Originally posted by Gofunk
Most in the media perhaps.
Actually according to statistics (which i've been desperately trying to find and failed) more men are convicted of paedophilia offenses in the UK than women.
Originally posted by Gofunk
If you don't want me to be condescending don't apply your experiences and prosperity as a rule of thumb for all people. I have no tolerance for ignorance.
Oh dear an assumption, firstly the only way to get through this world is to apply your experiences, they make your judgement clearer for the most part. As for my prosperity, well you are way off. I currently cannot work due t illness, how prosporous is that? Don't assume things you have no idea about.
Originally posted by Gofunk
Like I said, try looking outside of your social class. Although I would argue that bad parenting exists across all classes, it seems people from more prosperous backgrounds seem more ignorant to the fact.
More assumptions, what is my social class exactly? I think you've just got some isues regarding class that you need to lose. There are good and bad parents accross all classes, i disagree that properous people are more ignorant to the fact.
Originally posted by Gofunk
I am not a parent, for the very reason that I understand the importance of establishing a stable and advantageous environment before I give in to instinct. I have experience of bad parenting and I have experience of good parenting. I would argue that the reason the parents you speak to find being a good parent difficult is because they have kids when they aren't ready. Parenting will always have it's obstacles and difficulties, but being a good parent has nothing to do with how difficult children can be.
Well we'll have to agree to disagree i guess.
Originally posted by Gofunk
What people say isn't important, it's what they think and feel that's important.
Yes i believe that's exactly what i was saying.
Originally posted by Gofunk
Which is clearly something that needs to be dealt with, because they weren't doing something wrong.
Yes but because of the nature of the crime and the fact that the child at the time coudln't understand it they thought they were doing something wrong. This is why chlidren need protecting, the majority simply don't understand what sex is, even if you explained it to them they couldn't comprehend the emotions involved and so they get harmed.
Originally posted by Gofunk
People who rely on what's said have no business in mental welfare.
I didn't say i was talking about mental health professionals. I was talking abot parents, teachers or anyone else that asks if the child is ok. You can't expect everyone to be a mind reader.
Originally posted by Gofunk
I know exactly what you meant. I'm simply stating Law is not a measure of right or wrong. Law can be a measure of correctness in relation to society's norms, but it will never define what is right and wrong, therefore the use of the words 'right' or 'wrong' in relation to law is incorrect unless the discussion is about the morality of the law itself.
Yes the law is a reaction to societies norms, so the law dictates what is right and wrong according to that societies norms. The law in a good, healthy, democractic system is a reflection of what the public feels is correct in that day and age.
So yes the law can be used as a yard stick for what is right and wrong with some minor exceptions.
Originally posted by GoFunk
The lack of comprehension in this case is not mine. As I have clearly stated repeatedly in previous posts, I make no implication that paedophilia itself can be rehabilitated. I don't believe it needs to be. It is a person's will to harm others that (in general) can be rehabilitated.
That's the thing though, paedophiles always seem to reoffend. There is the odd one that doesn't but in my opinion it is a gross mistake to take the chance.
Originally posted by GoFunk
Just as psychology makes the distinction that paedophilia is not a mental disorder so long as it does not impact a person's ability to function socially and does not cause the person distress, the law must make distinction that paedophilia is not a crime so long as a person does not behave in ways that brings harm or suffering to others.
Would you rape a woman simply because you are attracted to her?
I think i have stated several times that paedophiles should be left alone to live free until they actually touch a child in any sexual way. If someone has these thoughts and never acts upon them then i have no issue with that person (although they do make me feel quite ill that they have such thoughts). The thing is we only hear about paedophiles when they have commited an offense.
Originally posted by GoFunk
Most people show lack of restraint or self-control at some point during their lives, just as most people have the capacity to learn from their mistakes and improve their behaviour for the benefit of others. Granted there are exceptions, but that is exactly the reason why I believe sentencing should be specific to each individual case.
Understanding a person's ability to learn from their mistakes and improve their behaviour is an important part of modern law.
Absolutely it's part of modern law, but in this case the ideal doesn't fit. You are talking about people like burglars who can be shown what they are doing is harmful. Or someone who attacks someone randomly, this is out of character for that person usually and so they can be shown the error of their ways.
Paedophiles have a drive that once given into is even easier to give into again. It's like a dog that bites you, once it's bitten it's best to have it put down because it's more likely to do it again. Before you havea go at me for comparing a paedophile to an animal please remember this is just an example that once someone has done something they are more likely to do it again.
A burglar can be given a job to get their money from elsewhere once they see the error of their ways, a paedophile can only get children and harm them.
Originally posted by GoFunk
I disagree, sure I'm an idealist but I also understand the importance of innovation. I base my beliefs on things I can see a solution to. Simply because you are incapable of finding a solution does not mean others can't. Reform and progress through out history has generally come from those who are willing to look at things from an alternative angle, unless you're willing to give up all the benefits you are afforded from progression, please don't discriminate against those who strive for progress. Or should we all just give up because our predecessors were less competent?
I find it ironic that a person quoting Aristotle is discriminating against philosophical thought.
When did i say i was against philosohical thought? I just don't agree with you, that is part of a debate, i can completely disagree with your philosophy if i find it doesn't fit what i believe.
I am not incapable of finding a solution i simply have looked at the facts and decided there is no solution, you are an idealist and although i admire that i don't think this is an ideal that will suceed. If you had noticed i have repeatedly said we shouldn't arrest paedophiles simply for thinking their thoughts, this in itself is looking at it from a different angle becuase most people wouldn't even give them that.
There was a brain scan recently shown to be able to tell if someone became aroused whilst looking at a picture of a chld. Some people wanted anyone aroused by a child to be imprisoned immediately, but i defended anyone who was merely aroused because you cannot be arrested for thought criime.
I am not descriminating, i am disagreeing with you.
[edit on 8-3-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]
