Peadophiles in the House of Commons

Sliver · 8 Jul 2014 at 16:42

Dj_Jestar said:
[citation needed]

About what ? Which part of my post are you objecting too ? For starters there's this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27885502

Tens of thousands of paedophiles are using the so-called dark net to trade images of sexual abuse, an investigation by BBC News indicates.

One site receives as many as 500 page views per second, its founder says.

So, one child porn site, JUST ONE, is receiving 500 page views per second. Do the maths. How many paedophiles is that ? Then, how many paedophiles actually physically abuse children and get caught ? Only a miniscule percentage of the number who are on the internet, jerking off to child porn. So logically most paedophiles aren't going out and physically abusing children, they are at home jerking off to images on their PC.

Schlong&Stable · 8 Jul 2014 at 16:54

I'm not sure all of them act on their desires, but let us assume that some do not and thus no one is harmed. Is that acceptable to you and if they wrote stories and drew art, should this be considered as socially acceptable as homosexuality?

IronWarrior · 8 Jul 2014 at 16:57

D.P. said:
Blue eys are natural and normal, but I don't have blue eyes.

You could say it's natural, but blue eyes is a mutation that has been passed down for thousands of years.

elmarko said:
The reason homosexuality is gaining acceptance in society is because it causes no objective harm

Well you could say it does have a harm and is a danger to humanity since the human species needs to reproduce and last time I checked, two men can't make a baby without a women being involded somewhere.

Think of these ideas, let's say we are about to coloniz a other planet which is going to happen soon or later in the future, the criteria and requirements would be for males and females to be in good health and have a healthfully reproduction system and am pretty sure for every male, there be a female counter-part.

I think it's kinda obvious if you are homosexual, you won't be going.

The same idea can be applied to if some great disaster happens to man and only a select number can be saved in shelter, the same criteria and requirements as above would be used to a certen level where the number one requirements is to aim to reproduce as much as we can when it's safe to leave them again.

These ideas are nothing new, there are many flims and tv series's that have touched such subjects to different lenghts.

Dj_Jestar said:
Lets say someone recognises they have an attraction to children, and decide to seek out some kind of therapy to help them subdue these feelings. Are they to be locked up and punished for this? They haven't hurt anyone.

Yeah, it's a tricky question and not far from thought crime which is slowly becoming a reality.

My personal view is that this is a illness or a defect in how you are wired up and should be cureable at some point.

We already have "design" babies being born, so am sure in some point in the future that peadophilia, homosexuality and other problems like cripples and what not will be nothing but history on someones tablet, screen, projecter, laser screen, something.

Dj_Jestar · 8 Jul 2014 at 17:00

Sliver said:
About what ?

All of it.

Sliver said:
Which part of my post are you objecting too ? For starters there's this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27885502

So, one child porn site, JUST ONE, is receiving 500 page views per second. Do the maths. How many paedophiles is that ? Then, how many paedophiles actually physically abuse children and get caught ? Only a miniscule percentage of the number who are on the internet, jerking off to child porn. So logically most paedophiles aren't going out and physically abusing children, they are at home jerking off to images on their PC.

Selection bias. That says nothing about those who have the feelings/urges but do not act upon them, nor in fact act upon them in the opposing manner and either flat out repress, seek therapy, or chemically subdue them, etc. It only reports on the numbers of people viewing said images, and is thus a biased report unfit for representation on the topic you are forcing it into.

Sliver · 8 Jul 2014 at 17:05

Dj_Jestar said:
Selection bias. That says nothing about those who have the feelings/urges but do not act upon them, nor in fact act upon them in the opposing manner and either flat out repress, seek therapy, or chemically subdue them, etc. It only reports on the numbers of people viewing said images, and is thus a biased report unfit for representation on the topic you are forcing it into.

Citation needed.

porushinobu · 8 Jul 2014 at 17:05

Sliver said:
Citation needed.

is that all you can say? :rolleyes:

Dj_Jestar · 8 Jul 2014 at 17:07

Sliver said:
Citation needed.

No, that doesn't work... you already provided the citation.

Sliver · 8 Jul 2014 at 17:07

porushinobu said:
is that all you can say?

Why bother imparting what I've read and seen if all I get is 'Citation Needed' which is basically saying I'm full of crap. If that's his answer to my post, then that is my answer to his.

Amp34 · 8 Jul 2014 at 17:07

Sliver said:
About what ? Which part of my post are you objecting too ? For starters there's this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27885502

So, one child porn site, JUST ONE, is receiving 500 page views per second. Do the maths. How many paedophiles is that ? Then, how many paedophiles actually physically abuse children and get caught ? Only a miniscule percentage of the number who are on the internet, jerking off to child porn. So logically most paedophiles aren't going out and physically abusing children, they are at home jerking off to images on their PC.

At what age would you suggest castration should stop? Should it only be for those that are attracted to pre pubescent children or should it also include those that are attracted to post pubescent children that are under the current UK age of consent?

