5 ms·

Pedophilia is, sadly, far from being just a scare.

Hondor 10y ago
Pedophilia is a sexuality. Some people are just that way inclined. Don't confuse child abuse with sexuality the way people used to do about gays. That's extremely harmful to actual pedophiles who may have done nothing wrong. It's not even classified as a disease unless it causes problems for the person afflicted with it.
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  I wouldn't be so quick to claim they're doing nothing wrong. Every year, rhinos in Africa are threatened by poachers in Africa who want their horns for the black market in China. Every person who buys rhino horn in Africa, every person who is in a position to fight the unnecessary consumption of endangered animals and doesn't, is complicit in the destruction of their species. You don't get a pass because you aren't the one who actually killed the rhinos, or abused the children. Those rhinos wouldn't have gotten killed, those children wouldn't have gotten abused, if the demand weren't there. You don't get a pass because you "needed" rhino horn, or because you have a non-standard sexuality. The only socially-acceptable response to your needs is to not contribute to the exploitation of others.
  - corin_ 10y ago
    The person you are replying to wasn't saying that paedophiles who look at child porn aren't doing anything wrong. If he was, your rhino analogy would be a good one, and is the reason nearly everyone agrees that child porn should be illegal even if you are only viewing it. But he was saying that a being attracted to children is in itself not doing anything wrong. Plenty of paedophiles don't look at child porn, do anything to children, or negatively affect children in any way. The rhino equivilent would be if you wanted to use rhino horn but because you know it would be wrong to, you never do use it. Not only are you not the one shooting the rhino, you're not creating demand for shooting rhinos either.
    - vinceguidry 10y ago
      > But he was saying that a being attracted to children is in itself not doing anything wrong. > The rhino equivilent would be if you wanted to use rhino horn but because you know it would be wrong to, you never do use it. I would argue that both of these things are wrong, though not as wrong as actually acting on the desires. I don't think there should be any legal consequences for the thoughts in your head, but the social stigma and pressure to change those thoughts is very much needed and is a useful social tool for protecting vulnerable classes. Let's introduce another analogy. Racism is wrong, if you think racist thoughts, even if you never act on them, then you are contributing to the denigration and subjugation of people of color. The only socially-acceptable response to having racist thoughts is to work to change those thoughts. Paedophilia may be sexuality, and yes, it was wrong to demonize homosexuality, but unless you're arguing that one day we'll look at paedophilia the same way, then you can't put them in the same boat morally. Celibacy is an acceptable response to paedophilic sexuality, but a better one is to stop being a paedophile. Sex therapists exist, it is something you can work on. It's worth it to at least try.
      - Retric 10y ago
        It's really important to separate what someone thinks from what someone does. Having violent thoughts about people is very common, acting on them far less so. Someone who reads sick fiction and or looks at man made images is hardly harming anyone. I mean Vorarephilia is also a thing, and they can get off watching monster movies. But, there are very few actual cannibals out there. At best you could make a comment based on reproductive success in our culture. But, I have trouble going from there to paying to lock people up.
        vinceguidry 10y ago
        > It's really important to separate what someone thinks from what someone does. I agree. That's why I said that people shouldn't be subjected to legal consequences for their thoughts. They should definitely not be morally absolved. > Having violent thoughts about people is very common, acting on them far less so. I would argue that a person that looks at paedophilic content is arguably being violent themselves. If you went to a ancient Roman gladiator arena and eagerly watched the bloodsport, or to a current-day dogfighting event as a spectator, then you are participating in the violence, even if you aren't actually conducting any of it. What separates bloodsport from horror movies is that in movies, nobody is actually getting hurt. There is definitely a relative aspect to right and wrong, and we all have ways in which we are wrong. It's important to recognize what is wrong and what is right, and to work to become more right over time.
  - Programmatic 10y ago
    1) Are you advancing the argument that abuse of children is an economic response to demand, and not that the perpetrator wanted to do it in the first place? 2) How does this argument explain the illegality of drawings depicting underage sex with none of the depictions being based on a real-life individual? Somewhat unrelated (I'm not trying to set up a straw man here), I believe that it's more consistent to believe that society finds paedophilia to be disgusting and that due to their disgust that paedophiles should be jailed. I believe that this is due to the conflation of thoughts with actions, and the belief that someone with those thoughts will always be prone to action. It's a somewhat risky viewpoint to espouse that "paedophilia in and of itself should not be illegal, abuse of a victim should" given the fervor of the people against paedophilia, but I think it is more congruent with a living in a free society. It's a shame that anyone suggesting nuance there is usually then associated with paedophiles in the mind of the person hearing the argument.
