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.
Nobody said anything about a cure, and even treatment is probably not a good term. Perhaps coping would be a better one: seeking help in resisting impulses one knows are wrong. That's pretty much what I got out of the talk, anyway.
For starters, the recidivism rate for pedophiles is close to 100% unless they are castrated. Some actually choose that, rather than wind back up in jail.
I remember watching a special report on a halfway house treatment center, where these sickos were staying. While I could barely stomach to watch and listen to these scum bags, one did say he didn't want to leave until he could get castrated, because he knew he would molest again.
As sick as the pedo was, at least he was aware of his inability to control his urges.
Yet you have leftist kooks pontificating on things they know little to nothing about, and instead are just applying their general permissive nature, and everyone deserves a 17th chance mentality.
This guy knew better, yet some liberal would likely want to release him into society.
One wonders what would happen if the pedo raped their little son or daughter?
For starters, the recidivism rate for pedophiles is close to 100% unless they are castrated. Some actually choose that, rather than wind back up in jail.
I remember watching a special report on a halfway house treatment center, where these sickos were staying. While I could barely stomach to watch and listen to these scum bags, one did say he didn't want to leave until he could get castrated, because he knew he would molest again.
As sick as the pedo was, at least he was aware of his inability to control his urges.
Yet you have leftist kooks pontificating on things they know little to nothing about, and instead are just applying their general permissive nature, and everyone deserves a 17th chance mentality.
This guy knew better, yet some liberal would likely want to release him into society.
One wonders what would happen if the pedo raped their little son or daughter?
`
There's a difference though between pedophiles that have molested and raped those that haven't. You seem to be lumping them together. Those that have acted on their impulses have committed a crime and those that haven't acted have not committed a crime. I suspect there are quite a few of the one's that haven't. If they haven't molested or raped then they have controlled their urges.
Are they a scum bag if they haven't molested, raped? I don't pretend to have all the answers but there is a difference.
Ted Talks had it on their official channel, it was quickly taken down after complaints. Then other people uploaded it, and Ted Talks filed complaints. They're trying to eliminate all evidence.
Not much shocks me anymore, but I don't think there's a push to normalize the behavior. Put simply and legally, whether or not I found people molesting kids a sick thing to do, children cannot offer consent.
As such, this would be illegal even if personal morals eroded to the point that some people were okay with it.
I think amending the law to make it legal would be tough because so much is tied to age of consent and other legal rights, such as voting.
Just thinking of it in practical terms.
Funny you should say that because as I and others have said, incrimentilism and desensitization are occuring even though many do not realize it.
Let's take homosexuality for example. Back in the day, during my lifetime, heteros were bombarded with false claims that homos made up 10% of the population. I still remember this one social studies teacher saying "look around at your fellow students, because at least 3 out of the almost 30 were homos".
Needless to say that false narrative (attempting to give the impression they were not a tiny minority)has been debunked, but it was a concerted effort to make the heteros believe homos were in much greater numbers than they were.
But back in the day when sodomy was still illegal in this country, no one thought there would come a day that homos would be allowed to marry, and/or claim their sexual behavior would be proclaimed "just another lifestyle choice". It didn't happen overnight, but over time the two aforementioned practices were at work behind the scenes.
AJ Scalia noted in his dissent that the ruling would eventually lead to homo marriage, bigamy, polygamy, and every other type of coupling for sexual purpose.
Many dismissed his warning as inconceivable, and believing that while they wanted homos to be able to engage in their sexual practices without fear of prosecution, they would never approve of homosexual marriage. Yet look at what happened just 14 years later.
Heck for those who remember, homosexuality was considered an abnormal mental disorder, but the homo agenda eventually coerced the APA to change their classification.
[Side Note - That is occurring today with liberal groups trying to force the Red Cross and other blood banks to get rid of the prohibition of homo donors.
Mind you, hetero donors have restrictions also like drug use and other things that could increase the likelihood of tainted blood.
But the homo lobby does not care about the safety of others so long as they are not "unfairly stigmatized" by the restriction.
So PC and acceptance must take a front seat to health and safety for everyone, hetero & homo alike. ]
The bottom line is that with pedos, they are not mainstream today, but given enough desensitization and incrementalism to "better understand their hardships", it is not inconceivable that the age of consent will be lowered. This of course will be pushed by the left, certainly not the right.
I assume we can all agree to that?
From there the pedo advocates will continue to push the envelope until they potentially get prepubescent boys and girls being able to give consent based on the individual case, not the general age group. After all, some 12 years olds are more mature than some 19 years will be their claim.
While I hope that never comes to pass even after I am long gone, would any of the permissive liberals on this forum (who would presumably never want to see that either), be willing to send me their life savings if it does occur in the next few decades?
There's a difference though between pedophiles that have molested and raped those that haven't. You seem to be lumping them together. Those that have acted on their impulses have committed a crime and those that haven't acted have not committed a crime. I suspect there are quite a few of the one's that haven't. If they haven't molested or raped then they have controlled their urges.
