How should people who have paedophilic thoughts be dealt with?

[Shadoukun]

If a person admits to having or is known to have a sexual attraction to children but hasn't committed a crime, should they be punished in some form? Would you go about preventing their possible crimes?

[Cloud]

force them to get help to ensure that they don't commit the crime
safest way of handling it thats still allowing rights really

[Shadoukun]

force them to get help to ensure that they don't commit the crime
safest way of handling it thats still allowing rights really

Can you actually justify 'forcing' them into getting help? They've not committed crime so this alone is infringing on their rights. Feelings cannot be dictated by law.

[Cloud]

well forcing them may not be justifiable but will simply offering help be enough to ensure considering they can just refuse the help at any point

[Cosmic]

They should not be punished; that's the same (at the very basic level) as prosecuting homosexuals. No-one can help what they are attracted to like that, or so science is leading us to believe so far.

[Cloud]

They should not be punished; that's the same (at the very basic level) as prosecuting homosexuals. No-one can help what they are attracted to like that, or so science is leading us to believe so far.

yes but homosexuality isnt illegal or severely immoral, like pedophelia is

[Shadoukun]

yes but homosexuality isnt illegal or severely immoral, like pedophelia is

Murder is immoral and illegal. If I think about killing someone, should I be charged with a crime like you suggest for paedophiles? I'm righted to my thoughts. Do you honestly think legal action should be able to infringe on such rights? Can you justify doing so?

[Cloud]

i never said you should be charged as a criminal over thoughts
but if its a serious thing in your head thats recurring and powerful then it should be stopped

[Shadoukun]

i never said you should be charged as a criminal over thoughts
but if its a serious thing in your head thats recurring and powerful then it should be stopped

Yes, but can you justify doing so? We don't infringe on thoughts of other things. You are basically advocating thought police.

[Perseus]

Yes, but can you justify doing so? We don't infringe on thoughts of other things. You are basically advocating thought police.

Gettin' all 1984 up in here, are we?

There's nothing you can do about thoughts, unless you have something like thought police.

[Cloud]

if concern has been raised about the thoughts then action should be taken to benefit both the person and the community to ensure their freedom and safety of those around.

[Shadoukun]

if concern has been raised about the thoughts then action should be taken to benefit both the person and the community to ensure their freedom and safety of those around.

Yes, but again. If we do that, then we have to target people who have lustful feelings for a stranger for rape fantasies, angry people for murderous thoughts, and several other things.

Would you warrant these too? You've given your thoughts on the matter, but you've shown no ability to actually justify your claims.

The majority of paedophiles don't actually molest children, just like when I want to kill someone I...well, I don't, obviously.

[Cloud]

if its a high risk then i do believe that action should be taken
and not in the form of arrest but by offering help
and my justification is for the protection of potential victims and freedom of those involved

[Shadoukun]

if its a high risk then i do believe that action should be taken
and not in the form of arrest but by offering help
and my justification is for the protection of potential victims and freedom of those involved

Forcing people into rehabilitation is just as bad. Again, it's a slippery slope and as I said most do not molest children. Legally it's not plausible to target people for their thoughts, though I find it fascinating that you think otherwise.

You can't prove there are even potential victims so you've not really justified your claim at all. :P Unless of course you can provide a study saying ALL paedophiles molest children. But even then, we cannot force people to do anything for crimes they've not committed.

[Cloud]

note how i say high risk
not everyone
high risk means the most likely perpetrators
and forced rehab happens with drug addicts alot

[Shadoukun]

note how i say high risk
not everyone
high risk means the most likely perpetrators
and forced rehab happens with drug addicts alot

Drug addicts are not just thinking they are actually acquiring illegal substances and are a harm to themselves.

How can you rate who is 'high risk' if they've done nothing?

[Chevy]

I agree with the OP. Nothing bad has been done at all just a fantasy sort of

[CuriousDestruction]

you can't punish someone for sexual attraction. i've dreamed of killing people, i've wanted to. i haven't killed those people though. no reason to lock me up. this is a ridiculous question.

[Shadoukun]

you can't punish someone for sexual attraction. i've dreamed of killing people, i've wanted to. i haven't killed those people though. no reason to lock me up. this is a ridiculous question.

I asked the question to begin a debate. VirtualTeen needs to learn what a real 'debate' is.

