All pedophiles should recieve Death Penalty or Life sentences, End Of Story...

[QUOTE="Dracula68"]

[QUOTE="dracula_16"]

murder is worse than a sexual crime.

When you have kids come back and try and post that.

I have a 5 year old child and I agree with him completely. Why? Because the saying is "justice is blind" not "justice is emotionally swayed." Which is also why if theoretically I killed someone because they sexually assaulted my son. I should be given NO special treatment when on trial for murder.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="Dracula68"]

When you have kids come back and try and post that.

Neither buit if either had happened the person that did it will die by my hand and I will go to jail and if ruled to die so be it. It's my child I am talking about not some stranger.

Then may you never be the victim from the actions of a pedophile. I was abused by a pedophile, it was used as punishment on me because I was born within a family that had little to no money. I wouldn't be surprised if the ones calling for pedophiles to be treated kindly and be set free to continue harming children and/or killing children tend to live in a fantasy world where such vile monsters can reform. Take the rose tinted glasses off and see the real world, pedophiles are monsters that will never reform. They can't be helped and they can't be made to control their lusts, the only 'cure' for such creatures is to be put down before they can endanger more children. The justice system as it is is a pathetic joke where those who commit crimes are either given a light slap on the wrist and set free or given luxeries and treated like royalty because they've 'been naughty' and didn't mean to do what they've done. All that kind of action has done is encourage more crime and those who commit crimes to keep offending because they know full well that they will get away with it instead of facing a fitting deterrant that is fitting to their crimes. And when it comes ot pedophiles then a fitting deterrant is to put them down like the rapid animals they are before they can destroy another young life, or end another young life. Human rights are all well and good, but why should those who break the law be granted such rights when they have violated the rights of others? Doesn't a child have the right to be a child and not a sex toy? Doesn't a child have the right to enjoy their short window of innocence before becoming an adult? Or do human rights only apply to those who rob children of their lives in not only death? I don't condone an eye for an eye, I don't like the whole concept of killing, but speaking as a victim of sexual and mental abuse at the hands of a pedophile when I was a child then I have no mercy and no compassion for such vile creatures that prey on children and rob them of their short window of innocence. There is no excuse that can condone the actions of someone who preys on children just to suit their sexual urges.Smokescreened84

Tragic your experience may be, it doesn't some how give you a greater understanding of things.. Its why the victim is never given the decision to decide what the punishment is goign to be.. And same goes for you, take off the rose tinted glasses and look at countries like Saudi Arabia.. Afterall they use your type of "justice" quite well.. Your solution is only creating a GREATER evil with a tyranical government, one that you clearly don't know the purpose of criminal trials for.. They are not just to decide punishment but guilt as well.. What your suggesting is you would want people executed on suspicion alone.. No sane person wants to live in a society like that.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]Quite right. Some crimes are so heinous that their perpetrators don't deserve a trial.Frame_Dragger

so you're fine with people being punished before their guilt has been established? Jesus Christ some of you people scare me.

Yeah, you feel that way, but you need to consider how your child is going to cope with sexual abuse AND having his/her parent in prison. I have no doubt that you mean what you're saying, but if your kid is harmed it isn't about you, but your kid; it's your job to be there for him/her... not seek revenge outside of the law, which then takes you away from your child hurting him/her further. THAT is another reason why justice is not carried out and determined by the victims.Frame_Dragger

I understand what you're saying but I know me and I wouldn't be able to act or think rationally if that ever happened.

We already know how Lex Talionis goes... it's endless. It creates a world in which the people most injured never did a damned thing. Your child is raped, so you kill the rapist. Well, he's dead now, but his family who did nothing wrong still mourns that loss. You killed their child, so by that logic they should probably be hunting you. And so on. And so on.

Justice and law is not about satisfaction for victims, the family of victims, or anything else. Justice is about protecting SOCIETY, not individuals. I'm not saying that I wouldn't try to kill someone who raped or killed a family member of mine... I probably would. That is however, why there is a justice system which keeps me away from that individual. That's at least part of the damned point.

It seems based on the best information available that people who are anti-social personalities (Sociopaths/Psychopaths/ASPD), violent sex offenders, and pedophiles who molest children are in some way mentally ill. It ALSO appears that current psychology, medicine, and science cannot treat these people. That may require a new way of classifying people within our justice system, so that child molesters, sociopaths, serial rapists and the like DO recieve life in prison. That's a matter for legislation however, based on REASON, and the rule of law that makes our society what it is, instead of the damned Code of Hammurabi.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]Yeah, you feel that way, but you need to consider how your child is going to cope with sexual abuse AND having his/her parent in prison. I have no doubt that you mean what you're saying, but if your kid is harmed it isn't about you, but your kid; it's your job to be there for him/her... not seek revenge outside of the law, which then takes you away from your child hurting him/her further. THAT is another reason why justice is not carried out and determined by the victims.Dracula68

I understand what you're saying but I know me and I wouldn't be able to act or think rationally if that ever happened.

Pedophiles get no sympathy from me.

If they harm a child, KILL THEM.

It's not even about deterrent, punishment or revenge - it's about making sure they don't repeat their acts on someone else.

