The Law Should we be punished for evil desires?

[FireKrakouer]

Who was that?

Take a guess

 

[Kram]

Take a guess

It's ok don't worry, he would only do it to 'educate' kids.

 

[Gough]

It's ok don't worry, he would only do it to 'educate' them.

pr0n is not real life and like it or not kids have access to it in a way that was never there in pre internet days. Personally I think you'd be better off watching some with them, as excruciating as it would be for all concerned and try explain that what they see on the screen is most likely to be not what they experience. You're welcome to make it as mucky as you like and living rent free in your head as I am I'm sure you'd like to imply that there's something here that there isn't.

 

[Kram]

There's a simple test here, go down to the local police station and tell them about what you are proposing you would do with children and see what their response is.

 

[FireKrakouer]

There's a simple test here, go down to the local police station and tell them about what you are proposing you would do with children and see what their response is.

I think they'd consider it "grooming" rather than "educating".

A decent parent would restrict a child's internet access. If the child sees something X rated elsewhere, maybe on a friend's phone or something, that's when you educate. You don't go out of your way to watch it with them.

 

[Evolved1]

Grey area for mine. If/when child sex dolls can be shown to decrease or increase rates of sexual abuse, I'll change my view.

 

[FireKrakouer]

Grey area for mine. If/when child sex dolls can be shown to decrease or increase rates of sexual abuse, I'll change my view.

That's not an ethical way to conduct research. If they hypothetically DO increase rates of child abuse, would you be ok if it was one of your loved ones who was abused in order to run this study?

The only decent option is to encourage paedos to seek medical help regarding their desires, and banning such horrid products.

 

[Evolved1]

That's not an ethical way to conduct research. If they hypothetically DO increase rates of child abuse, would you be ok if it was one of your loved ones who was abused in order to run this study?

The only decent option is to encourage paedos to seek medical help regarding their desires, and banning such horrid products.

Prohibition is rarely an effective strategy.

Presumably we have the same goal of reducing child sex abuse. I honestly don't care what strategy is used if it can be shown to work.

 

[Seeds]

There have been studies on Violent video games, and no link has been found between them and murder.

i hate to agree with religious republicans But there have been numerous studies of violent video games and they overwhelmingly find they do lead to increased violence amongst those with a higher propensity to anger. Sometimes broken clocks are right.

this however does not mean violent video games should be banned. Just like sex dolls should not be banned.

 

[Seeds]

Prohibition is rarely an effective strategy.

Presumably we have the same goal of reducing child sex abuse. I honestly don't care what strategy is used if it can be shown to work.

I have one very effective strategy. every man is judged by a panel of 10 women every 2 years and given a ranking of creepy or not creepy By each woman on the panel. If 3 of the 10 vote creepy then we chop the mans penis off.

this will stop 95 percent of child sex abuse. We should implement this shouldn’t we?

 

[Seeds]

Coke is free.

I think Chief is on the money when it comes to the impetus to buy a doll being far closer to the threshold of actually assaulting a child than not.

But close is not enough. You have to cross the threshold, or at least attempt to cross it, to be punished for it.

 

[Chief]

I have one very effective strategy. every man is judged by a panel of 10 women every 2 years and given a ranking of creepy or not creepy By each woman on the panel. If 3 of the 10 vote creepy then we chop the mans penis off.

this will stop 95 percent of child sex abuse. We should implement this shouldn’t we?

 

[Chief]

But close is not enough.

With paedos, I think it’s enough.

 

[Seeds]

That's not an ethical way to conduct research. If they hypothetically DO increase rates of child abuse, would you be ok if it was one of your loved ones who was abused in order to run this study?

The only decent option is to encourage paedos to seek medical help regarding their desires, and banning such horrid products.

This is a very anti libertarian pro socialist view you are adopting.

are we not indivduals who have free will and are responsible for our own actions Or are we robots completely driven by external stimuli?

i think we are a bit of both. you seem to have flip flopped here and are now assuming we are nothing but robots. It’s the dolls that make us commit sexual assault. Not our own will.

 

[Seeds]

With paedos, I think it’s enough.

But you miss the point of what not close enough is. Not close enough means they aren’t necessarily paedos. You cant condemn them as if they were if they Are not. That’s a dangerous slippeet slope. It violates the democratic concept of innocent before proven guilty.

 

[Chief]

But you miss the point of what not close enough is. Not close enough means they aren’t necessarily paedos.

If you’re buying a life like child sex doll for your gratification, you’re a paedo.

 

[Evolved1]

I have one very effective strategy. every man is judged by a panel of 10 women every 2 years and given a ranking of creepy or not creepy By each woman on the panel. If 3 of the 10 vote creepy then we chop the mans penis off.

this will stop 95 percent of child sex abuse. We should implement this shouldn’t we?

That's a no from me.

 

[Seeds]

If you’re buying a life like child sex doll for your gratification, you’re a paedo.

Technically correct. But only acting on your paedo desires should Be a crime.

desiring children alone should not be a crime As it does not harm children. Only acting, or attempting to act on those desires should be a crime.

why do you believe a state should punish people? I believe in the harm principle as the primary basis for state intervention. If there is no harm?

 

[JW2468]

It's ok don't worry, he would only do it to 'educate' kids.

Educate. FMD. Doing that would be nothing short of an introductory course. Sounds extremely creepy.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Educate. FMD. Doing that would be nothing short of an introductory course. Sounds extremely creepy.

Yeah, this is my thought. I can see what Seeds is saying in that sex with a doll is less harmful than sex with an actual child and that channeling such desires through an inanimate object might initially lead to less offences against children. But you're dead right. Such a doll might end up being nothing but an introductory course. A doll just doesn't react like a human does and so what if an unfeeling and unresponsive child sex doll is no longer enough for what was until then a non-offending paedophile? Their thoughts and actions towards a child-sized doll would be 'normalised' by this stage and a child passing in the supermarket or on the street might just tempt them into an escalation of behaviour.

 

[Power Raid]

Child sex dolls? Of course they should be illegal.

if someone has these desires they need to seek mental help, not feed the desires.

Many paedophiles have admitted that the turning point for them was using images, cartoons and other paraphernalia. It was just the path towards acting out their fantasies on kids.

No we shouldn’t normalise these acts. We should provide treatment and monitoring.

I hear you but this is what we once said about gays

 

[Power Raid]

Yeah, this is my thought. I can see what Seeds is saying in that sex with a doll is less harmful than sex with an actual child and that channeling such desires through an inanimate object might initially lead to less offences against children. But you're dead right. Such a doll might end up being nothing but an introductory course. A doll just doesn't react like a human does and so what if an unfeeling and unresponsive child sex doll is no longer enough for what was until then a non-offending paedophile? Their thoughts and actions towards a child-sized doll would be 'normalised' by this stage and a child passing in the supermarket or on the street might just tempt them into an escalation of behaviour.

I don't mind legal input into a process, to enforce medical assistance in a situation like this

however we don't lock up people for serial killers, based on trends of escalating violence inline with serial killers (or other crimes)

do we lock up people for blow up sheep?

 

[Power Raid]

Technically correct. But only acting on your paedo desires should Be a crime.

desiring children alone should not be a crime As it does not harm children. Only acting, or attempting to act on those desires should be a crime.

why do you believe a state should punish people? I believe in the harm principle as the primary basis for state intervention. If there is no harm?

1 out of 10 people have pedo instincts

our jails would be full if this was a crime alone

 

[Chief]

I hear you but this is what we once said about gays

Consensual sex between adults is not sex with children, though.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

1 out of 10 people have pedo instincts

Where is that stat from?