic and I predict that in the future fake child porn wil be found to lead to crimes being commited and fake porn will be made illegal.

 

[AWPrime]

It is already illegal here.

 

[Taffer]

I am a psychic and I predict that in the future fake child porn wil be found to lead to crimes being commited and fake porn will be made illegal.

You are confusing looking at child porn to cause child molestation. This is the difference between this and drink driving. Someone who looks at child porn is likely to commit another crime. Their nature causes them to do both. Someone who drinks and then drives is likely to have an accident. Their actions directly cause the result, so the actions have been made illegal. Personally I would think that a pedophile looking at child porn is less likely to commit a crime then a pedophile who isn't able to do so.

The problem arrises when you arrest someone based on their possible intent. When do you stop? Someone who buys a gun is a murderer, and should be locked away. Someone who casually uses dope is a drug baron and should be locked away. Someone who reads rape stories is a rapist, even if they never have or never would commit such an act. It becomes thought (and feeling) policing, which is IMHO moraly wrong.

 

[kedo1981]

I make 3d animations with a program called Poser it allows you to create realistic anatomically correct human figures, including those of children. I recall there was some talk of legislation banning this software but it did not go anywhere. On the Poser user forums they have many beautiful and artistic and erotic nude images made with Poser, but they have banned (and rightly so) ones that “seem” to be DEPICTING nude children.
Since a Poser artist CAN create something that looks like child porn are they potently guilty of some degree of child porn?

 

[crimresearch]

The Supreme Court rulings are on the previous page, and I haven't seen anyone post a cite overturning them...

What is your assessment of the part where they require actual harm to a real child, and say that simulations were not actual harm?

 

[Dogdoctor]

You are confusing looking at child porn to cause child molestation. This is the difference between this and drink driving. Someone who looks at child porn is likely to commit another crime. Their nature causes them to do both. Someone who drinks and then drives is likely to have an accident. Their actions directly cause the result, so the actions have been made illegal. Personally I would think that a pedophile looking at child porn is less likely to commit a crime then a pedophile who isn't able to do so.

The problem arrises when you arrest someone based on their possible intent. When do you stop? Someone who buys a gun is a murderer, and should be locked away. Someone who casually uses dope is a drug baron and should be locked away. Someone who reads rape stories is a rapist, even if they never have or never would commit such an act. It becomes thought (and feeling) policing, which is IMHO moraly wrong.

What do you suppose goes through the head of a pedophile when they look at child porn? Do you think they are thinking oh yeah now that hits the spot and I am done with these thoughts for a while? I bet they get aroused and want even more to molest children. Looking at child porn makes them to be more likely to commit the act. Like I said it will be revealed wherever fake child porn is legal that it leads to more child molestation. I am psychic!!! or psycho take your pick.

 

[Piscivore]

What do you suppose goes through the head of a pedophile when they look at child porn?

I don't know, and unless you are compensating, you don't either.

If Nabokov is to be believed, and his novel read pretty credible to me, there is an irresistable attraction despite positive knowledge of harm being done.

The best way to find out would be to ask one who is willing to talk about it.

Do you think they are thinking oh yeah now that hits the spot and I am done with these thoughts for a while?[.quote]

I don't know, but that does not sound very likely.

I bet they get aroused and want even more to molest children.

Based on what?

Looking at child porn makes them to be more likely to commit the act.

Based on what?

Like I said it will be revealed wherever fake child porn is legal that it leads to more child molestation.

Based on what?

I am psychic!!! or psycho take your pick.

I choose (C) - Underinformed and jumping to conclusions based on emotion.

 

[Dogdoctor]

I don't know, and unless you are compensating, you don't either.

If Nabokov is to be believed, and his novel read pretty credible to me, there is an irresistable attraction despite positive knowledge of harm being done.

The best way to find out would be to ask one who is willing to talk about it.



Based on what?



Based on what?



Based on what?



I choose (C) - Underinformed and jumping to conclusions based on emotion.

You don't know me enough to say I am affected emotionally by this issue.

 

[Piscivore]

You don't know me enough to say I am affected emotionally by this issue.

Your posts are deliberately hyperbolic, so you seem to be, going by what you've written. One does not need to know someone else that well to recognise an emotional reaction.

If you are not jumping to conclusion based on emotion, then upon what basis are you jumping to conclusions?

No answer to the rest of my previous post? Was that the extent of your objection?

 

[crimresearch]

Now might be a good time to quit worrying about the legal system (until such time as someone finds those links), and respond to the OP question about good or bad.