If my child was harmed by a pedophile, I'd want thatperson removed from this planet so they don't hurt my child again or anyone else's child.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]Studies have shown that only 2% of pedophiles actually ever abuse children themselves (the study I'm referring to looked at people who had been incarcerated for child porn possession and/or distribution) and that even when children are abused they're mentally healthy by the time they enter college (the study did find some mental problems in people who had been sexually abused as kids, but they said there was no way to determine if that was due to abuse or an infinite number of other factors, and thus they were essentially as healthy as anyone else). So people have blown pedophilia and its effects WAY out of proportion, and the fact that so many people have these ridiculous fantasies about the matter (such as the idea that sexually abused kids sit in a chair drooling on themselves for the rest of their lives or are liable to collapse while ordering a cheeseburger at McDonald's screaming "no daddy not there!") is probably why we get people like OP and counter-productive laws like public sex offender registries. That last one, btw, is what causes stories like OP's to happen. For some reason the public never seems to think through the ramifications of putting a guy who's known to have a sexual inclination for kids on a list that effectively bars him from ever having employment, ever having a house/apartment, and which subjects him to constant harassment from bored teenagers or paranoid parents who visited a sex offender registry website. In other words, what do you think is going to happen when that person no longer has anything to live for and can't be tracked by the police (because he's homeless and is thus off the grid)? And when it's better to be on trial and go to jail for murder than for rape, what do you think they're going to do to their victims when they're finished? Anyway, if you want to stop child sex abuse, the best course of action is to start dumping money into psychological and neuroscientific research on pedophilia (rather than sociological and criminological research which is where virtually all of the research done on the matter thus far is) so we can come up with a working treatment (for the record, neither physical or chemical castration do anything to stop sex offenders). In the meantime, it would be more productive to society to re-open criminal psychiatric wards where we would place anyone convicted of a sex crime, drug possession (I really hope I don't have to explain the rationale for this one), and whoever successfully uses the insanity plea. Hell, considering the amount of prisoners with mental disorders perhaps we should just give up the idea of punitive criminal justice system altogether and instead just turn prisons into mental hospitals.gameguy6700

Why did you put "merely" in quotes as if I said that? Go back and read my post, I never said anything along those lines. And yes, I'd say that a person who engages in a passive fulfillment of their fantasies (ie viewing pornography) is far less of a risk to society than a person who actively engages in sexual acts with children.

Anyway, I can't remember the name of the study. This MIGHT be it, but I don't know because I can't read it since I no longer attend college and thus don't have access to all the journal subscriptions I used to have:

http://sax.sagepub.com/content/23/2/212.short

Unfortunately this is the problem you run into with academic journals. Even if I did know the exact article you still wouldn't get to see more than the abstract without a subscription or forking over $30-50 for the paper. Regardless, the study I'm referring to is a pretty well known one and gets cited a lot in these types of discussions. It's not a statistic I'm pulling out of my ass.

Hmm, maybe, I just find the claim that victims of sexual child abuse generally are mentally healthy to be incredible, everything I've read or watched concerning paedophilia suggests that vicitms are deeply troubled in later life and sometimes find it hard to form and maintain healthy relationships with others.MetalGear_Ninty

Same here. I've never met someone who was molested who had a healthy outlook on relationships or had zero issues growing into adulthood.

I understand what you're saying but I know me and I wouldn't be able to act or think rationally if that ever happened.Dracula68

I don't think anyone in that situation would think or act rationally. I know for certain I would not, and I am afraid of what I would do if something like that happened to a niece, nephew, or my godson. I couldn't, I am certain, act normally and they aren't even my children, and I believe I would as a result forfeit my own future while in that state.

But that's why we don't give people in a compromised position like that the right to make judgements on the situation (outside of immediate issues of self-defense).

It's not as black or white as that. There are reasons and degrees of severity to take into consideration. Also, what is your definition of a pedophile? Anyone who has sex with someone under the legal age of 18? So you agree to that men who had sex with 16 year olds who lied saying they were 18 should serve a life sentence? JustPlainLucas

Agree with this all the way. The media has made the term pedophile refer to any sexual act between a legal adult and a minor, when it really does not apply.

Agree with this all the way. The media has made the term pedophile refer to any sexual act between a legal adult and a minor, when it really does not apply.mmmwksil

Actually, I think the law has made that the case.

[QUOTE="mmmwksil"]Agree with this all the way. The media has made the term pedophile refer to any sexual act between a legal adult and a minor, when it really does not apply.m0zart

Actually, I think the law has made that the case.

You mean the letter of law defines pedophilia as any sexual act between a legal adult and a minor?

What happens to the original, scientific definition? :?

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="mmmwksil"]Agree with this all the way. The media has made the term pedophile refer to any sexual act between a legal adult and a minor, when it really does not apply.mmmwksil

Actually, I think the law has made that the case.

You mean the letter of law defines pedophilia as any sexual act between a legal adult and a minor?

What happens to the original, scientific definition? :?

I'm saying that the legal precedents and laws over the years have led to such portrayals, including media portrayals. It didn't start off with an attempt to expand the definition of pedophilia, but with an attempt to protect minors. Over time, more and more restrictions are made, mainly believe it or not just to make it easier to get a conviction, and the result is that our definitions begin to expand. The media isn't the sole cause of it. And though I blame our legal system in most cases, even they are only responding to a mob mentality outcry.