[INFERNO]

This is actually something we talked about in third-year forensic psychology and with the FBI agents. According to the DSM, having pedophilic thoughts but not acting on them is good enough to get the diagnosis of a pedophile. In the past this wasn't the case but it's been changed to this for obvious reasons. The issue though comes with forcing people into treatment. There are legal procedures to do so even if the person has not committed any crime but is viewed (and presumably tested) to have a very high risk of being a danger. The way you rate risk is through risk assessment and there are many assessments out there depending on what is being assessed, such as the VRAG, Static-99, PCL-R (or PCL-YV and PCL-SV), LSI-R and many others. These are all based on statistical data and to an extent, the clinician's judgments (or simply only the clinician's judgments) of what factors are the most likely to be found in someone who commits a certain crime, then putting them into an assessment. If someone scores high enough past a certain threshold, then they can be labelled a high risk, especially if they score high on many assessments. It's possible then to legally hold them or force them into treatment.

By force into treatments, I don't think they can do so legally but you'd be highly encouraged to say the least. The next issue of course is what type of treatment and that opens a whole other issue, one which is much larger.

[Evermore]

Yes, they should be strongly urged into taking counseling. Same if you're having fantasies of killing people. The media today is pushing people to "follow their dreams." If you have fantasies of murder, paedophilia, or drugs. You need psychological help.

[Shadoukun]

Yes, they should be strongly urged into taking counseling. Same if you're having fantasies of killing people. The media today is pushing people to "follow their dreams." If you have fantasies of murder, paedophilia, or drugs. You need psychological help.

If you are going to be anti-mainstream media, atleast form a valid complaint against them.

[Evermore]

I am not anti-mainstream media. If you want to start a debate about that make a different thread. I was replying about the paedophilia.

[Shadoukun]

I am not anti-mainstream media. If you want to start a debate about that make a different thread. I was replying about the paedophilia.

Yes, but for instance. There are several pubescent people under the age of consent I want to fuck, that doesn't mean I'm going to even try to pursue them. Or worse, rape them.

That is illegal and immoral in many cases, though however it doesn't make me a paedophile and it doesn't indicate I intend to do so.

Should I get counselling? No, that's absurd. So paedophiles like younger people than I do, the situation is the same.

[Magus]

Yes, but for instance. There are several pubescent people under the age of consent I want to fuck, that doesn't mean I'm going to even try to pursue them. Or worse, rape them.

Not just pubescent, prepubescent are the major here.

[Shadoukun]

Yes, but for instance. There are several pubescent people under the age of consent I want to fuck, that doesn't mean I'm going to even try to pursue them. Or worse, rape them.

That is illegal and immoral in many cases, though however it doesn't make me a paedophile and it doesn't indicate I intend to do so.

Should I get counselling? No, that's absurd. So paedophiles like younger people than I do, the situation is the same.

Not just pubescent, prepubescent are the major here.

Skimming is a good way to make yourself look bad in a debate.

Read better.

[2D]

Yes, they should be strongly urged into taking counseling. Same if you're having fantasies of killing people. The media today is pushing people to "follow their dreams." If you have fantasies of murder, paedophilia, or drugs. You need psychological help.

Lawl.

I have thought of brutally killing people and not getting caught. Do I need mental help? No. Same goes for pedophilia and drugs. If you aren't doing it the no problem. Sure, some preventative steps should be suggested but you can't force someone to get help. Well, I suppose you could, but that is unethical and could result in more trouble.

[Magus]

Skimming is a good way to make yourself look bad in a debate.

Read better.

lol wut?

It's a debate and a I thought it is a discussion.

What's Skimming and how does it make me look bad?

You said paedophiles, paedophiles have this sexual attraction to younger children. They span in prepubescent and not just prepubescent and even to infants and toddlers.

Adolscent and at the time of matauraity; who ever have attraction to them are called Ephebophiles.

[Shadoukun]

lol wut?

It's a debate and a I thought it is a discussion.

What's Skimming and how does it make me look bad.

You said paedophiles, paedophiles have this sexual attraction to younger children. They span in prepubescent and not just prepubescent.

Adolscent and at the time of matauraity; who ever have attraction to them are called Ephebophiles.

I'm well aware, but I made a comparison. The classification of the person is irrelavent.

