Holy ****, did anyone see the latest Something Awful weekend web?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Thorn
I have this urge to murder millions of people, does that mean I should die because of this, when I would never act upon it? (or would I lol)

Yes.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Azazel
Now you see, That's PC going to far, and actually creating a lot of racist bull****. Notice the small difference:

Black people aren't naturally more prone to violence.
Paedophiles sure as hell are more prone to **** little children.

Fallacy. The law doesn't care whether it's nature or nurture; its aim is deterrence and security. BTW, some people are more naturally prone to crimes, depending on their natural testosterone levels or brain development (people with a more neurologically active frontal lobe commit less crimes).

It's not a question of ratios, and chances, either. Normal people don't **** little children. Paedophiles do.

Now remember, I am not for killing all paedophiles, but I am not going to just sit there and say there isn't a problem with that person, just because he didn't actually seduce a kid.

You would have to scientifically prove that it's a mental illness and put them into an asylum. That's the only escape route. If you don't do that, they must be treated through a standard judiciary procedure.

[Thorn]

There is no one to help them... they are hated in society... so something that could have prevented them from doing something doesn't exist.... they can't try to help solve their problems with therapy or they will be locked up throwing away the key.......

I think there is a problem with this system...

[DRoseDARs]

Well that was...eww.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Azazel

Yes. A better comparison would've been homosexuals. They're perverts.

No, since they don't want to commit a crime, and aren't more prone to commit a crime, in no way whatsoever.

Well... technically speaking, sodomy is a crime in most places. I think you are talking ethicly, though. But it is the same logic that is often used to attack gays... wether you want to believe that morlality is subjective or not.


But what if a pedophile doesn't break any crimes. What if giving into the desire doesn't even do so - is it wrong for a 40 year old to be with an 18/16 yearold (whatever the age of consent is)? Granted, if their fetish is strictly pre-pubsecent, I'll agree that there is no way that they can act on it without causing harm - unless perhaps if it's simply a desire to be emotionally close.

[Az]

Fallacy. The law doesn't care whether it's nature or nurture; its aim is deterrence and security. BTW, some people are more naturally prone to crimes, depending on their natural testosterone levels or brain development (people with a more neurologically active frontal lobe commit less crimes).

Actually, you're attacking a strawman. This never was about nature vs. nurture, but about that fact that non-paedophiles simply don't molest children. The fact that an individual is black or white has little impact on the chance he's about to commit a crime. The fact that a person is a paedophile has everything to do about whether he's going to molest a child or not. Your escape the statistics, and stating the deterring factor is false, as well. Deterrance doesn't come from statistics, but from the handling of individual cases, and thus we go back to the question: Is there something wrong with paedophiles? I say :yes, they have an urge to commit a very serious crime, and thus need help, if possible.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Pekka
What a sick forum. Supercitizen protecting the little ones too is itching for some trigger time. They already have justified their acts to themselves and other ones like that with little acronyms and definitions... what a sick bunch of dirty mother****ers.

[Az]

Well... technically speaking, sodomy is a crime in most places. I think you are talking ethicly, though. But it is the same logic that is often used to attack gays... wether you want to believe that morlality is subjective or not.

and the dividing line in the arguments in that case is whether homosexuality is wrong or not, not whether it's ok to just think about it, or not as in here. I think that EVERYONE can agree that acting on it is wrong.

But what if a pedophile doesn't break any crimes. What if giving into the desire doesn't even do so - is it wrong for a 40 year old to be with an 18/16 yearold (whatever the age of consent is)? Granted, if their fetish is strictly pre-pubsecent, I'll agree that there is no way that they can act on it without causing harm - unless perhaps if it's simply a desire to be emotionally close.

Well, you see, you answered your own question. If it doesn't cause any harm, I see nothing wrong with it, the thought of it, or whatever. When it does, however, it's ****ing wrong.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Azazel

Fallacy. The law doesn't care whether it's nature or nurture; its aim is deterrence and security. BTW, some people are more naturally prone to crimes, depending on their natural testosterone levels or brain development (people with a more neurologically active frontal lobe commit less crimes).

Actually, you're attacking a strawman. This never was about nature vs. nurture, but about that fact that non-paedophiles simply don't molest children.

Then why did you have to say this:

Black people aren't naturally more prone to violence.
Paedophiles sure as hell are more prone to **** little children.

You don't realize it, but your use of the word 'prone' implied nature vs. nurture, as you meant it in a mostly psychological and even biological sense.

The fact that an individual is black or white has little impact on the chance he's about to commit a crime.

Yes it does, especially in America. What you are questioning here is the contingency of the conditions- you are assuming that the natural factors of paedophilia are more 'intrinsic' than the social determination of Afro-Americans.

The fact that a person is a paedophile has everything to do about whether he's going to molest a child or not.

True, the chance is much higher. What's the point? Some people molest children and are not paedophiles.

Your escape the statistics, and stating the deterring factor is false, as well. Deterrance doesn't come from statistics, but from the handling of individual cases, and thus we go back to the question: Is there something wrong with paedophiles? I say :yes, they have an urge to commit a very serious crime, and thus need help, if possible.

The aim of justice is basically to deter and to prevent further crimes. Statistical bin-sorting can help with this, but we must question its legitimacy.

In the eyes of the justice, someone is not a paedophile until he has commited a crime. If you take judiciary means to take action before they have been proven guilty, that's acting on one's thoughts. That's a serious precedent, as it enters a realm where the arbitrary in determining which thoughts are acceptable is king. You really want "justice" to consider "crimethoughts"?

[Pekka]

If person dreams about little boys, hey, you know they won't go to jail for that because they are not molesting anyone. They might have some weird thoughts, but no one gets busted for that.

If they decide to act on it, they should get busted and they should get punished for it. How would you even know someone is a pedophile if he only fantasized about it in his own little world? We don't know these people might be everywhere but the key point is they don't act on it and thus they are safe from our prejudice.

[Az]

I guess our disagreement stems from this:

Some people molest children and are not paedophiles.

I wholly disagree with this statement.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Azazel
I guess our disagreement stems from this:

Some people molest children and are not paedophiles.

I wholly disagree with this statement.

It was meant in a non-sexual way. BTW, I don't know why is it that we're discussing. Was your point that we should crack down on the people posting in the forum?

[Az]

Them, yes, certainly.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Azazel

Well, you see, you answered your own question. If it doesn't cause any harm, I see nothing wrong with it, the thought of it, or whatever. When it does, however, it's ****ing wrong.

I was just saying that you may of been painting too broad of brushstrokes, but if you can see the difference, alright. We can agree.


Basically, I'm just wary of the witch-hunt attitude that usually dominates this subject.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Azazel
Actually, you're attacking a strawman. This never was about nature vs. nurture, but about that fact that non-paedophiles simply don't molest children. The fact that an individual is black or white has little impact on the chance he's about to commit a crime. The fact that a person is a paedophile has everything to do about whether he's going to molest a child or not.

But is a paedophile more likely to commit a sexcrime than an adult? Remember, paedophilia is to child molestation what homo/heterosexuality is to rape. If a paedophile is no more likely to attack a child than a man is likely to rape a woman, then whatever it is you're arguing about for paedophiles would equally apply to all men.