While I see your point, I did not mean to imply that, just using common type references wrongly. The point being that condemning any particular direction of human sexual behaviors brings ALL of them into question, at which point you have to ask who has the golden list of acceptable behaviors.
Actually, that's not what you said at all. You wrote that "I won't fault you for personally believing that certain people should be punished in the burning pits of hell for ever and ever... but just wait till it's MY turn to judge you my friend. I won't be as kind to you as you are to those you deem to be deviants." You didn't "imply" anything - you categorically stated that I "personally believe that certain people should be punished in the burning pits of hell for ever". Sorry, but you can't back out of what you said - it's there is glorious pixel perfect font for all to read.
Would you be willing to give up being attracted to big busted lithe and svelt blondes? (as an example) just because joe bloggs believes they are evil, or because mohammed believes they should show no skin of any kind in public other than their hands?
Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You brought up religion, when it wasn't relevant to what was being said.
The point being that group-think or mob rule usually does not lend itself well to reasoned and compassionate results. Condemning all persons of a given nature WHETHER OR NOT they have harmed another is simply barbaric. In support of this idea, loose morals regarding nudity and exposure to nudity in public at lower ages than in North America has links to reduced violent sex crimes.
Well, that's what is being argued. I said that "victims of paedophilia" were damaged.
Some people are trying to muddy the waters with the DSM IV definition. They basically are only quoting part of it. I was curious so I looked it up. The actual definition is defined in "Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia":
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 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.
Note the second point. It's basically pointing out that the thoughts make the person's life unbearable or they actually carry out their urges. The reason that we put limits on the distribution of material that involves paedophilia is because there is a real person in the material who is being abused. We do the same thing with snuff films, and rightly so. Sure, you can rail against this all you like, but it isn't going to affect anything. You are on the outer on this issue because you are wrong, and unashamedly so. Hopefully this won't change, much as you dislike being told this.
As for the statement that "In support of this idea, loose morals regarding nudity and exposure to nudity in public at lower ages than in North America has links to reduced violent sex crimes." I'm going to call you on this. Do you have evidence, or are you just spouting nonsense?
Religions as a whole TEND to rule out anyone that does not conform to the list of acceptable practices, including many human sexual orientation variants, and they do so without regard to cause or treatment never mind compassion or civility. This was the reason for the Catholicism comment.
Whether you believe this or not, the law in the United States and other Western countries is seperate from the church. If it wasn't, then gambling would not be allowed. The law about paedophilia was not made by the church. It was made by a secular parliament.
"Wrong again. There is no, none, ZERO research that proves that sex does harm to ANYBODY no matter what their age."
Oh come now. Why is it that children who an adult has had sex with get counselling? I'm sure that if I looked hard enough that I can find evidence that proves your statement wrong. Sure, you might try to counter it, but your would still be wrong. All I have to do is find just one article, and I've invalidated your argument.
I'm just pointing out that it appeared to me that you would prefer that I just went away and not sully the debate with a contrary opinion. Perhaps I assumed too much in that post, something I very much try not to do on slashdot.
I actually thought you were somebody arguing against your claim, but then I looked at the Nick that was posting. You are fouling your own arguments. Yes DOCs is hardly an objective institution to get reliable information from, as it is there job to seek out "abuse". Without (sexual) "abuse" there would be no reason for their existence.
I don't see how I'm fouling my own arguments. I'm certain that almost every member of DOCS would love to be out of the job they are doing. This shows at the high staff turnover and how overworked those in NSW DOCS are at the moment.
If anything, I think that DOCS are most definitely a source of reliable data, as they have to deal with appalling acts of depravity and cruelty every day.
The only fallacy I see here is that you believe that DOCS cannot gather reliable data because they seek out abuse (which I notice you put in scare quotes). The only logic you provide to determine this is that without abuse they won't have a job, which I answered above.
Not really. But modding my perfectly reasonable comment and opinion as a troll was something it was worth highlighting.
