>Now, I'm a child of my time, so I think homosexuality is OK, and I think
paedophilia is a crime.
Except paedophilia isn't a crime, child abuse (and rape) is. Assering a sexual
preference (which paedophilia boils down to) is criminal is steering into
thoughtcrime teritory. You can think it's wrong all you want, but that doesn't
make it a crime.
It is, therefore, equally as abhorrent and repulsive to use these methods
against paedophiles as it was using them against homosexuals in the 50s. It
is, indeed, abhorrent and repulsive to ever use them on a human being,
regardless of the reason.
But how will people fifty years hence look onto our debates about whether to
allow people to marry? How will they look onto our treatment of socially not
accepted sexual deviants. Social ousting, sex offenders list, incarceration,
the eroding of free speech in the name of reducing just the chances of
sexually "deviant" activity?
They will be equally as disgusted at this nonsense as we are right now at
the heinous things perpetrated in the 50s. In fact, I am disgusted at it right
now.
I think it says something pretty interesting about our idea of "masculinity" that throwing someone in prison to be raped and beaten for the rest of their life is accepted but turning off their sex drive is "abhorent and repulsive."
> Except paedophilia isn't a crime, child abuse (and rape) is.
The reasoning is similar with the reason why we ban even entry-level drugs: it's insurance, preventing weak people to become criminals about more powerful stuff. The line of thought is that it's ok to deny people freedoms that might lead the poor-minded folks into more damaging behavior.
And be it either:
(1): homosexuals that might escalate to raping other men,
(2): people with weird fetishes that might end up doing child abuse,
(3): or LSD people that might end up as heroin addicts,
we've seen thought the history of time that it's ok to punish otherwise-acceptable behavior as long as it acts as an insurance in order to prevent more harmful acts.
For me, (1) and (2) are the most dangerous as they prohibit the thoughts and sexual desires of human beings just because they might have the potential to turn into something dangerous. It's a form of punishment just because statistically there were specific criminals in the past that escalated them into harmful acts. And as our society progresses, we'll have to decide if it's ok to do that for the greater good: if it's ok to snoop credit card bills for fast food purchases in order to charge a higher medical insurance fee each month. I sure hope that the answer will be no, or at least that nobody will go to jail just as an insurance for his potential future criminal behavior.
>we've seen thought the history of time that it's ok to punish
otherwise-acceptable behavior as long as it acts as an insurance in order to
prevent more harmful acts.
I doubt there's actually any evidence for it. It's not that I don't understand
the rationale behind it, it's that I reject it. Outlawing something merely
because of the potential for abuse/escalation is almost always a slippery
slope argument of the fallacious kind.
"Assering a sexual preference (which paedophilia boils down to) is criminal is steering into thoughtcrime teritory. You can think it's wrong all you want, but that doesn't make it a crime."
So, is rape a sexual preference too? Paedophilia, especially when it involves children under 10, is rape.
Whenever someone defends having sex with young children, it really makes me wonder why....It's just not something you hear from a rational adult.
"t is, therefore, equally as abhorrent and repulsive to use these methods against paedophiles as it was using them against homosexuals in the 50s. It is, indeed, abhorrent and repulsive to ever use them on a human being, regardless of the reason."
Homosexuality is between two consenting adults. We should never have done those terrible things to them.
What would you propose as an alternative to chemical castration? The problem is that for some people, they will continue to have sex with children because they can't stop.
Please don't give me the "rational adult" when you are obviously unable
to differentiate between having a sexual preference and acting on a
sexual preference. I've explicitly stated that child abuse and/or rape
is a crime, and I've never questioned this - though there are some quiet
interesting discussions to be had about age of consent, but this is not
the time and place for them.
For future reference, before you jump on the "but think of the children"
bandwagon, try to actually understand what the person you are accusing of
defending child rape is saying.
Except paedophilia isn't a crime, child abuse (and rape) is. Assering a sexual preference (which paedophilia boils down to) is criminal is steering into thoughtcrime teritory. You can think it's wrong all you want, but that doesn't make it a crime.
It is, therefore, equally as abhorrent and repulsive to use these methods against paedophiles as it was using them against homosexuals in the 50s. It is, indeed, abhorrent and repulsive to ever use them on a human being, regardless of the reason.
But how will people fifty years hence look onto our debates about whether to allow people to marry? How will they look onto our treatment of socially not accepted sexual deviants. Social ousting, sex offenders list, incarceration, the eroding of free speech in the name of reducing just the chances of sexually "deviant" activity?
They will be equally as disgusted at this nonsense as we are right now at the heinous things perpetrated in the 50s. In fact, I am disgusted at it right now.