Edit: quoted the wrong post from you but I assume you can work out which post I meant...

Sliver · 8 Jul 2014 at 17:08

Dj_Jestar said:
No, that doesn't work... you already provided the citation.

Yes and you dismissed it as a biased post. Ridiculous. I'm done talking to you.

DailyGeek · 8 Jul 2014 at 17:08

When I use to work with Samaritans, I'd say 80% of my calls with suicidal people there was a history of childhood abuse somewhere in the story. It's rife. Equally there are those people who start to have impure thoughts about kids and have no idea what to do - I mean how on earth do you come to terms with having paedophillic tendancies?

Through my training I found out about this helpline, which tbh should be much more widely advertised and known about in my opinion

http://www.stopitnow.org.uk/

Otherwise there's really only one of two ways it goes. They control their urges until death, or they abuse. There's very little obvious alternatives.

porushinobu · 8 Jul 2014 at 17:08

Sliver said:
Why bother imparting what I've read and seen if all I get is 'Citation Needed' which is basically saying I'm full of crap. If that's his answer to my post, then that is my answer to his.

exactly!!! if it's all you can say then you shouldn't bother

Dj_Jestar · 8 Jul 2014 at 17:11

Sliver said:
Yes and you dismissed it as a biased post. Ridiculous. I'm done talking to you.

AKA "I've lost this argument so I am going to make lots of noise and disappear in a fit of confusion."

Also known as a tantrum.

I pointed out that report has selection bias. Which it does. Sorry if that stung.

e: Just realised you thought I meant you provided citation to your own argument - no, you did not. You provided a report to which I pointed out is biased, you then asked for citation of my claim it is biased - for a self evidently biased report that you had already provided.

Sliver · 8 Jul 2014 at 17:12

Amp34 said:
At what age would you suggest castration should stop? Should it only be for those that are attracted to pre pubescent children or should it also include those that are attracted to post pubescent children that are under the current UK age of consent?

Edit: quoted the wrong post from you but I assume you can work out which post I meant...

I'm not qualified to answer that adequately. It's a good question and the person to ask would be a professional who works in the field.

Sliver · 8 Jul 2014 at 17:15

Dj_Jestar said:
AKA "I've lost this argument so I am going to make lots of noise and disappear in a fit of confusion."

Also known as a tantrum.

I pointed out that report has selection bias. Which it does. Sorry if that stung.

No selection bias. Just an example to demonstrate my point. You didn't like it and called selection bias to try and dismiss it. How fallacious of you. A straw man and an ad hominem all rolled into one. Good job.

Dj_Jestar · 8 Jul 2014 at 17:16

Are you trawling wikipedia for "witty ways to win an argument" or something?

That report is biased. Where does it mention anything about those who don't view the images? The report is purely on numbers of viewers. Ergo it can and is only about those who do view the images and nothing about those who do not.

That is the very crux of selection bias.

Sliver · 8 Jul 2014 at 17:21

Dj_Jestar said:
Are you trawling wikipedia for "clever ways to win an argument" or something?

That report is biased. Where does it mention anything about those who don't view the images? The report is purely on numbers of viewers. Ergo it can and is only about those who do view the images and nothing about those who do not.

That is the very crux of selection bias.

No it's not. You're missing the point. Stop trying to straw man all the time, it's very dishonest and indicates that you're struggling desperately to worm out of a losing argument.

My point if you care to go back and read what was posted, was that the majority of paedophiles are not physically abusing children, they are doing it by proxy by viewing images on the web. The BBC article reinforced that point, which obviously upset you. So then you then went on a 'selection bias' rant in order to defend your indefensible position. Fallacies are rampant in your posts.

Dj_Jestar · 8 Jul 2014 at 17:24

Ok, lets go back. You said:

Sliver said:
Now those paedophiles who never actually physically abuse a child ever, are still viewing child porn in order to gratify themselves.

So you assume all paedos are either actually, physically harming children directly, or are viewing images of abuse and that there is no other. They are either directly, or indirectly harming kids.

Wrong. There are those that have the urges but don't diddle and don't look at images.

Amp34 · 8 Jul 2014 at 17:29

Sliver said:
I'm not qualified to answer that adequately. It's a good question and the person to ask would be a professional who works in the field.

You seem to be suggesting that anyone attracted to children will offend. That means if one is castrated then all should. Does that include the person who finds a 15 year old attractive? If so it would certainly help reduce the world's human population pretty quickly...

Sliver · 8 Jul 2014 at 17:29

Dj_Jestar said:
Wrong. There are those that have the urges but don't diddle and don't look at images.

Citation needed.

Sexual urges are in all of us. Paedophiles need gratification just like the rest of us. Are you implying that there are some paedophiles out there who have never abused and never viewed child porn and never even thought about children while they gratified themselves ? In other words a paedophile who has never had an orgasm ? Surely that would mean he's not a paedophile right ? Can you provide credible sources which demonstrate that their are paedophiles who don't abuse or masturbate ?