    - vinceguidry 10y ago
      > Are you advancing the argument that abuse of children is an economic response to demand, and not that the perpetrator wanted to do it in the first place? There is abuse of children, then there's the act of making recordings of it for others to consume. The latter certainly functions on a demand curve, as it takes more work to produce something than it is to just do it. > How does this argument explain the illegality of drawings depicting underage sex with none of the depictions being based on a real-life individual? There probably isn't much rationality to it. Legislation is more of a political process than a rational one. > I believe that it's more consistent to believe that society finds paedophilia to be disgusting and that due to their disgust that paedophiles should be jailed. I would agree with that assessment. But there's also a shocking amount of truly, unbearably horrific content in the world. Disgust may not be the most rational basis to make something illegal on, but it's better than nothing. Laws are intended to be iterated on over time, a more nuanced view will eventually prevail, though it might take decades. > It's a somewhat risky viewpoint to espouse that "paedophilia in and of itself should not be illegal, abuse of a victim should" given the fervor of the people against paedophilia, but I think it is more congruent with a living in a free society. Paedophilia is not illegal. It's child abuse and possession of child pornography that's illegal. You can't convict someone of being a paedophile, there's no law against it.
  - mindslight 10y ago
    More like 3D printed replicas of rhino horns being illegal, because they're shaped like poached horns. You've implied that there are perfectly normal people who choose a career in child abuse for the money. This subject is yet another instance of society's moral panic "war on X", collateral damage be damned. I mean, who cares about the absurdity of persecuting possession of information, those people are fucking revolting!
  - userulluipeste 10y ago
    Personally, I'm all for fighting pedophilia and every other form of child abuse, but this: "every person who is in a position to fight the unnecessary consumption of [your condemned choice] and doesn't, is complicit in the destruction of [whatever]" is a nasty fallacy that should be stopped on the spot every single time! Otherwise there is no limit to the liabilities under which anyone can be subdued!

Pedophilia is a sexuality. Some people are just that way inclined. Don't confuse child abuse with sexuality the way people used to do about gays. That's extremely harmful to actual pedophiles who may have done nothing wrong. It's not even classified as a disease unless it causes problems for the person afflicted with it.

vinceguidry 10y ago
I wouldn't be so quick to claim they're doing nothing wrong. Every year, rhinos in Africa are threatened by poachers in Africa who want their horns for the black market in China. Every person who buys rhino horn in Africa, every person who is in a position to fight the unnecessary consumption of endangered animals and doesn't, is complicit in the destruction of their species. You don't get a pass because you aren't the one who actually killed the rhinos, or abused the children. Those rhinos wouldn't have gotten killed, those children wouldn't have gotten abused, if the demand weren't there. You don't get a pass because you "needed" rhino horn, or because you have a non-standard sexuality. The only socially-acceptable response to your needs is to not contribute to the exploitation of others.
- corin_ 10y ago
  The person you are replying to wasn't saying that paedophiles who look at child porn aren't doing anything wrong. If he was, your rhino analogy would be a good one, and is the reason nearly everyone agrees that child porn should be illegal even if you are only viewing it. But he was saying that a being attracted to children is in itself not doing anything wrong. Plenty of paedophiles don't look at child porn, do anything to children, or negatively affect children in any way. The rhino equivilent would be if you wanted to use rhino horn but because you know it would be wrong to, you never do use it. Not only are you not the one shooting the rhino, you're not creating demand for shooting rhinos either.
  - vinceguidry 10y ago
    > But he was saying that a being attracted to children is in itself not doing anything wrong. > The rhino equivilent would be if you wanted to use rhino horn but because you know it would be wrong to, you never do use it. I would argue that both of these things are wrong, though not as wrong as actually acting on the desires. I don't think there should be any legal consequences for the thoughts in your head, but the social stigma and pressure to change those thoughts is very much needed and is a useful social tool for protecting vulnerable classes. Let's introduce another analogy. Racism is wrong, if you think racist thoughts, even if you never act on them, then you are contributing to the denigration and subjugation of people of color. The only socially-acceptable response to having racist thoughts is to work to change those thoughts. Paedophilia may be sexuality, and yes, it was wrong to demonize homosexuality, but unless you're arguing that one day we'll look at paedophilia the same way, then you can't put them in the same boat morally. Celibacy is an acceptable response to paedophilic sexuality, but a better one is to stop being a paedophile. Sex therapists exist, it is something you can work on. It's worth it to at least try.