If someone with irresistible urges takes steps to make sure that no real people are involved, are they being bad for their urges, or being good for removing real kids from the situation?

 

[pmurray]

A pedophile is a pedophile. If he tries to avoid arrest by keeping only fake pictures of kids he is still a pedophile.

You are equivocating: "paedophile" may mean someone attracted to perpubescent children, ore someone who actually goes out and acts out.

If I think about stealing stuff and don't do it, am I guilty of theft? Do rape fantasies make me a rapist? Viewing fake child porn is a victimless crime.

While we are at it, see penile plethysmograph at skeptics dictionary.

 

[pmurray]

what I don't understand is an attraction to women so young as to be infertile

My take on it is that it is a birth defect. The basic emryonic developmental pattern is female. Males are essentially modified females, and he male sexual response is a modified version of the female "cluckiness" response. This response in women is a release of hormones (progesterone) triggered mainly by visual stimulii.

In men, this mothering instinct develops into a form that responds to femininity and femaleness, and is tangled up with sexual response. Thus a man will want to nuture and protect and have sex with his woman.

Another striking similarity between the male sexual response and the female mothering response is that women can actually fetishize things like baby booties and teddy bears.

Anyway, when the developmental process goes wrong in utero, you can get a paedophile. An otherwise normal male who is "turned on" by visual and cultural indicators that denote "babyness".

I like this explanantion. It accounts for a lot.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Your posts are deliberately hyperbolic, so you seem to be, going by what you've written. One does not need to know someone else that well to recognize an emotional reaction.

If you are not jumping to conclusion based on emotion, then upon what basis are you jumping to conclusions?

No answer to the rest of my previous post? Was that the extent of your objection?

I am using the information available to me which includes my own thoughts about human minds. Since there are no abnormal psyc people chipping in I guess I might be the closest thing to an expert here. So you can ignore my opinion but I will choose to use it. The other factor which is non emotional which I use is again my opinion that children are very important to society and that they deserve extra protection from the bad elements of society. Others have voiced that they choose to disagree with that , so what? I guess your ability to recognize emotional reactions has failed.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I am using the information available to me which includes my own thoughts about human minds. Since there are no abnormal psyc people chipping in I guess I might be the closest thing to an expert here. So you can ignore my opinion but I will choose to use it. The other factor which is non emotional which I use is again my opinion that children are very important to society and that they deserve extra protection from the bad elements of society. Others have voiced that they choose to disagree with that , so what? I guess your ability to recognize emotional reactions has failed.

Your opinion doesn't seem to include a definition of child pornography, the thing you are railing against. If you are incapable of defining a thing, how on earth is anyone supposed to take you seriously when you argue about it? It looks like you are simply refusing to think about the matter entirely, substituting a visceral condemnation of something you willfully refuse to examine. You're not sure what constitutes child pornography, but damn it, it's wicked and needs to stamped out regardless of whether an actual crime has been committed or anyone has been hurt?

You're entirely welcome to an opinion on this or anything else, but a complete failure to think rationally about it means that you will be unable to convince anyone else, and are, in effect, wasting your time.

 

[Piscivore]

I am using the information available to me which includes my own thoughts about human minds. Since there are no abnormal psyc people chipping in I guess I might be the closest thing to an expert here.

Pride, and arrogance. How do you know I am not one of those "abnormal psyche people?" Notice I can spell it, and you can't- I guess I'm better qualified? What exactly are your qualifications? Lifegaer had his "own thoughts" about logic, that didn't make him an expert. And go ask Iacchus about his "own thoughts about human minds" sometime.

So you can ignore my opinion but I will choose to use it.

But you've admitted that your opinion is uniformed: "I am not sure of the laws" - "Now I am no expert at child pornography" - "BS I say we don't need no data"

What confidence should we have in this opinion, then?

The other factor which is non emotional which I use is again my opinion that children are very important to society and that they deserve extra protection from the bad elements of society.

What criteria are you using to determine what constitutes a "bad element"?

It is the use of these words: "bad", "losers", "stupid" - as well as equating the viewing of pornography with nuclear weapons- that betray the emotional content of your premises. Not all emotion is heat and passion- if you do not realize that, how are we to accept your qualifications as an "expert" on abnormal psychology, when you seem to lack knowledge of even the basics?

Others have voiced that they choose to disagree with that , so what?

No, they disagreed with you on what actually constitutes a threat. There's a difference.

I guess your ability to recognize emotional reactions has failed.

Nope. You've given more emotional reactions in this post that reinforces my assesment, actually.