On the plus side, the moderator wasted him mod points. Which is good, because they clearly didn't have a good judge of what is and isn't a troll. At least they won't be able to mod down many more editors incorrectly.
Agreed. To be honest, he actually said that first, I was parroting that "dizzying about of data" comment back at him because it annoyed me that he claimed he had a lot of data but didn't provide evidence. Probably wasn't the wisest thing for me to have said.
P.S. he did actually say that. Reread the post. He wrote that:
I won't fault you for personally believing that certain people should be punished in the burning pits of hell for ever and ever... but just wait till it's MY turn to judge you my friend. I won't be as kind to you as you are to those you deem to be deviants.
Re: "my Wikipedia". Meh, it's OK. It's really my own fault for not changing the URL in my preferences.
To be frank, it's got nothing to do with your references. Having heard first hand from someone in the field what happened to children who were abused, and also having seen through the media the reports of those who were abused by the clergy I have formed a view that it's wrong.
I'm sure for every one of your references I could find at least a few that said differently. Those with feelings of paedophilia are still treated by psychiatrists. For that to be happening, there needs to be research papers that say differently to yours. So, sorry that you don't feel like digging up material, but at the end of the day I'm not that concerned.
As for assuming you are a paedophile, I don't know you. I assume nothing on slashdot. Some other poster in another comment assumed that I was a Roman Catholic, on absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Personally, I'll assume that you aren't a paedophile and hold differing views to my own. But I assure you that if anyone did anything to my daughter to be, I would not tolerate it for one moment. I am not alone. The majority of parents feel the same as I do.
I spoke to someone from Australia's DOCS once. He told me that what happens to the victim of paedophilia is horrendous.
True. Prove that I didn't.
From your subsequent post:
I would suggest you research the dizzying amount of data that shows that paedophilia has a devastating effect on children.
I was parodying you. You provided no evidence either.
Paedophilia is wrong, and those who practice it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
And unfairly get modded as Insightful!!!!!! Your biases and those of the moderators are obvious.
What's unfair about that? It is insightful. Sexual abuse of children is wrong.
It is interesting that people who tend to find harm in pleasurable acts (sex, drugs, gambling, etc), don't impose your same morals on more harmful activities like abusing children through religious indoctrination or FORCING them to go to religious schools. As is always the case with the Morally Righteous; hypocrisy is almost always very evident.
Speaking of the morally righteous... what this has to do with the topic is irrelevant. I never raised religion, for all you know I could be an atheist.
You also say:
Do your own research before spouting off in future.
Yes hypocrisy, or perhaps just a LACK OF TRUTHFULNESS is apparent in your own posts.
As one who demands a lot of evidence, you fail to show very much in your own posts. Don't see anywhere I was untruthful. Hypocrite yourself.
Is it possible to have a calm debate without a lot of emotion and CAPITAL LETTERS flying about. Seems to me you don't want to listen yourself, and you'd love it if I just went away. But I'm afraid that I'm not going anywhere, and I will always oppose paedophilia.
I posted anecdotal evidence from someone in the field who has seen it first hand. That's enough for me. I don't need to try to convince you, I've already decided that you're wrong. Most of the rest of society believes you are wrong also. Hopefully it will stay like that.
Incidently, it's not my Wikipedia. If you want to tell me the article, sure I'll have a look if I feel I have the time.
I should also point out I'm about to become a father. If anyone took a video of my little girl being abused and posted it on the Internet, they'd want to make very sure they never revealed who they were.
Oh? And if the video or images surface later on and the child or adult is identified, then certainly the person would be harmed. Maybe not physically, but certainly psychologically.
Garbage. If noone viewed it, then the material would not be made.
Interesting thought experiment though. If I raped you, and put it on video, should I be able to sell the video? After all, the mere act of viewing the material hasn't hurt you.
Now another thing: I don't think the children who are involved in the video have a say whether the material should be distributed.
