5 ms·

I guess I'm going to be the guy who objects to someone being called scum just for having a thing for kids and never actually acting on it.

cwillu 4y ago
It's like people think that someone just woke up one day and decided to be that way.
- coldtea 4y ago
  Does it matter? Would a serial killer be any better if "genetics" made them do it? In fact, that would make them more of a beast (as sometimes such people are reffered as), not less. Beast are what they are, they're not what they "chose" to be either... I sure don't agree with unlawful punishment or cruel torment as punishment of course, whatever the crime - as some people think somebody being like that gives them a free ride to kill/torture them. I think those people are also sick, and just finding a convenient widely agreed target for their violent urges...
  - rocqua 4y ago
    Would a serial killer be just as horrible for fantasizing about murders without ever murdering, or helping others murder? Of course not. That doesn't mean they are harmless either. But stigmatizing thoughts to the point where you can't ask for help with the thoughts seems like a recipe for problems.
    - tshaddox 4y ago
      How are we assuming that the whole town knows someone’s thoughts if they never act on them?
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      > be just as horrible I don't get the utility of making ontological statements about people including serial killers. Maybe someone who does find utility in them could chime in and explain it.
      - rocqua 4y ago
        Constructed counter-examples tend to be exaggerated to bring out the inherent contradiction.
    - Thiez 4y ago
      By definition you must murder to be a serial killer, so in that regard they are incomparable to pedophiles, who only require an attraction without acting on it. Interestingly a significant part of sexual abuse of children appears to be committed by people (mostly men) as a crime of opportunity, without them being primarily or exclusively attracted to children.
      - rocqua 4y ago
        That is arguing semantics. The point was about the difference between urges and actions.
    - hutzlibu 4y ago
      "Would a serial killer be just as horrible for fantasizing about murders without ever murdering, or helping others murder? Of course not. " Sure, because they simply would not be serial killers, if they have never killed. So yes, it is important to make the clear distinction between people who have done horrible things and those, who have fantasies about it and not mix them all together. Part of what makes us human is impulse control. I might feel the urge to beat someone - but only if I would let that part of myself go, then there is a real problem as then something happened. With pedophiles it is of course a bit more tricky. Would you let someone close to your kids, if you knew they have fantasies about sex with them, but so far he has showed restraint? "But stigmatizing thoughts to the point where you can't ask for help with the thoughts seems like a recipe for problems." Yes, there was the famous incident, where one pilot decided to suicide himself and the whole plane with him. Smart populistic politicians reacted by saying they need a new law that says psychotherapists who treat pilots, must inform the authorities when the pilot has dark thoughts. Awesome way to hinder people from getting therapy as they could never open up if they know it might lead to their job being taken away. Therapies must be and remain confidential to have a chance of working.
    - coldtea 4y ago
      >Would a serial killer be just as horrible for fantasizing about murders without ever murdering, or helping others murder? No, but nobody said it would be "just as". It would still be creepy as hell though, if one did it all the time. And you never know until they're dead themselves if they'll pass into action either. Sure, this is the case with people not fantasizing about murders too -- they can still commit murder. But fantasizing makes it sound quite more likely. It's also one of the creepiest ways for someone to think of you (as their fantasy murder victim)...
