The Paedophile Hunter

[Uppercut]

Yeah can we please just not mention homosexuality at all in a thread about paedophilia. There's literally no possible way of doing it tastefully.

 

[Dan]

Comparing paedophilia to homosexuality is just dire.

I can somewhat see where the treatment of paedophilia as a sexual orientation comes from in terms of stripping away all context and breaking it down to the lowest possible level -- "Person A is attracted to Person B and has no control over the matter" -- but they're just plain wrong to equate the two (normatively or philosophically), for three main reasons:

1. The issue of consent -- in a heterosexual relationship, Person A and Person B mutually consent to whatever happens, else the sexual act in question is a crime worthy of harsh penalties. In the case of a paedophile, consent can -- by its very definition -- never occur, thus the sexual act in question is a crime worthy of harsh penalties.

2. The issue of power dynamics -- in a heterosexual relationship, Person A and Person B are (at least roughly) on a level playing field in terms of the power dynamic (room for plenty of feminist critique here, but that's not important right now). In the case of a paedophile and his victim, the huge imbalance of power between the two makes it a ****ed-up act of sexual violence, even if the victim quote-unquote 'consents' to the act (though, obviously, this is not consent by any definition of the term).

3. We're allowed to be philosophically inconsistent and make normative judgements -- the world simply doesn't function otherwise. Doing that to a kid is ****ed-up, inexcusable, criminal and morally indefensible. I don't care how someone tries to justify it, it's just plain wrong.



So yeah, even if you want to frame paedophilia as a pseudo-sexual orientation for the sake of the debate, there's still no valid equivalence to be had. It simply isn't comparable, and any attempt to do so is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Ikki]

I agree with Dan; whatever results in less kids being molested is the concern here really. For me, the paedophile's rights here are secondary. I'm not sure what the solution is however and I can understand people not wanting to soften the discourse around paedophilia lest it make it seem more acceptable than it is. Not sure that would happen though.

 

[sledger]

I can somewhat see where the treatment of paedophilia as a sexual orientation comes from in terms of stripping away all context and breaking it down to the lowest possible level -- "Person A is attracted to Person B and has no control over the matter" -- but they're just plain wrong to equate the two (normatively or philosophically), for three main reasons:

1. The issue of consent -- in a heterosexual relationship, Person A and Person B mutually consent to whatever happens, else the sexual act in question is a crime worthy of harsh penalties. In the case of a paedophile, consent can -- by its very definition -- never occur, thus the sexual act in question is a crime worthy of harsh penalties.

2. The issue of power dynamics -- in a heterosexual relationship, Person A and Person B are (at least roughly) on a level playing field in terms of the power dynamic (room for plenty of feminist critique here, but that's not important right now). In the case of a paedophile and his victim, the huge imbalance of power between the two makes it a ****ed-up act of sexual violence, even if the victim quote-unquote 'consents' to the act (though, obviously, this is not consent by any definition of the term).

3. We're allowed to be philosophically inconsistent and make normative judgements -- the world simply doesn't function otherwise. Doing that to a kid is ****ed-up, inexcusable, criminal and morally indefensible. I don't care how someone tries to justify it, it's just plain wrong.



So yeah, even if you want to frame paedophilia as a pseudo-sexual orientation for the sake of the debate, there's still no valid equivalence to be had. It simply isn't comparable, and any attempt to do so is intellectually dishonest.

It's worse than that imo; it's pretty ****ed up tstl in my view. Which is probably one of the reasons why I have had so much trouble getting on board with what Zorax as said, since he keeps making these sorts of comparisons.

 

[Dan]

So yeah, if anybody actually tries to draw that false equivalence, or use a slippery slope fallacy in that manner, expect infraction points (and a lengthy ban).

Seriously, this is the kind of thread where you need to re-read every post you make before clicking 'Post', in order to make sure you're not saying something unintentionally stupid and offensive. I don't think anybody is likely to do so, but this is the type of topic where you need to tread extremely cautiously.

 

[Dan]

I agree with Dan; whatever results in less kids being molested is the concern here really. For me, the paedophile's rights here are secondary. I'm not sure what the solution is however and I can understand people not wanting to soften the discourse around paedophilia lest it make it seem more acceptable than it is. Not sure that would happen though.

Yeah, not the kind of thing where you can try a different policy option and go "oh well, that didn't work, let's switch back now". With the life and wellbeing of children at stake, the potential risks of softening the discourse are catastrophic and it's not a gamble one can justify taking, imo.