Good intentions don't always end in the best results.

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="mmmwksil"]Agree with this all the way. The media has made the term pedophile refer to any sexual act between a legal adult and a minor, when it really does not apply.mmmwksil

Actually, I think the law has made that the case.

You mean the letter of law defines pedophilia as any sexual act between a legal adult and a minor?

What happens to the original, scientific definition? :?

Yeah, I don't think that's the case. I've never heard of an 18 year-old who had sex with a 16 year-old being charged with anything other than statutory rape. Unfortunately though a lot of people do seem to think that pedophilia is the sexual attraction to anyone under the legal age of consent. If that were the case then pretty much we'd all be pedophiles. I doubt you'll find a red-blooded male out there who's head hasn't been turned by the sight of a well developed 16 year-old.

[QUOTE="keech"]

[QUOTE="Dracula68"]

When you have kids come back and try and post that.

Frame_Dragger

I have a 5 year old child and I agree with him completely. Why? Because the saying is "justice is blind" not "justice is emotionally swayed." Which is also why if theoretically I killed someone because they sexually assaulted my son. I should be given NO special treatment when on trial for murder.

It doesn't "fly in the face" of most research. I have a background in neuroscience and pedophilia happens to be my primary interest. I know what I'm talking about. I suspect you, however, do not because you said "clinical research" which consists of research regarding TREATEMENTS. What I'm talking about is basic science, not clinical science.

As for CP, yes, the production of CP is obviously horrible. Viewing it, however, does not victimize anyone because the abuse already happened. Even if no one ever viewed it, that would not change the fact that the kid was still abused. If you want to argue that it somehow does further hurt the child, then you must also think that viewing videos of people being murdered, robbed, or otherwise victimized should also be illegal and in the case of murder should also carry the same penalties as CP posession (seeing as how both murder and child rape net similar sentences it would make sense that viewing the crimes in videos and pictures would also carry the similar sentences as one another). And before you try to claim that viewing CP creates a demand for it, I'll point out that commercial CP does not exist. Almost all of it is amatuer stuff created by people who want to show-off their sexual exploits or who just get more sexual kicks from making and sharing the stuff. Even if it became impossible for CP to get shared people would STILL be making it. If you want a source for that and logic isn't enough for you (how could CP get sold when it's so illegal and money trails would make it trivial to find perpetrators) there's a good article up on wikileaks about it.

I'm saying that the legal precedents and laws over the years have led to such portrayals, including media portrayals. It didn't start off with an attempt to expand the definition of pedophilia, but with an attempt to protect minors. Over time, more and more restrictions are made, mainly believe it or not just to make it easier to get a conviction, and the result is that our definitions begin to expand. The media isn't the sole cause of it. And though I blame our legal system in most cases, even they are only responding to a mob mentality outcry.

Good intentions don't always end in the best results.

m0zart

The broader the definition, the more room the system has to paint someone as a criminal. And these days, it seems like the legal system thrives on this.

Yeah, I don't think that's the case. I've never heard of an 18 year-old who had sex with a 16 year-old being charged with anything other than statutory rape. Unfortunately though a lot of people do seem to think that pedophilia is the sexual attraction to anyone under the legal age of consent. If that were the case then pretty much we'd all be pedophiles. I doubt you'll find a red-blooded male out there who's head hasn't been turned by the sight of a well developed 16 year-old.

worlock77

That's what I was getting at. You say "pedophile", people think anyone under the age of consent, which isn't the case.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Hmm, maybe, I just find the claim that victims of sexual child abuse generally are mentally healthy to be incredible, everything I've read or watched concerning paedophilia suggests that vicitms are deeply troubled in later life and sometimes find it hard to form and maintain healthy relationships with others.m0zart

Same here. I've never met someone who was molested who had a healthy outlook on relationships or had zero issues growing into adulthood.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="keech"]

I have a 5 year old child and I agree with him completely. Why? Because the saying is "justice is blind" not "justice is emotionally swayed." Which is also why if theoretically I killed someone because they sexually assaulted my son. I should be given NO special treatment when on trial for murder.

It doesn't "fly in the face" of most research. I have a background in neuroscience and pedophilia happens to be my primary interest. I know what I'm talking about. I suspect you, however, do not because you said "clinical research" which consists of research regarding TREATEMENTS. What I'm talking about is basic science, not clinical science.

As for CP, yes, the production of CP is obviously horrible. Viewing it, however, does not victimize anyone because the abuse already happened. Even if no one ever viewed it, that would not change the fact that the kid was still abused. If you want to argue that it somehow does further hurt the child, then you must also think that viewing videos of people being murdered, robbed, or otherwise victimized should also be illegal and in the case of murder should also carry the same penalties as CP posession (seeing as how both murder and child rape net similar sentences it would make sense that viewing the crimes in videos and pictures would also carry the similar sentences as one another). And before you try to claim that viewing CP creates a demand for it, I'll point out that commercial CP does not exist. Almost all of it is amatuer stuff created by people who want to show-off their sexual exploits or who just get more sexual kicks from making and sharing the stuff. Even if it became impossible for CP to get shared people would STILL be making it. If you want a source for that and logic isn't enough for you (how could CP get sold when it's so illegal and money trails would make it trivial to find perpetrators) there's a good article up on wikileaks about it.