[Whisper]

Can you actually justify 'forcing' them into getting help? They've not committed crime so this alone is infringing on their rights. Feelings cannot be dictated by law.
Yes it is justifiable would you force someone whos suicidal to seek help? I mean they haven't committed suicide yet have they?

[Zephyr]

Mind you all, true pedophilia is an attraction to prepubescent minors, not teenagers.

Pedophilia is classified within the realm of mental illness under paraphilias. It's something that's not going to just go away. I believe that, with proper treatment, that you may be able to quell it to some extent.

As my abnormal psych instructor put it, "Pedophiles don't see what they're doing as wrong. To them, it's an actuality.". Apparently he's been told many times by people he's 'treated' that "They were just there, they practically threw themselves at me!". You can call it phony, but I do believe that in a real case, they should be ordered to treatment rather than jail time.

[Shadoukun]

Yes it is justifiable would you force someone whos suicidal to seek help? I mean they haven't committed suicide yet have they?

Self harm is another realm of debate. Apples and oranges.

Mind you all, true pedophilia is an attraction to prepubescent minors, not teenagers.

Pedophilia is classified within the realm of mental illness under paraphilias. It's something that's not going to just go away. I believe that, with proper treatment, that you may be able to quell it to some extent.

As my abnormal psych instructor put it, "Pedophiles don't see what they're doing as wrong. To them, it's an actuality.". Apparently he's been told many times by people he's 'treated' that "They were just there, they practically threw themselves at me!". You can call it phony, but I do believe that in a real case, they should be ordered to treatment rather than jail time.


Mental Illness classification is irrelevant. Homosexuality was at one time too. What your psych instructor saw is not the majority, that's generalization.

[The Batman]

Are you actually going to debate or tell everyone their point is irrelevant? I think that if someone admits to having these thoughts and urges they should be given help since they are pretty much asking for it by simply saying they have a problem.

[Zephyr]

What he's seen is far more than you'll probably ever see. I'll trust the voice of a lifetime of work and experience over you saying that he's generalizing rather than going off of what he's actually done in his life, which is a very extensive practice, including working within the jail system for 30+ years.

As 'irrelevant' as it is, humans put things into categories. We always have and always will. Diagnosis is not black and white, there's a spectrum. When there's a diagnosis, they have to do a report on it and rate the severity, and I think that proper actions can be placed at certain levels of case severity. Desensitization can be fairly effective with things like this, as is associates the 'bad' with a bad stimulus.

[Shadoukun]

Are you actually going to debate or tell everyone their point is irrelevant? I think that if someone admits to having these thoughts and urges they should be given help since they are pretty much asking for it by simply saying they have a problem.

I'm only going to call up relevancy when we attempt to use irrelevant point in an attempt to justify our claims.

The debate boils down to "Should we force criminal charges/mental help on people for their thoughts" classification of said people is irrelevant. They could be paedophiles or murderers or any else. I was just using paedophile as an example.

What he's seen is far more than you'll probably ever see. I'll trust the voice of a lifetime of work and experience over you saying that he's generalizing rather than going off of what he's actually done in his life, which is a very extensive practice, including working within the jail system for 30+ years.

As 'irrelevant' as it is, humans put things into categories. We always have and always will. Diagnosis is not black and white, there's a spectrum. When there's a diagnosis, they have to do a report on it and rate the severity, and I think that proper actions can be placed at certain levels of case severity. Desensitization can be fairly effective with things like this, as is associates the 'bad' with a bad stimulus.

You can believe it all you want, but it isn't very supportive.

If I rise to a position worthy of respect, would you take everything I say without question? That's ridiculous. Facts are supportive of claims, the words of a man are not. You could provide a study if you'd like, that's much more acceptable.

[Sapphire]

Therapy should be offered to those with pedophillia who haven't committed a crime yet. Some of them are significantly distressed over their attraction to children and would willingly undergo therapy.
They should be (and can be) hospitalised in order to receive treatment if they have a plan to act on their urges and attraction towards children.

This way you are respecting their rights as a law abiding citizen and safeguarding children.

[Shadoukun]

Therapy should be offered to those with pedophillia who haven't committed a crime yet. Some of them are significantly distressed over their attraction to children and would willingly undergo therapy.
They should be (and can be) hospitalised in order to receive treatment if they have a plan to act on their urges and attraction towards children.