Actually softening said discourse would be near impossible anyway -- and rightfully so. I don't have kids, but I imagine that when I do one day, no argument like that is going to win me over when their safety is concerned.

It's worse than that imo; it's pretty ****ed up tstl in my view. Which is probably one of the reasons why I have had so much trouble getting on board with what Zorax as said, since he keeps making these sorts of comparisons.

Yeah, agreed entirely. Should have continued the stronger use of language through to the end of the post.

 

[zorax]

And again, while you don't blame society for making them a pedophile, you can and should blame society for vilifying it to the point that they are afraid to come out and seek help. Heck, that is literally what society was doing to Gay people not that long ago.

I really didn't want to make that comparison, I understand the differences, I really do. But it was the closest possible example I could think of to show how a societies views can pressure people into not being honest about themselves.

FWIW - I do think it would be a worthwhile discussion to contrast and compare 'diseases' such as pedophilia and necrophilia (brought up earlier in this thread) to homosexuality, and human sexuality as a whole. It is a taboo issue, but until society feels comfortable about discussing it, we won't ever get to the root cause of what makes a person a pedophile. And if we don't understand how they work, we won't ever be able to come to an appropriate solution on how to handle them in society. But that's probably a topic for another thread.

As for the topic at hand...have I really been that clumsy at explaining my point of view? I thought I made it pretty clear. Dan, Ikki and cpr seem to have caught on.

The main goal at the end of the day is to protect more children. And if encouraging pedophiles to seek help quickly, and making sure that such help is more easily available, will help protect more children, then that's definitely an avenue to explore.

I agree with Dan; whatever results in less kids being molested is the concern here really. For me, the paedophile's rights here are secondary. I'm not sure what the solution is however and I can understand people not wanting to soften the discourse around paedophilia lest it make it seem more acceptable than it is. Not sure that would happen though.

Actually softening said discourse would be near impossible anyway -- and rightfully so. I don't have kids, but I imagine that when I do one day, no argument like that is going to win me over when their safety is concerned.

Could you both elaborate please?
Given how people react to pedophilia at the moment (I had a friend today who brought up this same issue, and she claimed the phrase 'Virtuous Pedophile' is an oxymoron and impossible), what harm do you think do you think making people a little more tolerant and understanding of pedophiles would bring?
Similarly, how would softening the discourse lead to less safety for children? I don't get how you go from one to the other? We are just encouraging pedophiles to turn themselves in and seek help and counselling - we aren't suddenly hiring them as teachers and babysitters.

What do everyone her think will happen exactly if Governments around the world started a campaign to encourage pedophiles to seek help? You know, set up hotlines and hire therapists and have a sort of amnesty period where pedos who have committed crimes get a slightly reduced sentence + counselling if they turn themselves in quickly. A few public service announcements here and there encouraging youngsters who feel they might be pedophiles to call in and talk about it. Would this really be such a bad thing?

 

[YorksLanka]

I can see where zorax is heading towards with looking at prevention BUT I am more of the punishment rather than hug a mugger type and can't agree that a paedophile has any rights as I am totally focused on the rights of their victims. Some things can't be reasoned off with a " they didn't really know what they were doing " type argument .for me, some people take advantage of claiming they don't know right from wrong..

 

[cpr]

So yeah, if anybody actually tries to draw that false equivalence, or use a slippery slope fallacy in that manner, expect infraction points (and a lengthy ban).

So I'm generally bowing out of the topic after this post, as I feel there is some sort of general consensus going on - lets help those who recognise an illness/mindset before they act, but punish those who act.....

However, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the quote above, and comments from others. I'll stress first that comparing the act of homosexuality and the act of paedophilia is completely wrong.... But if you are talking about homosexuality in a historical context, and the treatment of people rather than committing the act itself, then the comparisons are fair IMO, which is what Zorax did. You go back 80-100 years, and look at how society treated gay people (sorry, I cbf typing homosexual each time, too long and my x key is not working properly, I blame certain websites) - you'll see a similar demonisation of the individual as you do in this case.
Now no one has suggested that the way gay people were treated then was correct (though as Dan pointed out, Bambino did rather talk past Zorax's point here), merely the pattern of treatment and the effect on the individual was similar. A look at the final years of Alan Turing will give an idea of how society and state (wrongly) vilified and punished a man to the point suicide was the release he sought. Thankfully currently attitude has seen a statue of him erected in the heart of one of the most prominent gay area's in the world.

