Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum

View Poll Results: Please answer/select the poll options honestly.

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • The paedophile should get the death sentence.

    3 15.79%
  • The paedophile should get life or more than 50yrs+ in prison.

    4 21.05%
  • The paedophile should get 40yrs+ in prison.

    1 5.26%
  • The paedophile should get 20-30yrs+ in prison.

    1 5.26%
  • The paedophile should get 10yrs+ in prison.

    3 15.79%
  • The paedophile should get 5-10yrs in prison or less.

    1 5.26%
  • The paedophile should be castrated/have his testicles removed.

    5 26.32%
  • The paedophile should get the smallest prison cell available.

    2 10.53%
  • The paedophile should get a medium sized prison cell.

    1 5.26%
  • The paedophile should be allowed a large prison cell since he is going to prison for many years.

    0 0%
  • The paedophile should get lots of protection from other prisoners.

    0 0%
  • The paedophile should be treated the same as any other prisoner.

    6 31.58%
  • The paedophile should be treated badly because of his crime in comparison to other prisoners.

    0 0%
  • I donft think people are punished enough in general for their crimes in my country.

    5 26.32%
  • I think the justice system is fine/adequate for criminals in my country in general.

    0 0%
  • I think the justice system is maybe a bit to harsh in my country for criminals in general.

    0 0%
  • I think the justice system in my country is ok, but could be done better in general.

    4 21.05%
  • I think the justice system in my country is not good, and could be done better IMO.

    6 31.58%
  • I think the justice system in my country is often too harsh in general.

    2 10.53%
  • Otherc

    4 21.05%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 104

Thread: Paedophiles, Justice and prison sentences...

  1. #51
    Hachiro
    Guest




    Quote Originally Posted by KrazyKat
    Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with.
    Where do you draw the line between a paedophile "raping" an underage child and just having "sex" with them?

  2. #52
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Reiku's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-08-04
    Location
    Pismo Beach, CA
    Posts
    138


    Country: United_States



    That isn't what he said.

    Being a pedophile simply means you're attracted to children--just like being heterosexual means you're attracted to women, it doesn't nessescarily mean you've acted on that desire--just ask my freinds from computer science class.

    Seriously though, it's an important distinction--a person could really like the idea of killing people, but if he goes his whole life without ever actually trying to do it, is it a problem?

    I'd say just for him.

    Of course, it's hard to trust that someone with such a desire won't ever try it--so we're likely to lock them up if we find out about it just to make sure--but the point remains:

    If they never try, who cares what it is they wanted to do?
    Baka ningen.

  3. #53
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    KrazyKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-01-06
    Location
    England
    Age
    33
    Posts
    47


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Hachiro
    Where do you draw the line between a paedophile "raping" an underage child and just having "sex" with them?
    Reiku understood what I was trying to say there, but I'll answer your question for you anyway.
    I would consider rape to be an issue of consent, so once the child becomes mature enough to be able to consent, and then does so, I woulldn't call it rape. At what age this is obvously depends on the child but for most people I would guess that its probably between 1T-17.
    I just had one more thought that hating people for a crime they were never going to commit may well ned up with them commiting it in the end.
    Last edited by KrazyKat; 11-03-06 at 22:32.

  4. #54
    Hachiro
    Guest


    That isn't what he said.
    Reiku he did say it VERY clearly....
    The important distinction to make is that between people attracted to children, and those who rape them. Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with. Of course it doesn't really need to be said that, those who do or intend to, even if its just by 'today's moral standards', are commiting a hidious crime
    Sure sounds like one could safely assume that he did say that...hmmmm
    Read that line and the following one as well, from this post he condones paedophiles having sex with kids. "I have no problem with...." . The following sentence sounds like an appeasement to society and his conscience.
    Of course it doesn't really need to be said that, those who do or intend to, even if its just by 'today's moral standards', are commiting a hidious crime
    He also comes across rather ambigiously here. Kind of hard to read what people are "thinking" when discussing an issue like this. It is very easy to be misunderstood. IMO people should try to be very clear in what they are trying to say, particularly with sensitive subjects. Would you agree with that?
    But since he responded to my question it makes it easier...
    I would consider rape to be an issue of consent, so once the child becomes mature enough to be able to consent, and then does so, I woulldn't call it rape. At what age this is obvously depends on the child but for most people I would guess that its probably between 1T-17.
    With a child at that age I highly doubt you would find a paedophile having sex with them. THe average age of a paedophiles victim is 10. How can you justify or overlook that?
    I guess my next logical question would be, what age are you thinking about that classifies a person as being a victim of a pedophile? Pedophiles are not looking to have sex with people between the ages of 15 to 17, at that age people are physically adults not children.

