Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“If people search for help but can’t get it, then there’s something wrong with us as a society,” she said.
I completely agree with this.....I have some qualms about some of the stuff listed there but it's better than what most of the rest are doing.
I have no idea why we take such a negative view of someone who says, "please, help me".
The difference between that program and here are two fold.. One I agree with, the other.. Not so much..
First, where I agree.. That program is state funded. We're not talking someone goes and pays for treatment on their own. They go, they say they need help, it's given.
The past that I'm uncomfortable with is that they can go there and document their crimes to the doctor and it is protected under confidentiality laws. I'm torn on that. I can see both sides, but I think a program like this is more to stop those who have NOT acted on their desires.
The difference between that program and here are two fold.. One I agree with, the other.. Not so much..
First, where I agree.. That program is state funded. We're not talking someone goes and pays for treatment on their own. They go, they say they need help, it's given.
I agree.
Quote:
The past that I'm uncomfortable with is that they can go there and document their crimes to the doctor and it is protected under confidentiality laws. I'm torn on that. I can see both sides, but I think a program like this is more to stop those who have NOT acted on their desires.
I agree here also. I noted that I had some qualms. I would think the admitting to crime can be debated but for those that have never offended, this should be easy.
Who really cares about the finer points of the issue/disease that the NY times article talks about. I mean at then end of the day who really cares or worries about whether or not a certain segment of society has sexual issues with people that are younger. I mean who gives a flying F about it... I don't care if it's a natural process etc etc fill in the blank with whatever BS crapola study you wanna insert here.
All I care about is some kid being abused because some dude can't keep his hands to himself. Understanding his issues is about 50 on the rung of who gives a **** in terms of intellectual curiosity . I just care about kids not being bothered.
If that makes me intolerant and not socially acceptable then get me a t shirt and lets get them silkscreened because I can assure you that I ain't the only person that thinks this way....... and I can sell them by the bulk.......:rolleyes :
The Left can always be counted on to defend the most vile behavior.
Indeed, until said behavior is defended/promoted to the point of desensitizing the public via the news media and Hollywood.
Many of the vile and unthinkable sexual perversions of just a few decades ago is now championed by the left as a "normal alternate lifestyle".
I'm not sure what they will try after pedophiles, maybe necrophiliacs
---
On a side note, wasn't the NYT going to be more mindful of their liberal bias and make changes? I guess something like this doesn't even strike them as something most Americans find despicable.
Who really cares about the finer points of the issue/disease that the NY times article talks about. I mean at then end of the day who really cares or worries about whether or not a certain segment of society has sexual issues with people that are younger. I mean who gives a flying F about it... I don't care if it's a natural process etc etc fill in the blank with whatever BS crapola study you wanna insert here.
All I care about is some kid being abused because some dude can't keep his hands to himself. Understanding his issues is about 50 on the rung of who gives a **** in terms of intellectual curiosity . I just care about kids not being bothered.
If that makes me intolerant and not socially acceptable then get me a t shirt and lets get them silkscreened because I can assure you that I ain't the only person that thinks this way....... and I can sell them by the bulk.......:rolleyes :
It's simply amazing the number of people that don't understand the argument.
Nobody asked you to be tolerant. What is asked is when we might get those who want some help, help.
To spite the fact that many pedophiles, maybe even most, go their entire lives without ever harming a child? Really?
I think destigmatizing it as a vile crime and recognizing it as the condition it is, and then finding ways to help individuals deal with that condition, would be a much better approach.
Yes. Really.
I've posted several times in this thread, but it looks like you only chose to quote that particular sentence. Okay, fine. let me explain.
This is what I believe,
1. If you (the general term) are a pedophile that has difficulty in handling your sexual fantasies, seek some (professional) help. Either online with peers or with a therapist.
2. If you (the general term) are a pedophile, try accepting yourself, and surround yourself with supportive friends or family members. Nobody is suggesting they should all commit suicide. Nobody is even suggesting none of them can lead a happy productive life.
3. STAY AWAY FROM KIDS
Maybe "put in isolation" is hard for some of you to accept, but I don't believe these people should be around kids and I don't think any of them should take it so personally or cry bloody murder.
Nobody is suggesting that we all need to act like people in medieval times who burn witches and heretics at the stake, but a pedophile should not be around kids. So the most compassionate thing they can do are the following 1. seek professional help 2. stay away from kids.
.. and if they still cannot control their urges and the sexually fantasy, then yes, they should CHOOSE to live in isolation.
Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 11-26-2016 at 05:50 AM..
Who really cares about the finer points of the issue/disease that the NY times article talks about. I mean at then end of the day who really cares or worries about whether or not a certain segment of society has sexual issues with people that are younger. I mean who gives a flying F about it... I don't care if it's a natural process etc etc fill in the blank with whatever BS crapola study you wanna insert here.
All I care about is some kid being abused because some dude can't keep his hands to himself. Understanding his issues is about 50 on the rung of who gives a **** in terms of intellectual curiosity . I just care about kids not being bothered.
If that makes me intolerant and not socially acceptable then get me a t shirt and lets get them silkscreened because I can assure you that I ain't the only person that thinks this way....... and I can sell them by the bulk.......:rolleyes :
I agree with you, chow.