      - Hizonner 4y ago
        Your use of "any better" has the same semantic content as the use of "just as" would have had.
        coldtea 4y ago
        Nope. "Any better" was used in the context of the question whether being an X person who does X because genetics is better than being an X person who does X by choice. To which I replied that it's not "any better" (both result in many people being murdered horrifically). "Just as" was used in the context of the question whether fantasizing about X is "just as" bad as doing X. To which I replied that it's not "just as bad", but it's still a bad/creepy thing. So not the same "semantic content" at all given the context.
      - rocqua 4y ago
        I believe I replied to a wrong interpretation of your comment. I thought your point was the people who only think about it are just as bad as people who act. Instead, uppon rereading, I think your point was that "they can't help it, they were born that way" isn't an excuse. I agree there, though the footnote should be that people who "can't help but feel that way" shouldn't be so demonized for just their thoughts that they can't ask for help.
  - cwillu 4y ago
    “some people think somebody being like that gives them a free ride to kill/torture them” is exactly why it matters.
coldtea 4y ago
Well, having such a constant "thing" in your thoughts qualifies I think. Actions matter more, but thoughts matter too. I means that's how you see other people. And that they'd might even just act on it if it wasn't for law and repercursions! Now, a normal person sure can e.g. in anger have a momentary revenge fantasy of killing somebody thats being a jerk, but that's not the same I'd say as a constant urge for something like that. Then it's part of personality.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  The important question here I think is: is it under the person's control. If it's not (and it seems plausible to me that it's not as other more normal sexual preferences like homosexuality and heterosexuality are to a large degree not) then they can hardly be held responsible for it. If someone is unlucky enough to be born attracted to children and they control themselves such that they don't act on those urges then I'd consider that quite admirable.
  - noduerme 4y ago
    I'm not sure this holds up logically. If someone can't control something, then the "admirable" quality of controlling it would be impossible. If they do control it (admirably) then it's by definition under the person's control. If what you mean is that the desire is not under their control but refraining from acting upon it is, then is it admirable for someone to repress their homosexuality in, say, Iran? Or is that just a matter of survival? In that case, don't we say it's admirable for someone to have the courage to be themselves in the face of enormous risk, and that repressing individual sexuality is a violation of human rights? The difference, of course, being that homosexuality doesn't imply non-consensual acts; no one is hurt by it. It could be that some pedophiles refrain from molesting children because some internal moral standard tells them it would hurt the child, but it seems more likely that they only refrain when and where they could get into trouble for it. Just looking at what an outlier "teens under 18" is on that chart... it's as popularly a fetish as "lips" or "thighs" (Y-axis), but it sits way out in the taboo area near bestiality. That's gotta be because it's illegal. Almost everything right of 70% is illegal, and its position correlates roughly to "how illegal is it".
imiric 4y ago
To lighten the mood, Mark Normand has a great bit about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vwdmZFBJvA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vwdmZFBJvA That entire special[1] is side-splittingly funny. One of my favorite comedians. Comedy! [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDolNU89SXI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDolNU89SXI