  5. #55
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    KrazyKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-01-06
    Location
    England
    Age
    33
    Posts
    47


    Country: United Kingdom



    OK, cool off a bit Hachiro. I'd get a bit offended here if I didn't know that it was just a misunderstanding.
    Lets just go through what I said again.

    1)Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with.
    2)I would consider rape to be an issue of consent, so once the child becomes mature enough to be able to consent, and then does so, I woulldn't call it rape. At what age this is obvously depends on the child but for most people I would guess that its probably between 1T-17.

    So where have I condoned sex with children? In fact I have said the opposite, if anyone has sex with a child under 15-17 it is rape and a horrible crime.

    The point I made is that if someone doesn't have sex with a child then they haven't done anything wrong.

    "THe average age of a paedophiles victim is 10. How can you justify or overlook that? "
    I don't and haven't.

    "I guess my next logical question would be, what age are you thinking about that classifies a person as being a victim of a pedophile?"
    I think paedophiles are attracted to people before puberty. But someone might want to check that.

    And by the way its customary to refer to women with she and not he.

  6. #56
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    KrazyKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-01-06
    Location
    England
    Age
    33
    Posts
    47


    Country: United Kingdom



    'today's moral standards' was jsut a referance to the post before. If I take that out do my views become clear then?:
    Of course it doesn't really need to be said that, those who do or intend to (rape/have sex with children) are commiting a hidious crime


    This misundersating may be arising if you think that people can have sex with children without raping them. I disagree, see my argument about consent above.

    Also, please re-read reiku's post.

  7. #57
    Hachiro
    Guest


    OK, cool off a bit Hachiro.
    No I don't have to cool off here....you are not my mother and your condescending attitude makes matters worse....write what you want to say more clearly and then your posts will not be misinterpreted or misunderstood OK!
    I read that post and I disagree, These two quotes contradict themselves, I choose to bypass that...read them again. By extension of the logic in the first quote about pedophilesand if a person is a killer, because they are attracted to murdering someone or thinking about it, either way they are guilty of one or the other.
    Being a pedophile simply means you're attracted to children--just like being heterosexual means you're attracted to women, it doesn't nessescarily mean you've acted on that desire--
    The definition of Pedophilia is a preference for sexual activity with prepubertal children. Puberty being defined as when your body is physically capable of reproduction.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pedophilia
    Seriously though, it's an important distinction--a person could really like the idea of killing people, but if he goes his whole life without ever actually trying to do it, is it a problem?
    Same thing is it a problem for society if a person is a pedophile?
    Read on; these are quotes from your posts;
    The point I made is that if someone doesn't have sex with a child then they haven't done anything wrong.
    I don't take issue with that statement at all.
    1)Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with.
    2)I would consider rape to be an issue of consent, so once the child becomes mature enough to be able to consent, and then does so, I woulldn't call it rape. At what age this is obvously depends on the child but for most people I would guess that its probably between 1T-17.
    So then from this quote I can safely assume that you think that any adult that has sex with a person under the age of 15 to 17 would be considered a pedophile and guilty of rape? Noone ever said that a person having sex with a 15 to 17 year old would be considered a pedophile.
    This misundersating may be arising if you think that people can have sex with children without raping them. I disagree, see my argument about consent above.
    ANY adult person having sexual relationships with a child under the legal age of consent, is guilty of rape. You confuse the issue by bring in the age of consent. Adults that have sex with children under the legal age of consent are GUILTY in most country's in the world of statutory rape. You can not tell me that a child that age can "consent" to having sex.
    You make the supposition that a child under the accepted age of consent, can agree to have sex with an adult and it not be rape, is that correct?
    Then what is your definition of rape? What is your definition of a pedophile?
    Age of consent is different from country to country but I will agree for the purpose of this discussion that it is between 15 to 17 years old. I still take issue with this comment that you make.
    Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with