Hmm, maybe, I just find the claim that victims of sexual child abuse generally are mentally healthy to be incredible, everything I've read or watched concerning paedophilia suggests that vicitms are deeply troubled in later life and sometimes find it hard to form and maintain healthy relationships with others.MetalGear_Ninty

Same here. I've never met someone who was molested who had a healthy outlook on relationships or had zero issues growing into adulthood.

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Hmm, maybe, I just find the claim that victims of sexual child abuse generally are mentally healthy to be incredible, everything I've read or watched concerning paedophilia suggests that vicitms are deeply troubled in later life and sometimes find it hard to form and maintain healthy relationships with others.gameguy6700

Same here. I've never met someone who was molested who had a healthy outlook on relationships or had zero issues growing into adulthood.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="m0zart"]

Same here. I've never met someone who was molested who had a healthy outlook on relationships or had zero issues growing into adulthood.

Frame_Dragger

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] That's why there is a justice system, and not angry mobs in charge of trials and law. Lex Talionis is nobody's idea of a good time, or the framework for a functional modern world. @gameguy6700: You're going to need to remember the names of those studies, because that flies in the face of most clinical research. I'd add, viewing child pornograpy is only possible because the pornography was created through the abuse of children... how is that innocuous? Frame_Dragger

It doesn't "fly in the face" of most research. I have a background in neuroscience and pedophilia happens to be my primary interest. I know what I'm talking about. I suspect you, however, do not because you said "clinical research" which consists of research regarding TREATEMENTS. What I'm talking about is basic science, not clinical science.

As for CP, yes, the production of CP is obviously horrible. Viewing it, however, does not victimize anyone because the abuse already happened. Even if no one ever viewed it, that would not change the fact that the kid was still abused. If you want to argue that it somehow does further hurt the child, then you must also think that viewing videos of people being murdered, robbed, or otherwise victimized should also be illegal and in the case of murder should also carry the same penalties as CP posession (seeing as how both murder and child rape net similar sentences it would make sense that viewing the crimes in videos and pictures would also carry the similar sentences as one another). And before you try to claim that viewing CP creates a demand for it, I'll point out that commercial CP does not exist. Almost all of it is amatuer stuff created by people who want to show-off their sexual exploits or who just get more sexual kicks from making and sharing the stuff. Even if it became impossible for CP to get shared people would STILL be making it. If you want a source for that and logic isn't enough for you (how could CP get sold when it's so illegal and money trails would make it trivial to find perpetrators) there's a good article up on wikileaks about it.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="m0zart"]

Same here. I've never met someone who was molested who had a healthy outlook on relationships or had zero issues growing into adulthood.

Frame_Dragger

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="m0zart"]

Same here. I've never met someone who was molested who had a healthy outlook on relationships or had zero issues growing into adulthood.

MetalGear_Ninty

I'm tired of perverts being let out of prisions because of "good behavior" or being put into "rehabiltaion centers" and then being let out on the streets to hurt more people. I was reading an article in my newspaper about a man who raped and molested 11 children getting out of prision in Rhode Island on the grounds that he was "rehabilitated" and had "good behavior" in prision. This REALLY makes me angry, like you have NO idea!

I don't live in Rhode Island but if I did I can gurantee you that this guy would be in the obiturarys. The ONLY two forms of punishment these creeps should get is either the death penalty or life in prison with NO exceptions. Who's idea is it to let these people out anyway? I would like to have a personal and private talk with them....

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"] The study I'm referring to there is actually a very famous one published in the late 90s. Or perhaps I should say "infamous" because the only reason it's famous is because it's used by behavioral scientists as the go-to example of why certain scientific topics can be metaphorical minefields thanks to the general public. Reason being that the study in question was published in a very reputable journal and the scientific community didn't really bat an eye. However, when NAMBLA decided to post the study on their website it caused a media uproar that eventually resulted in Congress issuing an official statement of condemnation against the authors of the study and the journal that published it. The journal then issued an apology (to cover their asses) and said that they would try to publish articles with different viewpoints on every topic from then on. You can find it here: http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0033-2909.124.1.22MetalGear_Ninty

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"] The study I'm referring to there is actually a very famous one published in the late 90s. Or perhaps I should say "infamous" because the only reason it's famous is because it's used by behavioral scientists as the go-to example of why certain scientific topics can be metaphorical minefields thanks to the general public. Reason being that the study in question was published in a very reputable journal and the scientific community didn't really bat an eye. However, when NAMBLA decided to post the study on their website it caused a media uproar that eventually resulted in Congress issuing an official statement of condemnation against the authors of the study and the journal that published it. The journal then issued an apology (to cover their asses) and said that they would try to publish articles with different viewpoints on every topic from then on. You can find it here: http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0033-2909.124.1.22gameguy6700

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Oooooone last point... Psychology is not a science, does not conform to the scientific method, and is not open to falsification in its definitions in the way science must be. It is variably, an art, a codification of ideas, and many other things, but not a science. This shouldn't be taken as denigration of it, which it isn't, but in the same way that science shouldn't be confused with philosophy, where it becomes metaphysics, so psychology shouldn't be confused with a science. It is, in its structure and practice, far more like law. Neurology as a subset of biology is a science, but it's rare to see neurology that's used in the service of psychological theory conforming to scientific standards in the conclusions drawn.Frame_Dragger

You're also the one who's been throwing most of the insults here, which is why I find it funny that you're the one complaining about ad homs when you can't even seem to go a sentence without making one.

