Pedophiles don't feel a deep need to **** pretty much any child, just the ones they think are hot. Analogies only need to be similar, not identical. You are bad at analogies.

You are very bad at getting the point. The sexual urge is general. Almost no-one has a general urge to murder - those who do are very very dangerous.

The analogy you made between a paedophile and someone who would like to kill someone misses the point.

It is a reasonable analogy to use the structure of "I have a desire to commit a crime, but I have never done so and would never dream of doing so" and substitute different crimes.

I could say that I have a general urge to murder people who annoy me by being stupid, but I have never done so and would never dream of doing so. A pedophile might say that he avoids putting himself in situations where he would be tempted, just like I would avoid going to any live 2+2 Politard meetup. Or he thinks he can control himself and be a teacher and I think I can handle meeting the lot of you in a place where concealed carry is allowed. If I hypothetically had such an urge.

It is but it misses the point that matters which is that sexual desires are importantly different from the desire to kill someone unless the desire to kill is pathological in which case it also probably shouldn't be ignored.

The point of the analogy is to suggest that how we should treat A probably has some similarities to how we should treat B. If you want to claim the analogy is bad, then you should advance an opinion as to how people who want to bugger children and people who want to kill other people should be treated, point out the dissimilarities in those treatments, and relate that to perceived flaws in the analogy being used.

The flaw in the analogy is that it misses the nature of the problem for the reason I explained.

The problem is tough. The only thing I have at the moment is that we should ensure professional help is available for people who know they have these sexual urges but don't wish to act on them.

What should be done about me if I profess a desire to kill people and claim to have the self-control to not do so? Every time I look at someone, I think about how I can use any of the different objects in the room to beat them to death or the many ways I can kill someone using my bare hands, how I would go about it if I wanted them to die slowly vs quickly, but I would never ever actually do that (without valid legal justification....if it was legal for me to kill someone, I would).

Am I a problem? If so, are you saying something other than ensuring professional help is available should be the solution? If something else, then what is that something else?

If it's a desire to kill because you're deriving satisfaction from the idea of killing then it's more like a sexual desire and as I said the analogy works better and we should certainly make therapy available for these people if they choose to seek it. If you have some pathological intolerance of huge number of people then you have issues as well.

If it is pathological, should ensuring professional help be the solution? If so, what is the point in differentiating between a pathological and non-pathological desire to kill if the solution is the same? If not, what should be the solution instead?

If it's pathological then we should be ensuring the availability of professional help and encouraging people to seek it.

If it's not pathological then it's such a lessor mental issue that we are better off putting the resources into detection or just spend the money on something else useful but unrelated.

Give them any available therapy for free.
Punish those who offend as seriously as the law allows.

Shouldn't the question be why aren't we putting more resources into finding out the cause of and subsequently the treatment of deviant sexual urges? Surely those who have these urges wish they could have a normal, healthy, legal sexual relationship.

No you couldn't, you are a moron. But it is good that you have your invisible friend to keep you in check.

Some probably do but quite a few certainly don't and are fully comfortable with their disorder and indeed justify it or are at the very least, completely unrepentant.
This is a typically breathless account tabloid style news show on predatory convicted paedophiles, but note the offender's demeanour, he doesn't have a problem with his affliction.


Others can engage in extremely dangerous and heartwrenching behaviour and again have no problem with the actual gravity of their crimes, such as Peter Scully whose crimes almost defy belief.


I think you make a very valid point wrt cause and treatment and for paedophiles who recognise that they have a problem and voluntarily seek counseling, all available avenues and therapy should be made available to them free of charge as it's a societal problem.

But again, those who commit crimes whether it's assaulting children or downloading real child pornography, should be punished to the fullest extent that the law allows,, as they're showing that they have very poor impulse control and are a danger to society, particularly its most vulnerable members.
There's no easy answers imo but society and victims should get priority over those who act on their urges.

I agree that society and victims need to be protected from child predators, but I think you're grossly mistaken that if you believe that more than a tiny, tiny percentage of those with inappropriate sexual urges are comfortable with them. If they claim to be, it should be viewed more as a way of trying to deal with it. But I would bet that when they were a teenager they desperately wanted to be "normal" and have a normal sexual urge. The examples you provided are far outside the norm.

People who look at pictures available on the internet but don't actively trade them or promote them to other people should NOT be jailed IMO. Rather they should be offered therapy and counseling.

But to reiterate, yes those who have harmed others directly should be prosecuted and society needs to be protected from them.

The example with Scully is an extreme one yes, but we don't know what percentage are comfortable with their disorder.
Is NAMBLA a tiny percentage? Was the now defunct Paedophile information Exchange?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedop...ation_Exchange

Are these guys part of a tiny percentage?
http://www.cracked.com/personal-expe...molesters.html
There's a whole subculture here and we aren't aware enough about it to know such things. If there's an actual subgenre among child porn of torturing children under the heading "Hurtcore", then that intimates that it's more than a tiny percentage as such a level of abuse wouldn't exist if there was a tiny percentage, nor would there be a child porn industry. There's also a wiki site for pederasts called "boy wiki".

I'm sorry what? Are you talking about animation here or actual pictures of real children? If people are looking at real child pornography as in using real children, then they certainly should be imprisoned because they're enabling a market for more victims to get abused, simply by accessing such material. Child porn is not something you'd just stumble across on the surface web. You'd need to go on the dark net for such things, meaning you'd need to go to the trouble of accessing the darknet with the relevant software.
People accessing animation should be offered therapy and not imprisoned as ultimately nobody is being harmed and by accessing animation, the paedophile knows that he's picking an alternative medium. Those who access real child porn should be given as long a sentence as judicially possible.


[queote]But to reiterate, yes those who have harmed others directly should be prosecuted and society needs to be protected from them.[/QUOTE]
I agree but those who access real child porn are harming others. Maybe not directly but they're creating a market which leads to more harmed victims.

Should we be treating voluntarily confessed pedos in a way that discourages them from "coming out" and seeking help?

pedos : child molesters :: heterosexuals : rapists

A pedo acting on their desires is always a child molester but a heterosexual/LGBTer acting on their desires is not a rapist.

That's cool but meaningless.

A non-criminal paedophile who publicly makes his disorder known is probably looking for help by virtue of the fact that he's making something about himself known that would make him a Pariah.
So how could you treat them in a way that would discourage them?

??

The question is why would somebody come forward for help or whatever if society would ostracize them or punish them for something they have no control over.

It's not meaningless.

Quite possibly many paedophiles want to have a consensual sexual relationship with a child in just the same way as adults want to have consensual sexual relationships with other adults. For the paedophile there can be no such thing - it's always abuse.

Lol,sorry I inferred wrongly from that, my bad.
They do have control over it. Everyone has control over their sexual urges whether their urges are perverted or not. A non criminal paedophile is showing courage and showing impulse control by coming forward, so all help should be made available to them.
A criminal paedophile is a criminal and should be treated like any other criminal.

Not every criminal receives the maximum sentence allowed by law so in order for your earlier claim to be correct you actually want criminal paedophiles treated differently to other criminals.