    I can not and never will agree with that, purely because CHILDREN, are under the age of consent.
    And by the way its customary to refer to women with she and not he
    My my bit pedantic aren't we, did know you not a he but a she...THAT I apologize for...mea culpa, mea culpa.

    Either way interesting debate, like I wrote in my previous post, with subjects like this is is very necessary for people to be precise in what they are writing or misunderstandings can occur. This topic is of and by itself explosive to many people, myself included.

  8. #58
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    KrazyKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-01-06
    Location
    England
    Age
    33
    Posts
    47


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Hachiro
    You make the supposition that a child under the accepted age of consent, can agree to have sex with an adult and it not be rape, is that correct?
    Then what is your definition of rape? What is your definition of a pedophile?
    I clearly stated the exact opposite. You even quoted it:
    "if you think that people can have sex with children without raping them. I disagree,"
    I also defined both these things already.

    If we look through my points you will see that they do not contradict each other. If you can't find any of these points in my posts please tell me.

    1) Rape is a sexual act forced on someone who doesn't consent.
    2) Children under 15-17 cannot consent to sexual acts.
    3) Therefore, any sex with chlidren under this age is rape.
    4) Paedolphiles are attracted to pre-pubertal children.
    5) If paedophiles have sex with these children (because nobody goes through puberty after 17!) it is rape.
    6) I do not condone rape. (I also do not condone violent acts against children, but I'm not sure that I said this already)
    7) As you said paedohpilia is sexual preference, not perforimng sexual acts. A paedohplie who does not rape children is not doing anything wrong. All other things equal.



    Quote Originally Posted by Hachiro
    I can safely assume that you think that any adult that has sex with a person under the age of 15 to 17 would be considered a pedophile and guilty of rape?
    That's not what I said. They aren't necessairily a paedophile, but it is rape. Paedophiles are attraced to children before puberty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hachiro
    You confuse the issue by bring in the age of consent.
    I haven't mentioned the law. Because children mature at differnet rates its not very helpfull.



    You have accused me of condoning sexual acts with children, and come close to accusing me of being a paedophile myself, by finding imaginary holes in my argument and ambiguity when none was there.

    If we can leave this behind us, we can come to the much more interesting question that seems to be coming up of whether people shold be guilty/punished becasue of of crimes that they haven't commited.

  9. #59
    Banned Achievements:
    1 year registered
    SortOf's Avatar
    Join Date
    20-02-06
    Location
    `do K
    Age
    32
    Posts
    24


    Ethnic group
    German
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Ma Cherie
    Explain something to me, it seems to me that you believe if someone is raped they've done something to deserve it, correct? Do you think that rape is about sex? Do you believe that the woman somehow seduced a man and he ended up raping her? This is nothing more than a self-rightous attitude. I bet you believe that poor people somehow deserve their lot in life, don't you?
    I do believe that in many, many cases its provoked.

  10. #60
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    KrazyKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-01-06
    Location
    England
    Age
    33
    Posts
    47


    Country: United Kingdom



    I said before that I wasn't offended, hwever that is not true any more. After explaining that it was a misunderstanding you continued to accuse me of defending a crime which I despise. You ignored whole parts of my argument and tried to made up definitions for me, for things I had already defined! to make it sound like a didn't have a problem with sex with children. You even accused me of meaning the exacpt opposite of some very clear statements that I made.