Seems to me you don't like those who have an opposing view to have an opinion or think contrary thoughts to yourself. Welcome to your own little world of "thought-crime".
I just hate it when people both hyper-sexualizs and under-sexualise kids. They can't be both horrified by sex AND have no notion of sex. Make up your mind.
Make up your own mind. You seem horrified by my quote about "anyone who says differently is deluded". I didn't try to have it both ways, as your reaction showed.
How the hell is that a troll when the parent post is even worse?
I think people who are modding comments on this article are modding because they disagree with the views being put forth, not because the content is objectionable or troll-like.
Out of interest, where do you think they get the images? If they are viewing an image of a abuse - that's a real life child being molested. Those who are peddling this stuff on the Internet encourage more of this sort of thing to happen so they can get their rocks off.
If there is no market, then there will be reduced instances of the images. Less images of abuse will definitely help reduce this sort of thing. And yes, I know it won't stop the practice entirely.
Slashdot Mirror
How would they do that?
You know what. I don't need that "object evidence" you speak about.
Have you ever spoken or looked at the impact on the child who was abused?
Actually, that's not what you said at all. You wrote that "I won't fault you for personally believing that certain people should be punished in the burning pits of hell for ever and ever... but just wait till it's MY turn to judge you my friend. I won't be as kind to you as you are to those you deem to be deviants." You didn't "imply" anything - you categorically stated that I "personally believe that certain people should be punished in the burning pits of hell for ever". Sorry, but you can't back out of what you said - it's there is glorious pixel perfect font for all to read.
Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You brought up religion, when it wasn't relevant to what was being said.
Well, that's what is being argued. I said that "victims of paedophilia" were damaged.
Some people are trying to muddy the waters with the DSM IV definition. They basically are only quoting part of it. I was curious so I looked it up. The actual definition is defined in "Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia":
Note the second point. It's basically pointing out that the thoughts make the person's life unbearable or they actually carry out their urges. The reason that we put limits on the distribution of material that involves paedophilia is because there is a real person in the material who is being abused. We do the same thing with snuff films, and rightly so. Sure, you can rail against this all you like, but it isn't going to affect anything. You are on the outer on this issue because you are wrong, and unashamedly so. Hopefully this won't change, much as you dislike being told this.
As for the statement that "In support of this idea, loose morals regarding nudity and exposure to nudity in public at lower ages than in North America has links to reduced violent sex crimes." I'm going to call you on this. Do you have evidence, or are you just spouting nonsense?
Whether you believe this or not, the law in the United States and other Western countries is seperate from the church. If it wasn't, then gambling would not be allowed. The law about paedophilia was not made by the church. It was made by a secular parliament.
However, in my view, your Catholicism comment was
"Wrong again. There is no, none, ZERO research that proves that sex does harm to ANYBODY no matter what their age."
Oh come now. Why is it that children who an adult has had sex with get counselling? I'm sure that if I looked hard enough that I can find evidence that proves your statement wrong. Sure, you might try to counter it, but your would still be wrong. All I have to do is find just one article, and I've invalidated your argument.
Spoken like a true fanatic.
I'm just pointing out that it appeared to me that you would prefer that I just went away and not sully the debate with a contrary opinion. Perhaps I assumed too much in that post, something I very much try not to do on slashdot.
And those who argue against those who argue against the norm also get flamed.
But agreed. The anonymous coward was resorting to an ad hominem attack on your good self. Not very helpful.
I don't see how I'm fouling my own arguments. I'm certain that almost every member of DOCS would love to be out of the job they are doing. This shows at the high staff turnover and how overworked those in NSW DOCS are at the moment.
If anything, I think that DOCS are most definitely a source of reliable data, as they have to deal with appalling acts of depravity and cruelty every day.
The only fallacy I see here is that you believe that DOCS cannot gather reliable data because they seek out abuse (which I notice you put in scare quotes). The only logic you provide to determine this is that without abuse they won't have a job, which I answered above.
Oh come on! What's with the moderators on this article? That's his opinion. It's not flamebait! Sheesh.