    - Retric 10y ago
      It's really important to separate what someone thinks from what someone does. Having violent thoughts about people is very common, acting on them far less so. Someone who reads sick fiction and or looks at man made images is hardly harming anyone. I mean Vorarephilia is also a thing, and they can get off watching monster movies. But, there are very few actual cannibals out there. At best you could make a comment based on reproductive success in our culture. But, I have trouble going from there to paying to lock people up.
      - vinceguidry 10y ago
        > It's really important to separate what someone thinks from what someone does. I agree. That's why I said that people shouldn't be subjected to legal consequences for their thoughts. They should definitely not be morally absolved. > Having violent thoughts about people is very common, acting on them far less so. I would argue that a person that looks at paedophilic content is arguably being violent themselves. If you went to a ancient Roman gladiator arena and eagerly watched the bloodsport, or to a current-day dogfighting event as a spectator, then you are participating in the violence, even if you aren't actually conducting any of it. What separates bloodsport from horror movies is that in movies, nobody is actually getting hurt. There is definitely a relative aspect to right and wrong, and we all have ways in which we are wrong. It's important to recognize what is wrong and what is right, and to work to become more right over time.
- Programmatic 10y ago
  1) Are you advancing the argument that abuse of children is an economic response to demand, and not that the perpetrator wanted to do it in the first place? 2) How does this argument explain the illegality of drawings depicting underage sex with none of the depictions being based on a real-life individual? Somewhat unrelated (I'm not trying to set up a straw man here), I believe that it's more consistent to believe that society finds paedophilia to be disgusting and that due to their disgust that paedophiles should be jailed. I believe that this is due to the conflation of thoughts with actions, and the belief that someone with those thoughts will always be prone to action. It's a somewhat risky viewpoint to espouse that "paedophilia in and of itself should not be illegal, abuse of a victim should" given the fervor of the people against paedophilia, but I think it is more congruent with a living in a free society. It's a shame that anyone suggesting nuance there is usually then associated with paedophiles in the mind of the person hearing the argument.
  - vinceguidry 10y ago
    > Are you advancing the argument that abuse of children is an economic response to demand, and not that the perpetrator wanted to do it in the first place? There is abuse of children, then there's the act of making recordings of it for others to consume. The latter certainly functions on a demand curve, as it takes more work to produce something than it is to just do it. > How does this argument explain the illegality of drawings depicting underage sex with none of the depictions being based on a real-life individual? There probably isn't much rationality to it. Legislation is more of a political process than a rational one. > I believe that it's more consistent to believe that society finds paedophilia to be disgusting and that due to their disgust that paedophiles should be jailed. I would agree with that assessment. But there's also a shocking amount of truly, unbearably horrific content in the world. Disgust may not be the most rational basis to make something illegal on, but it's better than nothing. Laws are intended to be iterated on over time, a more nuanced view will eventually prevail, though it might take decades. > It's a somewhat risky viewpoint to espouse that "paedophilia in and of itself should not be illegal, abuse of a victim should" given the fervor of the people against paedophilia, but I think it is more congruent with a living in a free society. Paedophilia is not illegal. It's child abuse and possession of child pornography that's illegal. You can't convict someone of being a paedophile, there's no law against it.
- mindslight 10y ago
  More like 3D printed replicas of rhino horns being illegal, because they're shaped like poached horns. You've implied that there are perfectly normal people who choose a career in child abuse for the money. This subject is yet another instance of society's moral panic "war on X", collateral damage be damned. I mean, who cares about the absurdity of persecuting possession of information, those people are fucking revolting!
- userulluipeste 10y ago
  Personally, I'm all for fighting pedophilia and every other form of child abuse, but this: "every person who is in a position to fight the unnecessary consumption of [your condemned choice] and doesn't, is complicit in the destruction of [whatever]" is a nasty fallacy that should be stopped on the spot every single time! Otherwise there is no limit to the liabilities under which anyone can be subdued!