This way you are respecting their rights as a law abiding citizen and safeguarding children.

Yes, but in the event they don't desire therapy and have not committed a crime. Do you think they should be let go without any action?

Most obviously do not, but legally there is nothing to be done.

[ShatteredWings]

I think you can and should force them into treatment.

Like kodie said, if someone who's suicidal and admits it can be forced into a hospital and not be alloud to relace themselves, why can't we do this to these people.

Danger to yourself OR OTHERS includes children.


Most obviously do not, but legally there is nothing to be done.
I'm going to use the suicide example again. Yes, it's relevant. It's another mental illness that results in harm to someone

If a person admits to being suicidal, but says they won't act on it, they can still be forced to accept treatment. Legally the person isn't 'fit' to make decisions for themselves.

If someone wants to rape children, they need help. If they know they have a problem, they STILL need help despite the common idea of "if you think you have a problem, you probably don't"

[quartermaster]

I do not believe I can think of anything more disturbing, in regards to the abuse of power, than thought crime. Oh boy, the things man will do under the pretense of safety and for the inanimate thing that is society.

[Sapphire]

Yes, but in the event they don't desire therapy and have not committed a crime. Do you think they should be let go without any action?

Most obviously do not, but legally there is nothing to be done.If they don't want it and have no plan to act on their desires then you can't force it on them.
If someone has a mental illness of any type and doesn't want therapy but are not an explicit danger to anyone, including themselves, then they can't have it forced onto them.
The possible outcome of this particular disorder should not lead to them being treated any less humanely.

[BeautifulDisaster]

OCD can be a cause for these thoughts, would you punish someone for that?

We don't control our thoughts or feelings, but we do control our actions.

We can control if we act on these thoughts or feelings.

If someone has these thoughts, and they stay that way, why punish them? They've done nothing wrong.

I think they should get some sort of therapy though to explore why they have these thoughts, but other than that.

[Jamie]

If a person admits to having or is known to have a sexual attraction to children but hasn't committed a crime, should they be punished in some form?
No.
Would you go about preventing their possible crimes?
Unlike a lot of other people, I don't have a strong grievance towards people who commit sexual acts of unlawfulness.

[INFERNO]

Shadoukun, you speak of debating properly on here and deeming certain points as irrelevant but I haven't actually seen any debating from you for each person's argument. For some you may have but for many it's discrediting their view by saying something such as a professor with immense experience who likely speaks from scientific articles is discredited because he/she isn't referring to any actual papers (at least from what was said). Your point on what the person is categorized under, whether it be mental illness or not is indeed relevant, in fact, it's what this entire debate is about so calling that irrelevant really makes me wonder just what on Earth this debate is actually about then. If someone says that they have thoughts of pedophilia (for example), can they be forced into treatment just for that? Not really. If they say or somehow make it obvious that they have these thoughts and are determined to act on them and they meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia, then that changes the entire story. Like any mental illness, there are various typologies and by assessing the person, one can figure out what typology they likely fit in and through past research, know that certain characteristics make that typology a high risk of offense.

So, can the person be forced into treatment? If they absolutely refuse under all circumstances, then unless there is direct evidence to suggest otherwise, it's a difficult legal matter with the answer likely being no. They can however be admitted against their will if the evidence of such a high risk is present, such as with a suicidal person. Forcing them to undergo therapy or treatment though is a whole other issue because once they are admitted, technically they're no longer a danger as the environment does not allow opportunity for them to commit the offenses.

However, if it is deemed that categorizing them as mentally ill is irrelevant, then this makes your entire question contradictory.

[Shadoukun]

No.

Unlike a lot of other people, I don't have a strong grievance towards people who commit sexual acts of unlawfulness.

That doesn't resemble being a psychopath at all...:rolleyes:

[Jamie]

That doesn't resemble being a psychopath at all...:rolleyes:

Umm, it doesn't ? :P

[Zephyr]

So you called psychological diagnosis irrelevant.
And just called somebody a psychopath.
Do I smell contradiction here?

And you seem like you have it all figured out, so tell us what your view is exactly on the topic rather than trying to debunk what everybody else is saying?

[Shadoukun]

So you called psychological diagnosis irrelevant.
And just called somebody a psychopath.
Do I smell contradiction here?