Its hard for us as people who have grown up in societies were homosexuality is legal and socially acceptable to really understand the way it was viewed by our elders - the sheer notion that someone can hate a gay person as much as a paedophile is, well laughable to us, yet you go to an old peoples home and speak to a bunch of 80 year olds, and you'll hear the violence in their voice is akin for both groups of people. We just have to move on and above that....


Also I'm kinda disappointed that I could potentially be discouraged from making what I feel is a balanced and fair (and hopefully not inflammatory) post because I'm told I'll automatically get infracted/banned for trying. That's poor moderating IMO. Allow the person to make the point, if people do see offence, let it be reported and then issue the ban/delete the original post. I don't like the idea's of constraints put before free argument unless its clear people are just **** slinging to get a rise out of others

 

[Marcuss]

Yeah, didnt realise having a controversial opinion was an infraction-worthy offence.

Comparing homosexuality and paedophilia isn't an issue either, per se. It's possible to compare them and say they have no relation whatsoever with one another. The 'issue' is lazily equating them. However, that's only an issue insofar as its something I'd strongly disagree with. Just like millions of other opinions on this forum at times. Just because it's a sensitive subject doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to discuss it rationally - which, to be fair, has been managed thus far.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Sometimes some issues just need to be repressed and not made open in society.

 

[Uppercut]

Sometimes some issues just need to be repressed and not made open in society.

Why not, worked out great with the Catholic Church in Ireland.

 

[Dan]

Yeah, didnt realise having a controversial opinion was an infraction-worthy offence.

Comparing homosexuality and paedophilia isn't an issue either, per se. It's possible to compare them and say they have no relation whatsoever with one another. The 'issue' is lazily equating them. However, that's only an issue insofar as its something I'd strongly disagree with. Just like millions of other opinions on this forum at times. Just because it's a sensitive subject doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to discuss it rationally - which, to be fair, has been managed thus far.

Yeah, I think you've both misinterpreted what I meant by that post (which is understandable; I didn't word it particularly well). AFAIC coming in with a rational piece of discussion is never going to be a problem, however that 'lazy equivalence' is pretty much just trolling.

To the point cpr was making, I was referring in my post to a comparison of the two as acts, along the lines of "being gay is just as bad as being a pedophile because they're both sexually deviant", or the slippery slope of "you give gays rights and now look what happens, the pedos come out and want them too". Both are lazy, both are trolling, neither are acceptable in this discussion.

 

[Dan]

Could you both elaborate please?
Given how people react to pedophilia at the moment (I had a friend today who brought up this same issue, and she claimed the phrase 'Virtuous Pedophile' is an oxymoron and impossible), what harm do you think do you think making people a little more tolerant and understanding of pedophiles would bring?
Similarly, how would softening the discourse lead to less safety for children? I don't get how you go from one to the other? We are just encouraging pedophiles to turn themselves in and seek help and counselling - we aren't suddenly hiring them as teachers and babysitters.

What do everyone her think will happen exactly if Governments around the world started a campaign to encourage pedophiles to seek help? You know, set up hotlines and hire therapists and have a sort of amnesty period where pedos who have committed crimes get a slightly reduced sentence + counselling if they turn themselves in quickly. A few public service announcements here and there encouraging youngsters who feel they might be pedophiles to call in and talk about it. Would this really be such a bad thing?

You're expecting a rationality from parents (or future parents) about this kind of issue that is basically impossible. I can see that the point your making is consistent with a lot of modern small-l liberal conceptualisations of crime and rehabilitation, but given these people are (or potentially are) attacking our kids and ruining their lives, it's hard to abstract yourself enough to go "hang on, this might work".

Parents are protective of their kids (sometimes excessively and destructively so, in the case of the worst helicopter parents), and any piece of cultural change that they see as having real and immediate negative impacts on the safety of their children is not going to be particularly well accepted. The fear would be that the creepy old bloke down the road, hearing that paedophillia is now 'acceptable' in terms of the mindset, now reckons he can get away with a couple of acts of molestation to get himself off, then can turn himself in and face no penalties because he's a 'victim getting help'. Even if you argue that type of thought by a parent isn't a rational reaction to a softening of the discourse, it's pretty obvious that people don't always act rationally when it comes to protecting their kids.

Essentially, as I said before, this isn't a case of "implement Operation Zorax, see immediate results of less kids being molested". The world -- and especially cultural change -- doesn't work like that. We've got no idea whatsoever what that softening of the discourse would do. We can think logically about it and assume rationality and come out with your liberal utopia, but that is a very utopian possibility IMO. When the realities of the real world creep into the theory, we have no idea what the outcomes will be. And when every incidence of a paedophile attacking is not just a statistic, it's a child's life destroyed by unimaginable and horrific violence and trauma, that kind of change is not a risk you'd find many people willing to take.