    'paedophiles who don't rape children, I don't have a problem with'
    does not imply that they can have sex without raping them, or that i condone it. This is just what you wanted to see in it yourself, even when I explained it in the next post by saying that sex with children under 15 is rape and Reiku too said that that isn't what I said.

    You are clearly going out of your way to see and say negative things about me and I am offended by this. I don't beleive that I have done anything to deserve this from you.

  11. #61
    Hachiro
    Guest


    'paedophiles who don't rape children, I don't have a problem with'
    does not imply that they can have sex without raping them, or that i condone it. This is just what you wanted to see in it yourself, even when I explained it in the next post by saying that sex with children under 15 is rape and Reiku too said that that isn't what I said.
    Excuse me, but I am quoting YOU and what you wrote, if you also take the time to read the rest of my posts I specifically stated that this topic

    is very necessary for people to be precise in what they are writing or misunderstandings can occur. This topic is of and by itself explosive to many people, myself included.
    It is VERY easy to misunderstand your post with the comment that I quoted on more than one occasion. After your last post specifically this,

    1) Rape is a sexual act forced on someone who doesn't consent.
    2) Children under 15-17 cannot consent to sexual acts.
    3) Therefore, any sex with chlidren under this age is rape.
    4) Paedolphiles are attracted to pre-pubertal children.
    5) If paedophiles have sex with these children (because nobody goes through puberty after 17!) it is rape.
    6) I do not condone rape. (I also do not condone violent acts against children, but I'm not sure that I said this already)
    7) As you said paedohpilia is sexual preference, not perforimng sexual acts. A paedohplie who does not rape children is not doing anything wrong. All other things equal.
    I agree with you on parts 1 through 6 I only disagree with the part I highlighted in red, you wrote that not me, and it directly contradicts what you wrote in number 2, 3 and 5 (of course 6 as well). I would think that you want to say that a pedophile who does not have SEX with children is not doing anything wrong, right or wrong? Huge difference between having sex and rape isnt there?

    That is the ONLY part I can not find equal ground with you on. If you look at it it contradicts your earlier statements.

    We both agree on many of the points that we both stated, I just keep on having a hard time with the statement I quoted from you in red. If you can explain that and what it means to you, I think you will find that I am pretty much agreement with everything else that you wrote.

  12. #62
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    KrazyKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-01-06
    Location
    England
    Age
    33
    Posts
    47


    Country: United Kingdom



    Have we not established that having sex with a child and raping them is the same thing? just look at point number 5! I am not contradicting anything!

  13. #63
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    KrazyKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-01-06
    Location
    England
    Age
    33
    Posts
    47


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Hachiro
    Excuse me, but I am quoting YOU and what you wrote,
    and then reading things in it that aren't there.

    For example you say this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Hachiro
    You can not tell me that a child that age can "consent" to having sex.
    I had clearly just said that children under 15-17 cannot consent to having sex. No matter which way you look at it. Yet you accuse me of saying they can! Look back in post 53:
    I would consider rape to be an issue of consent, so once the child becomes mature enough to be able to consent, and then does so, I woulldn't call it rape. At what age this is obvously depends on the child but for most people I would guess that its probably between 1T-17.


    In my original post I said this:
    "The important distinction to make is that between people attracted to children, and those who rape them. Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with."

    Here I am clearly making a distinction between people who are attracted to children and don't have sex with them, and those who are attracted to children and then do. You have to work hard there to make it sound like I am making a distinction between people who have sex with children and those who rape them, however you even say it is 'very clear' that that is what I am saying. And anyway, that should have been cleared up in my next post when I said sex with children is always rape.
    Last edited by KrazyKat; 12-03-06 at 14:45.

  14. #64
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    KrazyKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-01-06
    Location
    England
    Age
    33
    Posts
    47


    Country: United Kingdom



    You contradict yourself here with almost every post.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hachiro
    ANY adult person having sexual relationships with a child under the legal age of consent, is guilty of rape.
    I agree with you on parts 1 through 6
    Huge difference between having sex and rape isnt there?
    If having sex is raping someone, how can there be a huge difference? Do you agree that having sex with children is rape or not?!