Anyway, since you're so damn tenacious about this, I did another search and turned up the paper. I take it you're now satisfied, or are you going to now come up with another excuse as to why you're not pleased ("it's psychology!", "it's only one study", etc)?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19602221

And actually it turns out I was wrong. The percentage of CP possessors that went on to sexually abuse a child themselves wasn't 2%, it was 0.8%.

edit: Also it appears you're in luck, this is one of the rare articles that actually has a free version available online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716325/?tool=pubmed

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"] Yeah, okay, now you've shown that you have no understanding of what you're talking about. "Psychology doesn't conform to the scientific method". If you honestly believe that you either know nothing about psychology or you know nothing about the scientific method. Or both. Also neurology is a field of medicine, not science. You meant neuroscience, but even then you'd be wrong about that being a subset of biology. It's its own thing and more accurately described as a mix of biology and psychology. Like I said, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

gameguy6700

You're also the one who's been throwing most of the insults here, which is why I find it funny that you're the one complaining about ad homs when you can't even seem to go a sentence without making one.

Anyway, since you're so damn tenacious about this, I did another search and turned up the paper. I take it you're now satisfied, or are you going to now come up with another excuse as to why you're not pleased ("it's psychology!", "it's only one study", etc)?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19602221

And actually it turns out I was wrong. The percentage of CP possessors that went on to sexually abuse a child themselves wasn't 2%, it was 0.8%.

edit: Also it appears you're in luck, this is one of the rare articles that actually has a free version available online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716325/?tool=pubmed

EDIT: Wait... this is a study describing the risk of abuse posed by men partaking of child pornography, determining if that is a valid indicator of risk for abuse. What the hell does this have to do with either of your claims, or my point about the market for CP?! My claim regarding CP is that it would exist in isolation among those who produce it via "hands on" abuse were there no larger market forit, not that viewing it is some magical indicator of future or past abuse. I'm having a deep and profound What the "fudge" moment here... I thought you were really offering something.

Child pornography, like child prostitution represents a market in the economic sense; the presence of a larger market demands greater quantities and varieties of a product. That has NOTHING to do with whether or not the majority consumer is himself involved in abuse of children; he contributes by being a member of the market which creates the demand. I made that point VERY clearly, so how do you see this as in any way a valid response?!

Edit 2: By the way, you seem to think that because I don't believe Psychology is a science, I think it's somehow "less" than a science. I don't, which is why I made it clear I wasn't dengrating the field when I made the original comment. It's a matter of definition and partition, and it's no more a denegration than saying that Quantum Mechanics isn't Philsophy. I would NEVER (and really this shows how little you know about me) say, "it's only Psychology". I WOULD say it's only one study, although that's pointless since: 1.) I AGREE with it, and 2.) It has NOTHING to do with the subject of our disagreement!

Everyone gets so damned defensive when you point out what does and doesn't follow scientific principles to the point needed to bea science. Psychology is soft, but that doesn't make it bad or useless. Why would I call it a "body of knowledge", and an "art" if I held it in low esteem?

So a paedophile that may have done nothing wrong should receive the death penalty or a life sentence?

Most pedophiles aren't murdering those they harm. They are messed up to be sure but they suffer from a serious psychological problems. Punish them with the death penalty or life in prison is a little over kill don't you think?ferrari2001

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] So far your two arguments are ad hominem, and appeal to your authority. I truly don't care who you are, or what you do, and if you're interested in anything like an honest argument/debate then you shouldn't be concerned with who I am or what I do. I honestly do believe that psychology as a body doesn't conform to the scientific method, unless you like your science done by committee and softer than velvet. You're right that neurology is the medical application of Neuroscience, I stand corrected, however it is all still a subset of biology if you want to in any way ascribe to a meaningful and even semi-soft science. To be frank, you owe virtually all scientific elements of neurology to advances in physics which allowed imaging to take you beyond gross anatomy and before that, such "science" as phrenology. Unlike you, I don't claim to be a neurologist, or psychologist... in fact unlike you I recognize that making claims about my own expertise or lack thereof isn't pertinent. Still, build yourself up as much as you feel you must, but unless you want to bring something beyond that one pathetic study and Wikipedia links to the table give it up. You're a neurologist, yes? Surely you must at least have access to some decent citations, so lay them on me. Don't assume that if they're pay-to-view I won't have access. Lay off the fallacious crap and cite in the fashion you MUST have been taught at some point in your vaunted education... the rest is dross and not worth anyone's time. Frame_Dragger

You're also the one who's been throwing most of the insults here, which is why I find it funny that you're the one complaining about ad homs when you can't even seem to go a sentence without making one.