And, I mean, if you have PSAs saying 'hey people sexually attracted to children, turn yourselves in to X facility for counselling and treatment', I don't think that it's a particularly large jump to suggest that parents groups would be picketing X facility the very next day, in all reality, probably violently. Then a Pedo's Rights group might spring up to picket back, probably with an eloquent leader who uses some dodgy logical comparisons and cheap rhetoric to convince people that "hey, they might not be that bad after all", and all of a sudden you've got a very fringe -- and wrong -- opinion gaining a few supporters who now feel entitled to go out and ruin the lives of children.

The real world is complex and messy; it's not a modern liberal utopia. I understand the point your making, and in theoretical terms it is highly consistent with modern liberalism and definitely has some points for it. However I just can't see it translating to actual, effective policy in the real world.

 

[Ikki]

Could you both elaborate please?
Given how people react to pedophilia at the moment (I had a friend today who brought up this same issue, and she claimed the phrase 'Virtuous Pedophile' is an oxymoron and impossible), what harm do you think do you think making people a little more tolerant and understanding of pedophiles would bring?
Similarly, how would softening the discourse lead to less safety for children? I don't get how you go from one to the other? We are just encouraging pedophiles to turn themselves in and seek help and counselling - we aren't suddenly hiring them as teachers and babysitters.

I didn't say it would, I said I can understand the fear that it could. I guess it depends on the implementation. In general, the criminal justice system is flawed and rehabilitation even for 'normal' transgressors is hard to argue for politically. Most people just want to clamp down on the punishments.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Why not, worked out great with the Catholic Church in Ireland.

What I mean by that is that there should be an extremely strong punishment for any person acting on their twisted desires. Should keep them in constant fear of doing anything.

 

[sledger]

What I mean by that is that there should be an extremely strong punishment for any person acting on their twisted desires. Should keep them in constant fear of doing anything.

There are extremely strong punishments for people who do these sorts of things. Some child-related sexual offences carry a life sentence. Or did you have something stronger in mind?

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, I think you've both misinterpreted what I meant by that post (which is understandable; I didn't word it particularly well). AFAIC coming in with a rational piece of discussion is never going to be a problem, however that 'lazy equivalence' is pretty much just trolling.

To the point cpr was making, I was referring in my post to a comparison of the two as acts, along the lines of "being gay is just as bad as being a pedophile because they're both sexually deviant", or the slippery slope of "you give gays rights and now look what happens, the pedos come out and want them too". Both are lazy, both are trolling, neither are acceptable in this discussion.

Nobody had implied anything in the way you suggested though. Might as well go into threads randomly and say 'if anyone starts being racist I'm banning your white as' if it's going to be like that

I understand your concerns Dan but nothing kills a thread like an unnecessary warning. People will now second guess whether to post well thought out non-prejudiced opinions now in case it crossed your line.

 

[the big bambino]

tbb, I think you're talking past zorax somewhat -- he's (rather clumsily, imo) trying to draw a distinction between individuals who are attracted to children who never act upon that attraction because they know it's self-evidently wrong/disgusting/utterly ****ed-up, and those who are deluded narcissists who feel they have the right to act on those desires and destroy lives in a cavalcade of ****ed-up molestation and abuse.

In the case of the latter, nobody's disagreeing that the person needs to be locked up (preferably for life without parole).

It's in the case of the former -- the paedophile who never acts upon his desire and knows it is wrong -- that zorax is talking about. .

Tbf I agree with you and I realise he was talking about that specific instance. I believe I responded to that point in isolation in my 1st post (I think) to him. Such a person isn't a crim as he hasn't broken any laws and yes he should get help even if its difficult.

In making his point zorax unintentionally widened it by various comparisons that sought to equate our attitudes towards paedophiles with those towards gays. Or by focusing on a specific instance of a latent paedo he asked for a change in attitude to them generally so that the former might find it easier to get help. I think this is just a natural course for the discussion to go. It will burgeon from the specific to the general. From that I thought it became a topic itself and I responded to the question should society relax its attitude to paedophiles to assist those actively seeking help. I see a contradiction in zorax's argument. By relaxing our attitude to paedophilia we might remove the inducement for a latent paedophile to seek help. Where is the incentive if the attitude is relaxed?