Not really. But modding my perfectly reasonable comment and opinion as a troll was something it was worth highlighting.
On the plus side, the moderator wasted him mod points. Which is good, because they clearly didn't have a good judge of what is and isn't a troll. At least they won't be able to mod down many more editors incorrectly.
Agreed. To be honest, he actually said that first, I was parroting that "dizzying about of data" comment back at him because it annoyed me that he claimed he had a lot of data but didn't provide evidence. Probably wasn't the wisest thing for me to have said.
I mentioned what someone who dealt with abused children told me once. Then I got an anti-religious screed that had nothing to do with what I said.
My belief is I got that because the poster didn't know what DOCS is, or just assumed I'm a RC believer.
Either way, don't see how it was relevant to anything that I said. The DOCS worker I talked to is an atheist.
Re: "my Wikipedia". Meh, it's OK. It's really my own fault for not changing the URL in my preferences.
To be frank, it's got nothing to do with your references. Having heard first hand from someone in the field what happened to children who were abused, and also having seen through the media the reports of those who were abused by the clergy I have formed a view that it's wrong.
I'm sure for every one of your references I could find at least a few that said differently. Those with feelings of paedophilia are still treated by psychiatrists. For that to be happening, there needs to be research papers that say differently to yours. So, sorry that you don't feel like digging up material, but at the end of the day I'm not that concerned.
As for assuming you are a paedophile, I don't know you. I assume nothing on slashdot. Some other poster in another comment assumed that I was a Roman Catholic, on absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Personally, I'll assume that you aren't a paedophile and hold differing views to my own. But I assure you that if anyone did anything to my daughter to be, I would not tolerate it for one moment. I am not alone. The majority of parents feel the same as I do.
True. Prove that I didn't.
I posted anecdotal evidence from someone in the field who has seen it first hand. That's enough for me. I don't need to try to convince you, I've already decided that you're wrong. Most of the rest of society believes you are wrong also. Hopefully it will stay like that.
Incidently, it's not my Wikipedia. If you want to tell me the article, sure I'll have a look if I feel I have the time.
I should also point out I'm about to become a father. If anyone took a video of my little girl being abused and posted it on the Internet, they'd want to make very sure they never revealed who they were.
Oh? And if the video or images surface later on and the child or adult is identified, then certainly the person would be harmed. Maybe not physically, but certainly psychologically.
Your argument holds no water.
Garbage. If noone viewed it, then the material would not be made.
Interesting thought experiment though. If I raped you, and put it on video, should I be able to sell the video? After all, the mere act of viewing the material hasn't hurt you.
Now another thing: I don't think the children who are involved in the video have a say whether the material should be distributed.
Seems to me you don't like those who have an opposing view to have an opinion or think contrary thoughts to yourself. Welcome to your own little world of "thought-crime".
I just hate it when people both hyper-sexualizs and under-sexualise kids. They can't be both horrified by sex AND have no notion of sex. Make up your mind.
Make up your own mind. You seem horrified by my quote about "anyone who says differently is deluded". I didn't try to have it both ways, as your reaction showed.
Rubbish. Show me the evidence. If anything, they don't take away children from obvious situations of serious neglect and abuse.
Perhaps you should have calmed down and thought about what you were before you posted?
You want to dazzle me with science, prove it. I see no science in your own post.
So when you were six, you were actively seeking porn? Sheesh.
How the hell is that a troll when the parent post is even worse?
I think people who are modding comments on this article are modding because they disagree with the views being put forth, not because the content is objectionable or troll-like.
Out of interest, where do you think they get the images? If they are viewing an image of a abuse - that's a real life child being molested. Those who are peddling this stuff on the Internet encourage more of this sort of thing to happen so they can get their rocks off.
If there is no market, then there will be reduced instances of the images. Less images of abuse will definitely help reduce this sort of thing. And yes, I know it won't stop the practice entirely.
How the hell is that a troll?