And you seem like you have it all figured out, so tell us what your view is exactly on the topic rather than trying to debunk what everybody else is saying?

On the other hand, you say it should go unquestioned? Homosexuality was classed as a mental illness too. Paedophilia is a similiar sexual deviance that defies social normality. Taking this into account I'm skeptical as to the truthfulness in classifying it as such.

Don't get snide. Obviously I don't think we can legally do anything to them, regardless of my position on their feelings. I knew people would claim otherwise, and considering the audience of this forum, would make such claims haphazardly.

You have done just that. You word your arguments in a way that almost demands I disregard what you say.

You said for instance:

Pedophilia is classified within the realm of mental illness under paraphilias. It's something that's not going to just go away. I believe that, with proper treatment, that you may be able to quell it to some extent.

This has absolutely no relevance in this debate. My original post posed the question "Can we force them into treatment/jail for their mere attraction to children" Its classification as an illness means nothing. They aren't harming themselves, and since they are merely thinking they have not harmed anyone else.

You said

As my abnormal psych instructor put it, "Pedophiles don't see what they're doing as wrong. To them, it's an actuality.".

Didn't provide any supporting evidence to this claim, so it's written off as a subjective claim of an arrogant specialist.

Apparently he's been told many times by people he's 'treated' that "They were just there, they practically threw themselves at me!".

Yes well, if they are having treatment I'm assuming that they actually did molest a child. In this case I assume they have the mentality of a rapist already. What about the ones that go untreated and don't commit such sex crimes? Does his statement here account for those? No. Did you provide proof that those too think this way? No. So it's irrelevant.

Don't debate if you don't know how. Moreover, don't get mad at me when I point out your poor attempt proves nothing. This forum says it is for debate, I came here to debate. I don't know what you expect of me. To tell you your claims stand up? They don't. You shouldn't take it so personally.

[INFERNO]

On the other hand, you say it should go unquestioned? Homosexuality was classed as a mental illness too. Paedophilia is a similiar sexual deviance that defies social normality. Taking this into account I'm skeptical as to the truthfulness in classifying it as such.

Homosexuality WAS classified as a mental illness but not anymore. The current DSM system is relevant, not the old ones so you cannot keep debating using the previous ones when they're not used anymore at all.


This has absolutely no relevance in this debate. My original post posed the question "Can we force them into treatment/jail for their mere attraction to children" Its classification as an illness means nothing. They aren't harming themselves, and since they are merely thinking they have not harmed anyone else.

It has quite a lot of relevance because you're calling them a pedophile. If they have none of the thoughts nor any of the subsequent actions, they're not a pedophile. If you don't acknowledge the thoughts (assuming they haven't acted on them), then there is no basis for them to be called a pedophile, and thus, the debate at hand is non-existent. That is why it is relevant.

To show this, perhaps this can help:

The American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria for Pedophilia (302.2) are:
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger);
B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

From HERE (http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/apa_statement_jun03.htm)

As shown in the diagnostic criteria, it is NOT needed to act on them, having the thoughts or fantasies, and distress is sufficient providing criterion A and C are met. When you oppose this part of the definition by calling it irrelevant, you're being subjective and arrogant because you have provided not a single shred of evidence nor argument to back those oppositions up. You merely say it's irrelevant and move on but that's not sufficient.


Yes well, if they are having treatment I'm assuming that they actually did molest a child. In this case I assume they have the mentality of a rapist already. What about the ones that go untreated and don't commit such sex crimes? Does his statement here account for those? No. Did you provide proof that those too think this way? No. So it's irrelevant.

:confused: Are you actually serious? Of course it doesn't account for those because it says it doesn't, it says it only accounts for the ones that are treated, which is what it was meant to show. It's not irrelevant if it doesn't show something else. What is irrelevant is you saying it doesn't show what it claims it will not show, then complaining about that and dismissing it as "irrelevant".


Don't debate if you don't know how. Moreover, don't get mad at me when I point out your poor attempt proves nothing. This forum says it is for debate, I came here to debate. I don't know what you expect of me. To tell you your claims stand up? They don't. You shouldn't take it so personally.

[Shadoukun]

Homosexuality WAS classified as a mental illness but not anymore. The current DSM system is relevant, not the old ones so you cannot keep debating using the previous ones when they're not used anymore at all.