cwillu 4y ago

It's like people think that someone just woke up one day and decided to be that way.

coldtea 4y ago
Does it matter? Would a serial killer be any better if "genetics" made them do it? In fact, that would make them more of a beast (as sometimes such people are reffered as), not less. Beast are what they are, they're not what they "chose" to be either... I sure don't agree with unlawful punishment or cruel torment as punishment of course, whatever the crime - as some people think somebody being like that gives them a free ride to kill/torture them. I think those people are also sick, and just finding a convenient widely agreed target for their violent urges...
- rocqua 4y ago
  Would a serial killer be just as horrible for fantasizing about murders without ever murdering, or helping others murder? Of course not. That doesn't mean they are harmless either. But stigmatizing thoughts to the point where you can't ask for help with the thoughts seems like a recipe for problems.
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    How are we assuming that the whole town knows someone’s thoughts if they never act on them?
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    > be just as horrible I don't get the utility of making ontological statements about people including serial killers. Maybe someone who does find utility in them could chime in and explain it.
    - rocqua 4y ago
      Constructed counter-examples tend to be exaggerated to bring out the inherent contradiction.
  - Thiez 4y ago
    By definition you must murder to be a serial killer, so in that regard they are incomparable to pedophiles, who only require an attraction without acting on it. Interestingly a significant part of sexual abuse of children appears to be committed by people (mostly men) as a crime of opportunity, without them being primarily or exclusively attracted to children.
    - rocqua 4y ago
      That is arguing semantics. The point was about the difference between urges and actions.
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    "Would a serial killer be just as horrible for fantasizing about murders without ever murdering, or helping others murder? Of course not. " Sure, because they simply would not be serial killers, if they have never killed. So yes, it is important to make the clear distinction between people who have done horrible things and those, who have fantasies about it and not mix them all together. Part of what makes us human is impulse control. I might feel the urge to beat someone - but only if I would let that part of myself go, then there is a real problem as then something happened. With pedophiles it is of course a bit more tricky. Would you let someone close to your kids, if you knew they have fantasies about sex with them, but so far he has showed restraint? "But stigmatizing thoughts to the point where you can't ask for help with the thoughts seems like a recipe for problems." Yes, there was the famous incident, where one pilot decided to suicide himself and the whole plane with him. Smart populistic politicians reacted by saying they need a new law that says psychotherapists who treat pilots, must inform the authorities when the pilot has dark thoughts. Awesome way to hinder people from getting therapy as they could never open up if they know it might lead to their job being taken away. Therapies must be and remain confidential to have a chance of working.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    >Would a serial killer be just as horrible for fantasizing about murders without ever murdering, or helping others murder? No, but nobody said it would be "just as". It would still be creepy as hell though, if one did it all the time. And you never know until they're dead themselves if they'll pass into action either. Sure, this is the case with people not fantasizing about murders too -- they can still commit murder. But fantasizing makes it sound quite more likely. It's also one of the creepiest ways for someone to think of you (as their fantasy murder victim)...
    - Hizonner 4y ago
      Your use of "any better" has the same semantic content as the use of "just as" would have had.
      - coldtea 4y ago
        Nope. "Any better" was used in the context of the question whether being an X person who does X because genetics is better than being an X person who does X by choice. To which I replied that it's not "any better" (both result in many people being murdered horrifically). "Just as" was used in the context of the question whether fantasizing about X is "just as" bad as doing X. To which I replied that it's not "just as bad", but it's still a bad/creepy thing. So not the same "semantic content" at all given the context.
    - rocqua 4y ago
      I believe I replied to a wrong interpretation of your comment. I thought your point was the people who only think about it are just as bad as people who act. Instead, uppon rereading, I think your point was that "they can't help it, they were born that way" isn't an excuse. I agree there, though the footnote should be that people who "can't help but feel that way" shouldn't be so demonized for just their thoughts that they can't ask for help.
- cwillu 4y ago
  “some people think somebody being like that gives them a free ride to kill/torture them” is exactly why it matters.

coldtea 4y ago

Well, having such a constant "thing" in your thoughts qualifies I think. Actions matter more, but thoughts matter too. I means that's how you see other people. And that they'd might even just act on it if it wasn't for law and repercursions! Now, a normal person sure can e.g. in anger have a momentary revenge fantasy of killing somebody thats being a jerk, but that's not the same I'd say as a constant urge for something like that. Then it's part of personality.

nicoburns 4y ago
The important question here I think is: is it under the person's control. If it's not (and it seems plausible to me that it's not as other more normal sexual preferences like homosexuality and heterosexuality are to a large degree not) then they can hardly be held responsible for it. If someone is unlucky enough to be born attracted to children and they control themselves such that they don't act on those urges then I'd consider that quite admirable.
- noduerme 4y ago
  I'm not sure this holds up logically. If someone can't control something, then the "admirable" quality of controlling it would be impossible. If they do control it (admirably) then it's by definition under the person's control. If what you mean is that the desire is not under their control but refraining from acting upon it is, then is it admirable for someone to repress their homosexuality in, say, Iran? Or is that just a matter of survival? In that case, don't we say it's admirable for someone to have the courage to be themselves in the face of enormous risk, and that repressing individual sexuality is a violation of human rights? The difference, of course, being that homosexuality doesn't imply non-consensual acts; no one is hurt by it. It could be that some pedophiles refrain from molesting children because some internal moral standard tells them it would hurt the child, but it seems more likely that they only refrain when and where they could get into trouble for it. Just looking at what an outlier "teens under 18" is on that chart... it's as popularly a fetish as "lips" or "thighs" (Y-axis), but it sits way out in the taboo area near bestiality. That's gotta be because it's illegal. Almost everything right of 70% is illegal, and its position correlates roughly to "how illegal is it".

imiric 4y ago

To lighten the mood, Mark Normand has a great bit about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vwdmZFBJvA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vwdmZFBJvA That entire special[1] is side-splittingly funny. One of my favorite comedians. Comedy! [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDolNU89SXI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDolNU89SXI