Anyway, since you're so damn tenacious about this, I did another search and turned up the paper. I take it you're now satisfied, or are you going to now come up with another excuse as to why you're not pleased ("it's psychology!", "it's only one study", etc)?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19602221

And actually it turns out I was wrong. The percentage of CP possessors that went on to sexually abuse a child themselves wasn't 2%, it was 0.8%.

edit: Also it appears you're in luck, this is one of the rare articles that actually has a free version available online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716325/?tool=pubmed

EDIT: Wait... this is a study describing the risk of abuse posed by men partaking of child pornography, determining if that is a valid indicator of risk for abuse. What the hell does this have to do with either of your claims, or my point about the market for CP?! My claim regarding CP is that it would exist in isolation among those who produce it via "hands on" abuse were there no larger market forit, not that viewing it is some magical indicator of future or past abuse. I'm having a deep and profound What the "fudge" moment here... I thought you were really offering something.

Child pornography, like child prostitution represents a market in the economic sense; the presence of a larger market demands greater quantities and varieties of a product. That has NOTHING to do with whether or not the majority consumer is himself involved in abuse of children; he contributes by being a member of the market which creates the demand. I made that point VERY clearly, so how do you see this as in any way a valid response?!

Edit 2: By the way, you seem to think that because I don't believe Psychology is a science, I think it's somehow "less" than a science. I don't, which is why I made it clear I wasn't dengrating the field when I made the original comment. It's a matter of definition and partition, and it's no more a denegration than saying that Quantum Mechanics isn't Philsophy. I would NEVER (and really this shows how little you know about me) say, "it's only Psychology". I WOULD say it's only one study, although that's pointless since: 1.) I AGREE with it, and 2.) It has NOTHING to do with the subject of our disagreement!

Everyone gets so damned defensive when you point out what does and doesn't follow scientific principles to the point needed to bea science. Psychology is soft, but that doesn't make it bad or useless. Why would I call it a "body of knowledge", and an "art" if I held it in low esteem?

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"] I've made ad hominems? They're only ad homs if they're not accurate statements of the truth. You do not know what you are talking about. You think psychology isn't a science, which indicates you don't know much about it. You keep getting neurology and neuroscience mixed up (and in your latest post you did it again right after you claimed to have to gotten a handle on it) which, again, shows you don't know anything about the two disciplines. You keep getting clinical and basic research mixed up, again showing you ignorance on the most basic of concepts. You think physics is responsible for all the advances in neuroscience, when in reality most of the progress is the result of staining procedures and brain imaging studies are often criticized for being uninterpretable. And yes, a claim to authority is relevant when talking about scientific matters and therefore not a fallacy. Would you believe a homeopathist over a physicist when it comes to discussions of theoretical physics?

You're also the one who's been throwing most of the insults here, which is why I find it funny that you're the one complaining about ad homs when you can't even seem to go a sentence without making one.

Anyway, since you're so damn tenacious about this, I did another search and turned up the paper. I take it you're now satisfied, or are you going to now come up with another excuse as to why you're not pleased ("it's psychology!", "it's only one study", etc)?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19602221

And actually it turns out I was wrong. The percentage of CP possessors that went on to sexually abuse a child themselves wasn't 2%, it was 0.8%.

edit: Also it appears you're in luck, this is one of the rare articles that actually has a free version available online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716325/?tool=pubmed

EDIT: Wait... this is a study describing the risk of abuse posed by men partaking of child pornography, determining if that is a valid indicator of risk for abuse. What the hell does this have to do with either of your claims, or my point about the market for CP?! My claim regarding CP is that it would exist in isolation among those who produce it via "hands on" abuse were there no larger market forit, not that viewing it is some magical indicator of future or past abuse. I'm having a deep and profound What the "fudge" moment here... I thought you were really offering something.

Child pornography, like child prostitution represents a market in the economic sense; the presence of a larger market demands greater quantities and varieties of a product. That has NOTHING to do with whether or not the majority consumer is himself involved in abuse of children; he contributes by being a member of the market which creates the demand. I made that point VERY clearly, so how do you see this as in any way a valid response?!

Edit 2: By the way, you seem to think that because I don't believe Psychology is a science, I think it's somehow "less" than a science. I don't, which is why I made it clear I wasn't dengrating the field when I made the original comment. It's a matter of definition and partition, and it's no more a denegration than saying that Quantum Mechanics isn't Philsophy. I would NEVER (and really this shows how little you know about me) say, "it's only Psychology". I WOULD say it's only one study, although that's pointless since: 1.) I AGREE with it, and 2.) It has NOTHING to do with the subject of our disagreement!

Everyone gets so damned defensive when you point out what does and doesn't follow scientific principles to the point needed to bea science. Psychology is soft, but that doesn't make it bad or useless. Why would I call it a "body of knowledge", and an "art" if I held it in low esteem?