And when the current DSM is old, and proved to be flawed in some way, as it will be. Will I be able to go "told you so"? the DSM isn't infallible and I don't know why you see it as such. And again, as I said. Classification and even paedophilia are unnecessary for the heart of this debate.



It has quite a lot of relevance because you're calling them a pedophile. If they have none of the thoughts nor any of the subsequent actions, they're not a pedophile. If you don't acknowledge the thoughts (assuming they haven't acted on them), then there is no basis for them to be called a pedophile, and thus, the debate at hand is non-existent. That is why it is relevant.

I acknowledge the thoughts, that is the basis for my debate. "If they have these feelings and thoughts, is it morally right to force treatment or criminal charges on them"

Again, 'paedophilia' is wholly unnecessary for this debate, it was merely an example I chose in an attempt to aid getting the point across. If I was more vague with the debate, I saw it going off in directions I hadn't intended.


As shown in the diagnostic criteria, it is NOT needed to act on them, having the thoughts or fantasies, and distress is sufficient providing criterion A and C are met. When you oppose this part of the definition by calling it irrelevant, you're being subjective and arrogant because you have provided not a single shred of evidence nor argument to back those oppositions up. You merely say it's irrelevant and move on but that's not sufficient.

Yes, that's great if these people are classified as paedophiles. This fact does not strengthen your debate, nor does it properly attack mine.



:confused: Are you actually serious? Of course it doesn't account for those because it says it doesn't, it says it only accounts for the ones that are treated, which is what it was meant to show. It's not irrelevant if it doesn't show something else. What is irrelevant is you saying it doesn't show what it claims it will not show, then complaining about that and dismissing it as "irrelevant".

Using limited knowledge like this to form a generalization of people is generally not valid in a debate. This isn't Fox News, so using their rhetoric is a faulty tactic. I'm not the impressionable public.

I could be a shrink for convicted murderers and claim "Everyone I treated killed people!" So all people must murder. It's an equal exaggeration.


I don't know what you think this debate's main topic is, since you seem to see relevance in petty details. I could come up with another example if you have trouble overlooking certain details of this one.

[DayBreakArt]

There isn't a cure for pedophelia so making them get "help" is quite pointless. I don't think there's much we can do or should do unless they've taken action on their thoughts. We shouldn't take away their life and throw them in jail for thinking about things like that because there's a chance they won't act on them. Although it's very sad when a child is raped or used for child porn, I think that until those actions happen we should let them be.

And before someone would like to smash me for this, I've been raped by an adult so I know how disgusting you feel for the rest of your life but there isn't a fair prevention for it.

[The Batman]

Maybe people would understand what you were trying to debate about if you didn't have the title and the first post of this thread focused on pedophiles.

[Shadoukun]

Maybe people would understand what you were trying to debate about if you didn't have the title and the first post of this thread focused on pedophiles.

Yes, I said I used paedophilia as an example, but using petty parts of said example are useless. The debate has boiled down in several places, so I don't even see the reason to bring these petty things up.

[Dive to Survive]

If a person admits to having or is known to have a sexual attraction to children but hasn't committed a crime, should they be punished in some form? Would you go about preventing their possible crimes?

I dont think they should be punished but should seek help with their thoughts. They can have their thoughts but should do their best not to act upon them.

[INFERNO]

And when the current DSM is old, and proved to be flawed in some way, as it will be. Will I be able to go "told you so"? the DSM isn't infallible and I don't know why you see it as such. And again, as I said. Classification and even paedophilia are unnecessary for the heart of this debate.

I never said I see it as infallible. If I'm understanding the purpose of the debate correctly, it is whether or not someone with a mental illness should be brought into treatment even if they have done nothing to harm themselves or anyone else. If so, the current DSM is used to determine if the person has any mental illness or not. However, the fact is you're jumping around by first saying the debate is toward pedophilia (i.e. as in the title and first post) then you jump to saying it's more general but you keep jumping between these two. I'm getting confused as to what you really want to debate.


I acknowledge the thoughts, that is the basis for my debate. "If they have these feelings and thoughts, is it morally right to force treatment or criminal charges on them"

If you acknowledge it now, then you've contradicted yourself because previously you said it was irrelevant if they only had the thoughts despite your debate being just that.