Are they a scum bag if they haven't molested, raped? I don't pretend to have all the answers but there is a difference.
Sure there is a difference, but are you willing to have your kids around such people, leaving their physical and emotional safety in the hands of those who fantasize about molesting them?
For starters, the recidivism rate for pedophiles is close to 100% unless they are castrated. Some actually choose that, rather than wind back up in jail.
I remember watching a special report on a halfway house treatment center, where these sickos were staying. While I could barely stomach to watch and listen to these scum bags, one did say he didn't want to leave until he could get castrated, because he knew he would molest again.
As sick as the pedo was, at least he was aware of his inability to control his urges.
Yet you have leftist kooks pontificating on things they know little to nothing about, and instead are just applying their general permissive nature, and everyone deserves a 17th chance mentality.
This guy knew better, yet some liberal would likely want to release him into society.
One wonders what would happen if the pedo raped their little son or daughter?
`
The video is not about people who have acted on their attraction, it's about helping people who have not.
Thoughts vs. actions. Raping a child is a crime, a terrible crime, and should be treated as such. Nobody is suggesting otherwise, nobody.
Sure there is a difference, but are you willing to have your kids around such people, leaving their physical and emotional safety in the hands of those who fantasize about molesting them?
Sure there is a difference, but are you willing to have your kids around such people, leaving their physical and emotional safety in the hands of those who fantasize about molesting them?
`
Of course not. The thing is, if someone I know is attracted to children and doesn't disclose their status because they are afraid, how am I to know that they shouldn't be around children?
That's part of the whole point: secrets are dangerous.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,600,682 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1
Funny you should say that because as I and others have said, incrimentilism and desensitization are occuring even though many do not realize it.
Let's take homosexuality for example. Back in the day, during my lifetime, heteros were bombarded with false claims that homos made up 10% of the population. I still remember this one social studies teacher saying "look around at your fellow students, because at least 3 out of the almost 30 were homos".
Needless to say that false narrative (attempting to give the impression they were not a tiny minority)has been debunked, but it was a concerted effort to make the heteros believe homos were in much greater numbers than they were.
But back in the day when sodomy was still illegal in this country, no one thought there would come a day that homos would be allowed to marry, and/or claim their sexual behavior would be proclaimed "just another lifestyle choice". It didn't happen overnight, but over time the two aforementioned practices were at work behind the scenes.
AJ Scalia noted in his dissent that the ruling would eventually lead to homo marriage, bigamy, polygamy, and every other type of coupling for sexual purpose.
Many dismissed his warning as inconceivable, and believing that while they wanted homos to be able to engage in their sexual practices without fear of prosecution, they would never approve of homosexual marriage. Yet look at what happened just 14 years later.
Heck for those who remember, homosexuality was considered an abnormal mental disorder, but the homo agenda eventually coerced the APA to change their classification.
[Side Note - That is occurring today with liberal groups trying to force the Red Cross and other blood banks to get rid of the prohibition of homo donors.
Mind you, hetero donors have restrictions also like drug use and other things that could increase the likelihood of tainted blood.
But the homo lobby does not care about the safety of others so long as they are not "unfairly stigmatized" by the restriction.
So PC and acceptance must take a front seat to health and safety for everyone, hetero & homo alike. ]
Homosexuality does not hurt, harm, or demean the dignity of others. Any response you give to this, I sufficiently answered in my previous post. Also abnormal does not equal dysfunctional or scorn-worthy. "Normal" and "abnormal" are about statistics and nothing more. Slapping the label "scorn-worthy" is entirely a different matter, independent of its statistical frequency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1
The bottom line is that with pedos, they are not mainstream today, but given enough desensitization and incrementalism to "better understand their hardships", it is not inconceivable that the age of consent will be lowered. This of course will be pushed by the left, certainly not the right.
I assume we can all agree to that?
From there the pedo advocates will continue to push the envelope until they potentially get prepubescent boys and girls being able to give consent based on the individual case, not the general age group. After all, some 12 years olds are more mature than some 19 years will be their claim.
While I hope that never comes to pass even after I am long gone, would any of the permissive liberals on this forum (who would presumably never want to see that either), be willing to send me their life savings if it does occur in the next few decades?
Already addressed this in my previous post.
As for the mature 12 yr old vs the immature 19 year old? I will quickly admit that there is not a perfect tightly-defined line or standard for maturity. Even so, that still does not change the essential facts: 1. If you're old enough to get your ass shot off for your country, then you're old enough to engage in sex with older people. 2. Most people are, by the time they are 18, do have at least minimal competency to understand the emotional and social implications of sex with another person. Again, the line is very blurred, but unless you can come up with a very strong argument that the age should be lower, I have to agree with the traditional legal and cultural opinion about this one. 18th birthday is the most reasonable age line to draw in matters of sex.
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.
]