  15. #65
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    KrazyKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-01-06
    Location
    England
    Age
    33
    Posts
    47


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Hachiro

    "Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with"

    I can not and never will agree with that, purely because CHILDREN, are under the age of consent.
    How about:
    'people that don't steal things, I have no problem with'
    Can you never agree with this?

    You also contradict the point you are making here by saying:

    Quote Originally Posted by Hachiro
    "The point I made is that if someone doesn't have sex with a child then they haven't done anything wrong."
    I don't take issue with that statement at all.
    How can you both take no issue with it and never possibly agree with it? If anyone's argument is contradictory and vague here then it is yours.

  16. #66
    Hachiro
    Guest


    Quote Originally Posted by KrazyKat
    You contradict yourself here with almost every post.
    If having sex is raping someone, how can there be a huge difference? Do you agree that having sex with children is rape or not?!
    Read my posts you know damn well how I feel about it without asking this question.

    Explain this statement directly please, no BS or anything else just this.......(You have bypassed it enough times already)

    A paedohplie who does not rape children is not doing anything wrong.

  17. #67
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    KrazyKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-01-06
    Location
    England
    Age
    33
    Posts
    47


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Hachiro
    Read my posts you know damn well how I feel about it without asking this question.
    Explain this statement directly please, no BS or anything else just this.......(You have bypassed it enough times already)
    I was fairly sure that you thought sex and rape with a child was the same thing. However in your last post you claimed that they were different, and if you did consider them the same there would be no confusion from the start.

    OK, i'll explain what I mean by that. I don't think people should be punsihed for a crime they haven't commited, or attempted to commit. As Reiku said we could lock all paedophiles up in case they have sex with children, but I see that as an infringement of thier human rights. We could apply the same argument to stealing. It may be tempting to steal, but if this person doesn't steal or attempt to then they shouldn't be punsihed just for finding it attractive.

    I also mentioned before that paedophiles are already hated just for their attraction to children, and that that may drive some to rape children who may not otherwise have done so.

    I don't see why it is so hard for you to just appologise. Not once have I come close to suggesting that it is acceptable to have sex with children, and yet you have constantly accused me of this, ignoring everything I have to say. This has gone far beyond just a misunderstanding, it feels that you are deliberately trying to attack me.

  18. #68
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    KrazyKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-01-06
    Location
    England
    Age
    33
    Posts
    47


    Country: United Kingdom



    Look, to be honest its not such a contraversial statement.
    Lets look at the first part.

    "A paedophile who does not rape children"
    A paedophile is someone who is attracted to children before puberty. Not someone who has sex with children. I'm sure you understand this because you've said it yourself. So the problem can't be here.

    'rape children' from the beginning I have insisted that beacuse children can't consent, any sex with children is rape, and we agree that it is wrong. So the problem can't be a misunderstanding there, because I have clearly stressed that point many times.

    So we are left with saying:
    someone who isn't doing a bad thing but is attracted to doing it, isn't doing anything wrong. All other things equal.

    If you can explain your problem with the statement, maybe I can better explain?
    If you could also explain how it contradicts ANY of my other points instead of just claiming it does then I would be greatful.

  19. #69
    Hachiro
    Guest


    Firstly thank you for clarifying that statement, it is ambigious as heck and very easily could be read to justify or make an assumption that the writer of, you, were somehow justifying the case of a pedphile having sex with a child and that sex with a child was not rape.

    I am repeating myself here, because of the nature of the subject it is necessary to be very clear in how you write what you mean. It is easy to misunderstand your point when written the way it is.

    Look, to be honest its not such a contraversial statement.
    Lets look at the first part.
    "A paedophile who does not rape children"
    I disagree with you, it is very much so a contraversial statement in and of itself. When the general public hears the word "pedophile" they don't EVER think of a person that is "just" attracted to children. They think of a pervert that is raping children under the age of consent.