Yes, that's great if these people are classified as paedophiles. This fact does not strengthen your debate, nor does it properly attack mine.

I addressed the more general topic of the debate in a previous post in this thread and you then ignored it by continuing with asking the same thing I addressed without acknowledging it. When I made my response more specific to pedophilia, then you responded. See how that's making me think it's about pedophilia?


Using limited knowledge like this to form a generalization of people is generally not valid in a debate. This isn't Fox News, so using their rhetoric is a faulty tactic. I'm not the impressionable public.

He mentioned people who were treated then you went off on a tangent asking about how he's dealt with untreated people, which he specifically implied he hasn't. By he, I mean the professor in question. You then return with this nonsense about Fox News. What are you on about? You're jumping randomly all over the place, which confuses the hell out of me, added to the fact that you don't explain anything, you either deem it irrelevant or just make a statement and leave it at that. Previously you said you're here to debate and that is not debating.


I don't know what you think this debate's main topic is, since you seem to see relevance in petty details. I could come up with another example if you have trouble overlooking certain details of this one.

How about you do three things. First, if this is going to involve mental illness, then accept the diagnostic criteria outlined by the DSM or WHO. If you ignore it or refute it, then give a reason why. Second, if this is meant to be about a general debate and not about a specific disorder, then quit jumping back and forth between general and specific. It's really confusing me and others here. Third, give rationales for your statements other than saying "it's irrelevant" or a statement with no argument. If you want to use another example, that's fine but do these three otherwise it's not a debate but rather us giving our arguments while you make statements as though they're factual. If we give an argument, then you do also, that's how it works. I also gave evidence of the DSM via reliable source so you might want to also source your arguments.

I also addressed the general argument in a previous post so if you want, then address that post.

If you cant do these basic things, then I concede and you "win" because it's not a debate despite the interesting topic.

[Sapphire]

There isn't a cure for pedophelia so making them get "help" is quite pointless.Why do you think it's pointless?
You don't have to be able to cure something to lessen the symptoms, do you?

I don't think there's much we can do or should do unless they've taken action on their thoughts.I agree with you to an extent here.
I think they should be offered the opportunity to get some help (as you would with anyone who has a mental disorder) and have the right to refuse it in tact. Only once they've taken action, should one be able to force them into getting help/treatment of sorts.

[mrmcdonaldduck]

first time, second time and third time= jail, 4th time= balls cut off, because really, it comes to a point where pedophiles just have to be stopped permanetly

[Sage]

ITT: How to deal with thought crime.

[Sapphire]

ITT?

[Sage]

ITT?

In this thread.

[INFERNO]

first time, second time and third time= jail, 4th time= balls cut off, because really, it comes to a point where pedophiles just have to be stopped permanetly

Two problems. First, what about female pedophiles? Second, castration in the past, both permanent and chemical have shown to not stop all the pedophiles as roughly 30% continue to offend despite being castrated. Instead of tossing them in jail where they can interact with other criminals, why not put them into a rehabilitation program? Some of them involve forms of psychotherapy, others involve pharmacological approaches (pretty effective) and others involve something else or combinations. If you really want to stop the pedophile from offending past his/her fourth offense, then the best way is to kill them but that's not a solution I care for nor do the ethics boards.

[ltimm]

Thoughts are different from actions. Unless those thoughts get acted upon, is when intervention is needed.

[INFERNO]

Thoughts are different from actions. Unless those thoughts get acted upon, is when intervention is needed.

It depends if those thoughts are going to be acted upon and to what degree. Hence, psychological risk assessments. Suppose there are two people, A and B, and both are pissed off at C. A thinks about punching C just because he/she is enraged in the moment. B thinks about beating up C also, except plans it out mentally, thinks about where and when, long after the event took place. In both cases, A and B are simply thinking and haven't acted upon their thoughts to make them physical actions. However, which one seems more probable to act upon their violent thoughts? Naturally, it's B. Given the proper psychological risk assessment, this can be detected and B would be more of a risk than A.

Acting on the thoughts is a whole other matter but there are 2 parts to risk assessment: assessment (obviously) and prevention. In the case of pedophilia, just as an example, if someone has pedophilic thoughts but has not acted on them but is having trouble not acting on them, then don't you think it's better to prevent a child getting hurt rather than standing back waiting for the child to be hurt in some way before acting?