As for pornography, I didn't claim that actually viewing it causes some mystical harm, but the market for it causes it to be made. In any market you can look at any one person and deny any personal responsiblity, but without the market as a whole it would not exist. If you're part of the market, you're part of the problem. While it's true that individual molesters would document their acts for their later enjoyment, the distribuiton of that material would NOT occur in the absence of that market.Frame_Dragger

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Ahhhh the study!!! Now we're getting somewhere past your ad hominem... and it is ad hominem. Really, you can say a thing over and over, but it doesn't become true by your will alone. This includes what I do and don't know, and from my point of view, whether you have the credentials you claim and if that matters. I'm going to do a bit of research to offer evidence in opposition to your claim and study... lets see how this stacks up. After all, tenacity in the service of going beyond vague claims when it comes to how we believe pedophiles should be treated is hardly a bad quality IMO.

EDIT: Wait... this is a study describing the risk of abuse posed by men partaking of child pornography, determining if that is a valid indicator of risk for abuse. What the hell does this have to do with either of your claims, or my point about the market for CP?! My claim regarding CP is that it would exist in isolation among those who produce it via "hands on" abuse were there no larger market forit, not that viewing it is some magical indicator of future or past abuse. I'm having a deep and profound What the "fudge" moment here... I thought you were really offering something.

Child pornography, like child prostitution represents a market in the economic sense; the presence of a larger market demands greater quantities and varieties of a product. That has NOTHING to do with whether or not the majority consumer is himself involved in abuse of children; he contributes by being a member of the market which creates the demand. I made that point VERY clearly, so how do you see this as in any way a valid response?!

Edit 2: By the way, you seem to think that because I don't believe Psychology is a science, I think it's somehow "less" than a science. I don't, which is why I made it clear I wasn't dengrating the field when I made the original comment. It's a matter of definition and partition, and it's no more a denegration than saying that Quantum Mechanics isn't Philsophy. I would NEVER (and really this shows how little you know about me) say, "it's only Psychology". I WOULD say it's only one study, although that's pointless since: 1.) I AGREE with it, and 2.) It has NOTHING to do with the subject of our disagreement!

Everyone gets so damned defensive when you point out what does and doesn't follow scientific principles to the point needed to bea science. Psychology is soft, but that doesn't make it bad or useless. Why would I call it a "body of knowledge", and an "art" if I held it in low esteem?

Frame_Dragger

As for pornography, I didn't claim that actually viewing it causes some mystical harm, but the market for it causes it to be made. In any market you can look at any one person and deny any personal responsiblity, but without the market as a whole it would not exist. If you're part of the market, you're part of the problem. While it's true that individual molesters would document their acts for their later enjoyment, the distribuiton of that material would NOT occur in the absence of that market.Frame_Dragger

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"] Dude, WTF, you originally asked for the study that I used to say that only 2% of pedophiles convicted for CP go on to actually abuse children. Go back and look at your earlier posts. That's what I thought this whole thing was about, you only started to bring up the CP market thing in later posts. If you wanted a source for the claim that CP isn't sold but rather traded around much like pirated movies and MP3s, there's no shortage of sources for that. I already told you about the wikileaks article (and which I would link right now but wikileaks is currently undergoing maintenance so I can't access it), but you'll find that this isn't a terribly well guarded secret. I would grab other sources for that but I don't want my internet history to be filled with searches like "how do people obtain child porn". Call me paranoid. You could also go to "that site" and make a topic asking people if CP is sold or not. You'll get a lot of replies pretty quickly from people who will freely admit they're pedophiles who have collections of CP sitting on their HDDs and they'll tell you exactly how they got it.gameguy6700

As for pornography, I didn't claim that actually viewing it causes some mystical harm, but the market for it causes it to be made. In any market you can look at any one person and deny any personal responsiblity, but without the market as a whole it would not exist. If you're part of the market, you're part of the problem. While it's true that individual molesters would document their acts for their later enjoyment, the distribuiton of that material would NOT occur in the absence of that market.Frame_Dragger

How you prioritize the various potential goals of incarceration is a matter of personal opinion. There is no objective answer. There may be trends one way or another in different states or countries, but that's about it.Elraptor

[QUOTE="dracula_16"]

murder is worse than a sexual crime.

Dracula68

When you have kids come back and try and post that.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] So far your two arguments are ad hominem, and appeal to your authority. I truly don't care who you are, or what you do, and if you're interested in anything like an honest argument/debate then you shouldn't be concerned with who I am or what I do. I honestly do believe that psychology as a body doesn't conform to the scientific method, unless you like your science done by committee and softer than velvet. You're right that neurology is the medical application of Neuroscience, I stand corrected, however it is all still a subset of biology if you want to in any way ascribe to a meaningful and even semi-soft science. To be frank, you owe virtually all scientific elements of neurology to advances in physics which allowed imaging to take you beyond gross anatomy and before that, such "science" as phrenology. Unlike you, I don't claim to be a neurologist, or psychologist... in fact unlike you I recognize that making claims about my own expertise or lack thereof isn't pertinent. Still, build yourself up as much as you feel you must, but unless you want to bring something beyond that one pathetic study and Wikipedia links to the table give it up. You're a neurologist, yes? Surely you must at least have access to some decent citations, so lay them on me. Don't assume that if they're pay-to-view I won't have access. Lay off the fallacious crap and cite in the fashion you MUST have been taught at some point in your vaunted education... the rest is dross and not worth anyone's time. Frame_Dragger

You're also the one who's been throwing most of the insults here, which is why I find it funny that you're the one complaining about ad homs when you can't even seem to go a sentence without making one.