This is why common sense is more useful than the viewpoints of scholarly academics.
This said, I think therapy (in this case) is more like a prevention (not necessary a cure because I doubt there is a cure for pedophilia), if we can successfully intervene before an act against a child occurs, then we stop two lives being ruined. So if there is a treatment, I say "great, go for it."
But like you said, at the end of the day, who really cares! Protecting children should always be the first priority.
What would you do if your child's teacher, or bus driver, or a sports coach was a self-declared "Virtuous Pedophile" ?
I thought so.
Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 11-26-2016 at 06:32 AM..
Who really cares about the finer points of the issue/disease that the NY times article talks about. I mean at then end of the day who really cares or worries about whether or not a certain segment of society has sexual issues with people that are younger. I mean who gives a flying F about it... I don't care if it's a natural process etc etc fill in the blank with whatever BS crapola study you wanna insert here.
All I care about is some kid being abused because some dude can't keep his hands to himself. Understanding his issues is about 50 on the rung of who gives a **** in terms of intellectual curiosity . I just care about kids not being bothered.
If that makes me intolerant and not socially acceptable then get me a t shirt and lets get them silkscreened because I can assure you that I ain't the only person that thinks this way....... and I can sell them by the bulk.......:rolleyes :
I don't think the author of the article would call you intolerant. I think he'd call you an idiot. He's asserting that opening up pedophilia to mental health treatment WITHOUT fear of losing their jobs and such could potentially reduce the number of people who become willing to harm children. They'd learn self control and have a support network, allowing them to be stable and normal people. That's the goal of all mental health treatment after all. By saying you are indifferent to that aspect of the issue and using the common man's understanding of what the word pedophile means (baring in mind, the common man is a moron) to justify this would, as the NYT author asserts, actually be counter productive in your state goals.
Indeed, until said behavior is defended/promoted to the point of desensitizing the public via the news media and Hollywood.
Many of the vile and unthinkable sexual perversions of just a few decades ago is now championed by the left as a "normal alternate lifestyle".
I'm not sure what they will try after pedophiles, maybe necrophiliacs
---
On a side note, wasn't the NYT going to be more mindful of their liberal bias and make changes? I guess something like this doesn't even strike them as something most Americans find despicable.
Well, first of all, they are not justifying that act of having sex or attempting to have sex with a minor. The article, if you know how to read and had the intellectual capacity to do so before commenting, you'd notice that article says it's taking this position (I doubt even know what the position is, honestly) because they feel it could reduce the risk of child abuse.
Nor would I consider using science as being liberal bias. Most psychologists say treatment and working with people who are mentally ill is the right option. They define people who are attracted to children as being mentally ill. If the goal to keep a person with sever bipolar disorder from snapping and become dangerous to themselves or others is met through treatment, as would the case be with other mental illnesses, it seems reasonable that this would apply to pedophilia. But there's the problem: "reason." You're conservative blogs told you the "left" would justify pedophiles next so it must be true. After all, only liberals lie...
I've posted several times in this thread, but it looks like you only chose to quote that particular sentence. Okay, fine. let me explain.
This is what I believe,
1. If you (the general term) are a pedophile that has difficulty in handling your sexual fantasies, seek some (professional) help. Either online with peers or with a therapist.
2. If you (the general term) are a pedophile, try accepting yourself, and surround yourself with supportive friends or family members. Nobody is suggesting they should all commit suicide. Nobody is even suggesting none of them can lead a happy productive life.
3. STAY AWAY FROM KIDS
Maybe "put in isolation" is hard for some of you to accept, but I don't believe these people should be around kids and I don't think any of them should take it so personally or cry bloody murder.
Nobody is suggesting that we all need to act like people in medieval times who burn witches and heretics at the stake, but a pedophile should not be around kids. So the most compassionate thing they can do are the following 1. seek professional help 2. stay away from kids.
.. and if they still cannot control their urges and the sexually fantasy, then yes, they should CHOOSE to live in isolation.
Right, to this point though, the NYT points out that mental health laws that usually protect employment status wouldn't' apply to a pedophile seeking treatment and he or she could risk losing their job if someone found out. In other words, a person trying to do the right thing for themselves and others is at risk and the NYT is pointing out how flawed of a policy that is. We should encourage treatment of mental illness, no reject them, though not excuse their actions either should they do something wrong or illegal.
Of course, in an instance where there's is solid reason to believe this person cannot control their urges and a risk level is high, I have no issue with mandatory institutionalization until evidence of their stabilizing is found. I also think acts of child abuse should be punished severely with long jail sentences (though i have many views on the need for criminal justice reform and what those sentences would look like, but now is not the time for that discussion). And, just as the article states, the legal protections I refer to would have limitations. Just as a blind person could not legally drive a bus and therefore employment in this regard would not be protected, a school teacher or anyone with authority over a child would not have protection in the relevant instance. I don't agree that they can NEVER have contact with children; that's hard to do. It's the kind of contact. Large amounts of alone time or authority of a child is where the line absolutely must be drawn.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