    Next how many pedophiles have you ever heard of that never "acted" out their fantasies? The only pedophiles that I have ever heard of are the ones you see on the 6 O'clock news being locked up in jail. I know of very few people that will ever think anything otherwise, whether the pedophile acts out their fantasy or not, the general public "THINKS" that anyone that claims to be a pedophile has had sex with children. They are guilty in the court of public opinion whether or not the action has taken place or not.

  20. #70
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    KrazyKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-01-06
    Location
    England
    Age
    33
    Posts
    47


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Hachiro
    Firstly thank you for clarifying that statement, it is ambigious as heck and very easily could be read to justify or make an assumption that the writer of, you, were somehow justifying the case of a pedphile having sex with a child and that sex with a child was not rape.
    However, at the very beginning I said that any sex with children under 15-17 was rape. How did you manage to continue to misunderstand after that? I don't believe after clarifying myself with that point that my argument was in anyway ambigious, and yet it was after that point that you began to attack me.

    Also way back in post 60:
    'paedophiles who don't rape children, I don't have a problem with'
    does not imply that they can have sex without raping them, or that i condone it.

    No ambiguity there right? Isn't that what you just accused me of avoiding answering as well?

    And in post 63:
    "The important distinction to make is that between people attracted to children, and those who rape them. Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with."
    Here I am clearly making a distinction between people who are attracted to children and don't have sex with them, and those who are attracted to children and then do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hachiro
    I disagree with you, it is very much so a contraversial statement in and of itself. When the general public hears the word "pedophile" they don't EVER think of a person that is "just" attracted to children. They think of a pervert that is raping children under the age of consent.
    Next how many pedophiles have you ever heard of that never "acted" out their fantasies? The only pedophiles that I have ever heard of are the ones you see on the 6 O'clock news being locked up in jail. I know of very few people that will ever think anything otherwise, whether the pedophile acts out their fantasy or not, the general public "THINKS" that anyone that claims to be a pedophile has had sex with children. They are guilty in the court of public opinion whether or not the action has taken place or not.
    You are right, I take back that it is not controversial.
    No I haven't heard of paedophiles that haven't raped children(or owned child porn - also bad), but that is only to be expected. If you were a paedophile wouldn't you try to keep as quiet about it as possible? Becuase of the reasons that you just mentioned.
    As a result we actually have no idea what share of the population are actually paedophiles. But just because of societies prejudices, doesn't mean that they have actually done anything wrong.

    I am still waiting for an apology for you saying:
    Quote Originally Posted by Hachiro
    he condones paedophiles having sex with kids
    without firm basis for doing so. Whether or not my statement was ambiguious I had clarified it before you said this, and its quite a thing to say about someone with so little evidence.

  21. #71
    Hachiro
    Guest


    The important distinction to make is that between people attracted to children, and those who rape them. Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with. Of course it doesn't really need to be said that, those who do or intend to, even if its just by 'today's moral standards', are commiting a hidious crime.
    This is from your 4th post in reply to this thread(#50), take out the portion in red and my replies to you would have been much different. The sentence by itself stands as a statement by you. The following sentence explains your position but leaves the entire point that you are trying to make in ambiguity. You appear to straddle the perverbial fence with a comment like this. Once again take it out and there is no problem.

    Next, your comments can easily be misundertood, thereby confusing the entire situation. I commented to you that one needs to be very clear yet read these two statements that YOU made....
    You are right, I take back that it is not controversial.
    and
    Look, to be honest its not such a contraversial statement.
    These are both in reply to my questions to you once again about the sentence highlighted in red above. YOU wrote this not me, .....

    I am still waiting for an apology for you saying:without firm basis for doing so. Whether or not my statement was ambiguious I had clarified it before you said this, and its quite a thing to say about someone with so little evidence.
    You can keep on waiting as well, because you are not going to get one from me about this thread and the posts I wrote to you. I am tired of pointing out your ambiguity in your posts.