Anyway, since you're so damn tenacious about this, I did another search and turned up the paper. I take it you're now satisfied, or are you going to now come up with another excuse as to why you're not pleased ("it's psychology!", "it's only one study", etc)?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19602221

And actually it turns out I was wrong. The percentage of CP possessors that went on to sexually abuse a child themselves wasn't 2%, it was 0.8%.

edit: Also it appears you're in luck, this is one of the rare articles that actually has a free version available online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716325/?tool=pubmed

EDIT: Wait... this is a study describing the risk of abuse posed by men partaking of child pornography, determining if that is a valid indicator of risk for abuse. What the hell does this have to do with either of your claims, or my point about the market for CP?! My claim regarding CP is that it would exist in isolation among those who produce it via "hands on" abuse were there no larger market forit, not that viewing it is some magical indicator of future or past abuse. I'm having a deep and profound What the "fudge" moment here... I thought you were really offering something.

Child pornography, like child prostitution represents a market in the economic sense; the presence of a larger market demands greater quantities and varieties of a product. That has NOTHING to do with whether or not the majority consumer is himself involved in abuse of children; he contributes by being a member of the market which creates the demand. I made that point VERY clearly, so how do you see this as in any way a valid response?!

Edit 2: By the way, you seem to think that because I don't believe Psychology is a science, I think it's somehow "less" than a science. I don't, which is why I made it clear I wasn't dengrating the field when I made the original comment. It's a matter of definition and partition, and it's no more a denegration than saying that Quantum Mechanics isn't Philsophy. I would NEVER (and really this shows how little you know about me) say, "it's only Psychology". I WOULD say it's only one study, although that's pointless since: 1.) I AGREE with it, and 2.) It has NOTHING to do with the subject of our disagreement!

Everyone gets so damned defensive when you point out what does and doesn't follow scientific principles to the point needed to bea science. Psychology is soft, but that doesn't make it bad or useless. Why would I call it a "body of knowledge", and an "art" if I held it in low esteem?

But Psychology is a science, regardless of whether or not what you believe it to be. :?

I couldn't disagree with you more on this subject, and that is all good sir.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"] I've made ad hominems? They're only ad homs if they're not accurate statements of the truth. You do not know what you are talking about. You think psychology isn't a science, which indicates you don't know much about it. You keep getting neurology and neuroscience mixed up (and in your latest post you did it again right after you claimed to have to gotten a handle on it) which, again, shows you don't know anything about the two disciplines. You keep getting clinical and basic research mixed up, again showing you ignorance on the most basic of concepts. You think physics is responsible for all the advances in neuroscience, when in reality most of the progress is the result of staining procedures and brain imaging studies are often criticized for being uninterpretable. And yes, a claim to authority is relevant when talking about scientific matters and therefore not a fallacy. Would you believe a homeopathist over a physicist when it comes to discussions of theoretical physics?

You're also the one who's been throwing most of the insults here, which is why I find it funny that you're the one complaining about ad homs when you can't even seem to go a sentence without making one.

Anyway, since you're so damn tenacious about this, I did another search and turned up the paper. I take it you're now satisfied, or are you going to now come up with another excuse as to why you're not pleased ("it's psychology!", "it's only one study", etc)?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19602221

And actually it turns out I was wrong. The percentage of CP possessors that went on to sexually abuse a child themselves wasn't 2%, it was 0.8%.

edit: Also it appears you're in luck, this is one of the rare articles that actually has a free version available online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716325/?tool=pubmed

EDIT: Wait... this is a study describing the risk of abuse posed by men partaking of child pornography, determining if that is a valid indicator of risk for abuse. What the hell does this have to do with either of your claims, or my point about the market for CP?! My claim regarding CP is that it would exist in isolation among those who produce it via "hands on" abuse were there no larger market forit, not that viewing it is some magical indicator of future or past abuse. I'm having a deep and profound What the "fudge" moment here... I thought you were really offering something.

Child pornography, like child prostitution represents a market in the economic sense; the presence of a larger market demands greater quantities and varieties of a product. That has NOTHING to do with whether or not the majority consumer is himself involved in abuse of children; he contributes by being a member of the market which creates the demand. I made that point VERY clearly, so how do you see this as in any way a valid response?!

Edit 2: By the way, you seem to think that because I don't believe Psychology is a science, I think it's somehow "less" than a science. I don't, which is why I made it clear I wasn't dengrating the field when I made the original comment. It's a matter of definition and partition, and it's no more a denegration than saying that Quantum Mechanics isn't Philsophy. I would NEVER (and really this shows how little you know about me) say, "it's only Psychology". I WOULD say it's only one study, although that's pointless since: 1.) I AGREE with it, and 2.) It has NOTHING to do with the subject of our disagreement!

Everyone gets so damned defensive when you point out what does and doesn't follow scientific principles to the point needed to bea science. Psychology is soft, but that doesn't make it bad or useless. Why would I call it a "body of knowledge", and an "art" if I held it in low esteem?

But Psychology is a science, regardless of whether or not what you believe it to be. :?