  22. #72
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    KrazyKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-01-06
    Location
    England
    Age
    33
    Posts
    47


    Country: United Kingdom



    I insist again that any ambiguity from post 50 was cleared up by post 53 when I said that children can't constent until 15-17 and so sex with children younger than that is rape. Reiku also made it very clear what I was trying to say. (The same distinction was also presented by Yiduki in post 7). After this you continue to claim that I am arguing that people can have sex with children without it being rape. Despite all evidence to the contrary.

    My argument has not contradicted itself, however yours have. You have repeatedly accused me of meaning the exact opposite of what I have clearly said in a number of places. I have illustrated some of these in the posts above.

    I changed my mind over how controversial that statement was after considering the predjudices of public opionion in outlined in your post. It is common in debates for people to listen to what others say, and change their opinions based on this. However I stand firm to every other point that I have made and have not changed any part of my argument.

    Saying that you didn't understand my posts (when you clearly made no effort to try) as an excuse for not apologising for making drastic and false accusations...I actually lack the words to describe it. No matter how vague someone's posts are, they deserve an apology if a false assumption is made about them.

    I'm just going to leave this thread now, I've said all that I want to say.

  23. #73
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by KrazyKat
    The important distinction to make is that between people attracted to children, and those who rape them. Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with. Of course it doesn't really need to be said that, those who do or intend to, even if its just by 'today's moral standards', are commiting a hidious crime.
    How do you define rape with a child though? Penetration of the child like through the bum or vagina?
    Just because a paedophile does not rape a child, does not mean that paedophile is not as bad. A paedophile may sexually interefere with a child, or make them do sickening things like force them to give them a blow job or touch themselves in a sexually stimulating way for the paedophile- many children that are the victums of paedophiles are not raped but simply made to go through sickening acts that do not involve penetration, but none the less psychologically scar the victum for the rest of their lives.
    You also have to remember that many paedophiles who do not directly interfere with children, support the child porn industry. A single paedophile may have never raped a child in their life, but instead bought and watched thousands of peices of porn that involve children and thus reach out to victums much further afeild than what they would usually be able to directly do.
    What are your feelings on this?
    The sex drive is one of the strongest urges in the human body, and most paedophiles simply cannot control it to any successful degree. Yes, some or a lot of psychological help is often needed for paedophiles to control themselves, sending to the paedophile straight to prison without any usually does little in the long term, but you cannot rely on it to completely supress the sex drive 24/7 for an entire life.

    And Reiku, what do you propose we do with paedophiles if you believe prison isn't a viable option? To me at least, the prospect of prison for doing crimes is not so much a cure, but more of a deterrant. We have psychologists for treating the mental issues, but they alone cannot solve the problems of crime in society. If we didn't have prison as a deterrent to potential criminals in society, i'm sure there'd be a lot more crime.

  24. #74
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by SortOf
    I do believe that in many, many cases its provoked.
    So if you went down to the beach tomorrow on a hot day wearing a swim suit and a man came and raped you, would you agree that you had provoked it by not wearing much in the way of clothes due to the circumstances? Do you believe that gay rape(i.e a gay person raping another straight person) like a man raping a man is as bad as a man raping a woman? Although i disagree with your opinions/viewpoints, i'm curious to see how you define them and to what extent you take them to "nods".
    In what circumstances/situation exactly would you say that a woman who gets raped brings it upon herself/is partly to blame?

  25. #75
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Reiku's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-08-04
    Location
    Pismo Beach, CA
    Posts
    138


    Country: United_States



    ...eh, nevermind--this topic's a loss...
    Last edited by Reiku; 13-03-06 at 09:46. Reason: Apathy

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. MAOA-L : Warrior Gene or Justice Gene ?
    By Maciamo in forum Medical & Psychological Genetics
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-03-18, 04:26
  2. Sensible Justice
    By bossel in forum World News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 26-02-06, 15:08
  3. A Different Prison System.
    By Revenant in forum Opinions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 15-01-06, 01:53
  4. Stewart Sentenced to 5 Months in Prison
    By Hachiko in forum World News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 18-07-04, 13:00

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •